why nobody is actually borderline P/J

[paintmuffin]

I'm pasting this from an extended wall conversation I've been having with Two Point Two, because I thought it had some other applications and might result in some good discussion. It provides support for my ongoing assertion that only the four primary functions (dom, aux, tert, inf) are ever truly exercised.

This is in the context of speaking to an INTJ:


A good example of what I mean here is people who claim to be borderline P/J.

In actuality this doesn't make any sense because P and J imply completely different sets of functional value systems. I've seen people claim to be something like ENFx, which is ridiculous because it implies that Fi, Fe, Ni and Ne are all of equal importance to you, and this simply doesn't work because Fi and Fe are so fundamentally opposed in their approaches (same for Ni and Ne.) (Amusingly, people who claim ENFx are virtually always ENFPs who are just attracted to the idea of being "miscellaneous". "Wow, I don't fit into any of the molds! I guess that's cause I'm just SO unique and different!" It's no coincidence that "be unique and different/don't fit the molds/go outside the box" is such a huge part of Ne's value system. Go fucking figure!)

This is what I mean about how every behavior, thought, action and opinion can be reduced further until you end up with ~4 primary life directives...one for Je, one for Ji, one for Pe and one for Pi.

People who make these claims simply don't understand enough about functional dichotomies to recognize why they're implicitly contradicting themselves. We're not working with 8 mutually exclusive and completely independent processes here; we're working with an interconnected system of competing and often absolute opposite value systems. Saying that you value Fi and Fe equally is completely absurd; you just don't understand the implications of those terms.

I may "use Fi" sometimes, but not because I place any fundamental value in Fi itself, but rather because I recognize situations where Fi's values happen to align with my own (which are invariably the result of Ne+Ti+Fe+Si.) I have no shame in admitting that I find Ti a totally superior system for internal judgments, but then--of course I do, I'm a Ti user! Again you need to direct your focus toward the total reasoning process and its most basic underlying values, not just the surface behavior or end conclusion.

You as an Fi user may make decisions in some situations that resemble Fe decisions, but it's always possible to look further into the motivations for those decisions and recognize which function or functional combination was ultimately responsible. Just because you did something that a lot of Fe users commonly do doesn't mean that Fe actually motivated your reasoning process to do it. I realized this through just talking to a lot of people and prying for honest, deep insight as to the most basic values that make them tick--and trust me, nobody values Fi and Fe equally. The natures of those two value systems are too fundamentally contradictory.

I definitely tried to point this out once, especially the bolded parts, in some other thread about Fe but got bored arguing halfway through when I wasn't getting my point across.
You're doing a much better job of explaining it!

 

[simulatedworld]

Don't think I can agree with the OP or for that matter anyone’s conclusions yet but do find the issue quiet fascinating. For example one answer on a MBTI would separate an INTP from and INTJ who on the whole are often very different. The first time I tested I was closest on the P/J boarder and this issue crossed my mind often particularly how being a P makes one Ne, Ti and Fe. Ulimately the test is just a tool and it is a self evaluation which I know am clearly an INTP yet feel my closest cousin is the INTJ.
Good issue, yet don't see persuasive conclusions or analysis from either side of the debate.

The MBTI test itself is garbage. We're operating under Jungian functional theory here to a much greater extent than MBTI.

MBTI barely touches on how functions manifest themselves in different positions. Also, the concept of shadow functions is stupid. Everything is so vague and general.

Deciding your MBTI is best done by the four dichotomies because doing it anyway else will give you a headache.

That's true for each letter except P/J. The whole point of this thread is that P/J doesn't translate well into a simple one-dimensional dichotomy like the others.

For instance, let's take an INTP, primary functions Ti+Ne.

If we change his first letter, we get Ne+Ti (ENTP), same processes but prioritized slightly differently. Still pretty close. Here we have Pe+Ji instead of Ji+Pe, but it's still the same two processes (and not NEARLY as different as the INTJ's Pi+Je.)

If we change his second letter, we get Ti+Se (ISTP), and here we have the same dominant function as well as preserving the Ji+Pe structure. Still pretty close.

If we change his third letter, we get Fi+Ne (INFP), which is a little further away than ENTP or ISTP, but still preserves the Ji+Pe format and does have the same secondary function. A little further away, but not that far.

But if we change his fourth letter, we get Ni+Te (INTJ), which shares zero functions with INTP's Ti+Ne, and furthermore completely inverts organizational priority by introverting perception and extroverting judgment. You'll find with experience that this is the most significant difference in typology and that being "borderline" on the P/J "scale" is basically impossible because P and J imply completely different functional structures and value sets.

Using the dichotomies alone really limits your understanding because it leads you to believe that having more letters in common makes you automatically more similar, but there's covariance between the functions. It's just not that simple, unfortunately.

 

[simulatedworld]

I like this post!

This is kind of off topic, but...

sim, don't get mad at me, I absolutely think you're brilliant, but you scare me with how strongly you adhere to typological theory.

You don't believe in "God" but you sure seem to *believe* in the MBTI, don't hate me, just an observation.

I think you are very much so an ENTP, and I think many NTs for some reason get really into MBTI and use it as more than just a tool but rather as a way to cohesively explain human nature.

Yet, one must understand that human nature and psychology extends and transcends way outside the MBTI box.

Don't be mean to me, I'm pms-ing.

-SS

*scared of confrontation and hides*

If you think my typology is based heavily on insistence that nobody exists outside MBTI's function orders, you're not paying attention to my posts. When I discuss functional makeup with people, it's typically under the assumption that these people fit into the type molds they claim to fit into.

I'm actually very surprised that you as an Ne dom would so badly misunderstand my position here. I discuss all kinds of shit that I don't necessarily believe fully in; arguing it out is part of my learning and idea evaluation process. You can go back and find lots of posts where I argued theoretical positions that contradict the ones I hold now, and the more of these threads that I go through the more my ideas will become refined.

Jaguar will tell you that this is because I have no consistency of thought, but actually it's because I'm capable of learning and refining my perspective over time. My conceptions of typology have changed dramatically quite a few times over the few months I've been here. Personally, I find "you don't believe exactly the same things you believed six months ago!!!" to be a pretty meaningless criticism.

Aside from that, haven't you ever heard of Devil's Advocate?

Haven't you also heard about how ENTPs love doing it and frequently don't bother making it known whether we really agree with the positions we're arguing? Don't you see us switching sides on things just to explore the theoretical implications of each angle? It's really just shocking to me that you don't realize I do that.

I'll say this one more time:

I don't think that the 16 MBTI molds are the only function orders that exist in practice.

And again, if that will help:

I don't think that the 16 MBTI molds are the only function orders that exist in practice.


How about one more time, just for good measure?

I don't think that the 16 MBTI molds are the only function orders that exist in practice.



As I've already explained in quite a few instances now, I consider MBTI's functional orders to be idealized balances of functions which will theoretically tend to lead to the most self-actualization and happiness. There do exist people who don't follow these orders, but lacking any of the four primary cognitive skills Je/Ji/Pe/Pi results in imbalance and is less likely to produce successful results.


P.S.,

I don't think that the 16 MBTI molds are the only function orders that exist in practice.

 

[Thalassa]

The MBTI test itself is garbage. We're operating under Jungian functional theory here to a much greater extent than MBTI.

I'm beginning to think this myself. I have a friend whom I was certain was either an ESFJ or ESFP. She took two tests I showed her and told me she's an ENFJ. I was like, "Oh, okay" and in my head thought oh well I was wrong.

But then tonight she decided to drop the history class we had together, saying that she doesn't know how to cope yet with classes that focus purely on theory and ideas (she's getting a 2 year associates degree in a health related field and doesn't need history for that just took it as an elective), and told me that she's used to taking classes that are hands-on and generally learns better when something is right in front of her or practically related to her real life.

So now I'm thinking - you are an S, I was right, and you tested yourself as an N incorrectly. I didn't say any of this out loud, of course.

 

[simulatedworld]

I'm beginning to think this myself. I have a friend whom I was certain was either an ESFJ or ESFP. She took two tests I showed her and told me she's an ENFJ. I was like, "Oh, okay" and in my head thought oh well I was wrong.

But then tonight she decided to drop the history class we had together, saying that she doesn't know how to cope yet with classes that focus purely on theory and ideas (she's getting a 2 year associates degree in a health related field and doesn't need history for that just took it as an elective), and told me that she's used to taking classes that are hands-on and generally learns better when something is right in front of her or practically related to her real life.

So now I'm thinking - you are an S, I was right, and you tested yourself as an N incorrectly. I didn't say any of this out loud, of course.

Haha yeah that happens to me a lot too. It's kind of awkward with people who are kind of semi-informed and have mistyped themselves because nobody ever wants to hear that!

It's interesting that you would narrow her type down to "ESFP or ESFJ"...this sort of analysis seems to result from a more superficial, surface-behavior type of perspective as encouraged by MBTI.

But from a functional perspective, shouldn't these types be very, very different and therefore awfully hard to confuse? ESFP (SeFiTeNi) and ESFJ (FeSiNeTi) share zero functions! So what I'm proposing is that the MBTI four-dichotomy method is a good way to get a quick and very basic read on someone, but it doesn't go much deeper than that.

That's where MBTI reads stop. To get deeper reads that really explain the full value system and reasoning process, we need to use a more functional perspective, I think, which makes it much, much harder to confuse ESFP vs. ESFJ. Functional study allows us to recognize that J vs. P is by far the biggest dividing line, and furthermore, that it doesn't even translate accurately into a simple one-dimensional dichotomy. (None of the functions do, really, but least of all P/J.)

Such is one of the major issues with MBTI. I wish people would stop putting words in my mouth; I am most certainly not an MBTI fundamentalist.

The value I see in MBTI is its suggestions as to which functional combinations provide the most utility--NOT as a dogmatic assertion that no other combinations exist.

 

[Thalassa]

Haha yeah that happens to me a lot too. It's kind of awkward with people who are kind of semi-informed and have mistyped themselves because nobody ever wants to hear that!

It's interesting that you would narrow her type down to "ESFP or ESFJ"...this sort of analysis seems to result from a more superficial, surface-behavior type of perspective as encouraged by MBTI.

But from a functional perspective, shouldn't these types be very, very different and therefore awfully hard to confuse? ESFP (SeFiTeNi) and ESFJ (FeSiNeTi) share zero functions! So what I'm proposing is that the MBTI four-dichotomy method is a good way to get a quick and very basic read on someone, but it doesn't go much deeper than that.

That's where MBTI reads stop. To get deeper reads that really explain the full value system and reasoning process, we need to use a more functional perspective, I think, which makes it much, much harder to confuse ESFP vs. ESFJ. Functional study allows us to recognize that J vs. P is by far the biggest dividing line, and furthermore, that it doesn't even translate accurately into a simple one-dimensional dichotomy. (None of the functions do, really, but least of all P/J.)

Such is one of the major issues with MBTI. I wish people would stop putting words in my mouth; I am most certainly not an MBTI fundamentalist.

The value I see in MBTI is its suggestions as to which functional combinations provide the most utility--NOT as a dogmatic assertion that no other combinations exist.

Oh she's totally an Fe dom. She's an ESFJ.

 

[FDG]

Yes, you're right that functionally speaking nobody is borderline P/J. Reading Jung's Psychological Types, it becomes almost immediately obvious that the only two dichotomies that can be blurred are S/N and T/F, because those are the defining qualities of the function (i.e. there is only rational feeling, and only perceiving sensing, you can't have perceiving feeling).

 

[simulatedworld]

Yes, you're right that functionally speaking nobody is borderline P/J. Reading Jung's Psychological Types, it becomes almost immediately obvious that the only two dichotomies that can be blurred are S/N and T/F, because those are the defining qualities of the function (i.e. there is only rational feeling, and only perceiving sensing, you can't have perceiving feeling).

That's a good point. E/I can be somewhat blurred and, imho, becomes virtually nonexistent if and when a person is able to completely balance his dominant and auxiliary functions. He is able to use both equally well because they apply to different situations and different types of cognitive tasks.

Oh she's totally an Fe dom. She's an ESFJ.

Case in point! Good work.

 

[Tyrant]

I said typing yourself with the four dichotomies because the system is so muddled. You want to explore a typology system? Socionics is the way to go.

 

[redacted]

I get your point, but what basis do you have for assuming people can't switch between Xi and Xe.

I hope you're not implying that INTPs NEVER use Te, Ni, Se, and Fi.

Anyway, what about this, even assuming you only use 4 functions -- say you're INTP but you use Si and Fe a lot. Those are J functions. So you could be borderline between NTP and SFJ.

 

[simulatedworld]

I'm clueless as to how this or anything else in your post has any relevance to what I said. I feel like you're addressing a caricature of me, one based on the mentality that you think someone must have if they disagree with you. You talk about how I seem to focus on "surface appearances," but I never suggested anything like that.

You didn't have to. You implied it with this statement:

My point is this: everyone is a patchwork of paradoxes, so a person could very well contain Ni and Ne at the same time.

If you hadn't noticed, it's my contention that people are not patchworks of paradoxes at all, and that their behavior is far more rationally consistent and predictably in their own self-interest than many people seem to realize. If you really reduce people's value systems to their most fundamental components, you'll find that most people are actually quite consistent with themselves--not a so-called "patchwork of paradoxes." This interpretation is the result of poor understanding of other people's values and the true motivations for them.

On top of that, your reasoning doesn't follow at all. The fact that you find people to be "patchworks of paradoxes" (which I find questionable in the first place, but we'll get to that) doesn't serve as any indication that this particular paradox (having Ne and Ni as two primary functions, for instance) can actually exist.

I've written a good bit about this all over the rest of this thread; you can read that if you care enough.

When I said that someone can contain contradictions and that reality is in fact rife with such contradictions, I literally meant that. By extension, there's every reason to allow the possibility that someone could prefer the introverted and extroverted forms of a function. The MBTI ignores that possibility, of course, but the MBTI does not reign supreme over human psychology. The MBTI is just a theory, a mental construct, a rough outline. All it does is sort people into arbitrary categories that are at best rough generalizations. At worst they're an excuse to supplant the infinite variation of reality with a cold, theoretical simplicity.

I'm sure you meant it literally; that doesn't make it any more credible. The MBTI is only a small part of my typology theory...as I pointed out above, I see value in its 16 molds because they represent idealized functional orders that offer the most balance and utility.

I don't believe that MBTI's 16 function molds are the ONLY ones that actually exist in practice, just that they're the most useful combinations in theory.

I get your point, but what basis do you have for assuming people can't switch between Xi and Xe.

I hope you're not implying that INTPs NEVER use Te, Ni, Se, and Fi.

Anyway, what about this, even assuming you only use 4 functions -- say you're INTP but you use Si and Fe a lot. Those are J functions. So you could be borderline between NTP and SFJ.

I don't believe that INTPs use Te, Ni, Se or Fi but that's because my definitions of functions aren't specific instances of particular use so much as underlying value systems resulting in certain types of beliefs and behaviors.

What is "using a function", exactly? I'm afraid we don't have the same definition of this.

I think all surface behaviors are the end result of four functions working in concert and influencing a person together as one fluid unit...not as individual pieces that constantly switch in and out every second. Therefore, my functional definitions seek to explain root value systems, the most basic motivations for people's attitudes, beliefs and actions...not the surface actions themselves. I find that trivial.

My justification for saying that people can't switch between Xi and Xe is simply that I see these processes as deep-seated underlying value systems, not just as simple present-tense cognitive processes. They pervade everything about a person's outlook and approach to personality itself--and given that Xe and Xi have some very serious disagreements in terms of their most basic conceptions of everything, it's pretty difficult to switch from one to another, especially across P/J lines.

As for being borderline NTP and SFJ, I don't think that really happens much because the tertiary and inferior functions are, by their very nature, never able to develop to anywhere near the same level as the more natural dominant and auxiliary. Well-developed tertiary and inferior functions are still pretty poor when compared to people who perform those functions naturally as one of their top two. Personally, I don't think that anyone can truly balance the dom and aux, either, but that it's a good theoretical ideal to aim for because it represents total balance and harmony.

I've seen INFPs turn ENFP as they got older, but this doesn't involve any actual changing of functions, just the order of priority. I've also seen a Te-deficient INTJ grow from incredibly shy and depressed into a self-actualized and healthy human being because he learned how to use Te skills--he learned a new value system as a method of interacting effectively with the outer world that he wouldn't have had without a strong extroverted function.

But this kind of thing doesn't happen overnight. Functional attitudes are so deeply rooted in people's value systems...you can't just swap them out like changing clothes. "I feel like being an INTJ today, but I'll be ENTP tomorrow!" It doesn't work like that.

I seek to explain why, rather than how. It doesn't matter to me how we label the process of taking in sensory information or of considering it internally; it matters what deeper value systems using these methods primarily will lead to and how we can apply those to better identifying with other people's perspectives.

 

[Athenian200]

I'm sure you meant it literally; that doesn't make it any more credible. The MBTI is only a small part of my typology theory...as I pointed out above, I see value in its 16 molds because they represent idealized functional orders that offer the most balance and utility.

I don't believe that MBTI's 16 function molds are the ONLY ones that actually exist in practice, just that they're the most useful combinations in theory.

Could you talk briefly about the rest of your typology theory, and the ways in which function orders might differ from theory in practice? I think it would help some of the people who aren't getting what you're trying to say put it in context and see where you're coming from.

 

[simulatedworld]

Could you talk briefly about the rest of your typology theory, and the ways in which function orders might differ from theory in practice? I think it would help some of the people who aren't getting what you're trying to say put it in context and see where you're coming from.

Haha see my edit to the post directly above yours, in response to Evan.

EDIT: I thought of some more that I can include here.


One of the most common non-standard functional orders occurs when the secondary function is underdeveloped. For instance, ENTPs with very poor secondary Ti come off as Ne+Fe and tend to exhibit signs of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Without a strong introverted function by which to internally reconsider and evaluate one's own beliefs, one becomes entirely dependent upon external validation and suffers from serious self-image issues.

Again the problem with this functional order, while it does exist, is that it lacks balance for two reasons:

A) It doesn't have an introverted function available, and
B) The tertiary function doesn't show the same potential for growth and development as the auxiliary, so not only are we stuck lacking a strong introverted function with Ne+Fe, we're stuck with Ne+poor Fe! The answer is to develop the auxiliary. This is how to achieve balance between the internal and external worlds and create a healthy self-image and productive lifestyle.

 

[Polaris]

You didn't have to. You implied it with this statement:

Once again, you're ascribing thoughts to me that originate inside your own head. You take your understanding of how the functions work, and every time you hear someone talk about them, you filter their words through that understanding. When I talk about Pi and Pe being shared by a person and valued on a roughly equal level, I don't refer to those functions in a shallow, surface-level sense. I refer to those functions in their deepest, most developed capacities. You've rejected that idea to such an extent that whenever you hear someone say such a thing, you automatically assume that they must mean something other than what they said.

If you hadn't noticed, it's my contention that that people are not patchworks of paradoxes at all, and that their behavior is far more rationally consistent and predictably in their own self-interest than many people seem to realize. If you really reduce people's value systems to their most fundamental components, you'll find that most people are actually quite consistent with themselves--not a so-called "patchwork of paradoxes." This interpretation is the result of poor understanding of other people's values and the true motivations for them.

I think you're missing my point. I'm not so much making a psychological claim as I am a philosophical one. I apply that claim to the human realm only because the human realm exists under the rubric of reality, wherein everything is trivially contradictory and fundamentally unified.

On top of that, your reasoning doesn't follow all. The fact that you find people to be "patchworks of paradoxes" (which I find questionable in the first place, but we'll get to that) doesn't serve as any indication that this particular paradox (having Ne and Ni as two primary functions, for instance) can actually exist.

Take any paradox, and you can easily find ways to consolidate it. It's an extremely simple exercise, and one that's always possible.

I don't believe that MBTI's 16 function molds are the ONLY ones that actually exist in practice, just that they're the most useful combinations in theory.

Yes, but you consider certain combinations impossible. I take issue with this because I know from personal experience that what you say is untrue.

EDIT: That's all I have to say, really. I hate to get involved in this kind of discussion, for several different reasons (which probably makes me a masochist).

 

[simulatedworld]

^ This response shows enough of a lack of effort to grasp anything I've said that I'm not going to continue any further with you.

 

[Little Linguist]

They completely disagree on what the source for one's ethical bearing should be.

Fi says: I should draw my ethical principles from my own internal sense of what is ethical in a vacuum. Ethics would still exist as a fundamental property of the universe even if we were not here to think about them.

Fe says: I should draw my ethical principles from what my community surroundings hold as important values. Ethics exist only as a means of fostering emotional connection between people so that they can work toward external goals together.

The key is that to Fe, nothing is actually ethical until some external goal has been defined. If the goal is integrating into a given culture, then the methodology would clearly involve integration into that culture's moral and social norms. Fe's ethics change and adapt based on the emotional texture of its environment.

Fi, on the other hand, sees ethics as private, personal and non-negotiable. It neither seeks nor requires any external validation, because it knows what is ethical and what is not, end of story.



Yes, Fi is completely outside of my personal value system. Since I use Ti for my internal judgments, I find use of Feeling for internal judgments to be inappropriate and selfish. Sometimes my internal logic and another person's internal feelings will reach the same conclusion, but for totally different reasons.

WHY would these necessarily be diametrically opposed, and WHY can't you have both?

And how can you explain Fe > Ne > Te > Se? Theoretically, I should not be able to have all these in the top four, but I definitely do.

I'm not saying "OOOOHHHH I'm sooooo special because I don't know what the hell I am!" It's actually quite frustrating, and I would just like to know what the truth is.

Fact of the matter is: I don't know what I am because of the following reasons:

First, an ENFP should have a great deal of Fi mixed in there, which I don't show. Although Ne and Te are strong, I exhibit almost no Si. In addition, I exhibit a great deal of organization and future-planning, which is kind of extreme and baffles most ENFPs I know. Others claim that my Fe is too strong to be ENFP, which annoys the crap out of the most ENFPs I have contact with. The recent argumentation for the so-called Te was that my organization and problem-solving, which may seem/appear to be Te in character is really extremely-organized Fe??? Some even claim they can't see my Ne and it's really Ni. Yeah, so most xNFPs say, "No, sorry, no can do. No ENFP here."

However, most ENFJs and INTPs say "NO way, buster, no way in hell are you ENFJ." They don't see my Ni. They claim my Fe isn't high enough because I often bungle up certain things I SHOULD say in a given situation. In some situations I really care about what people think; in others, I couldn't give a crap (Fe/Fi). Apparently, I don't socialize enough nor do I like to give parties or host or whatever. Although my Fe and Se are strong, my Ni and Ti are non-existent. So they say PFFFT ENFJ - who are YOU kidding?

I guess the fact that I'm borderline on everything really does not help matters. I'm literally 50/50 J/P and 50/50 T/F and 55/45 E/I and 60/40 N/S. I guess maybe I have an underdeveloped personality??? Who knows?

Maybe I am totally something else, and no one has figured it out yet - like an ISTJ or INTJ whose weird shadow self is showing. That'd be amusing.

Anyway, point being, I'm not ENFx because I think I'm so and but because I simply can't make heads or tails of my situation. So back down, and if you're so good at telling people's type, maybe you can make sense of this conglomeration of nonsense that calls itself Carolyn's Personality. 'Cause I sure as hell can't.

 

[BlueScreen]

Four dimensions help remove the contradictions in use of functions. It is not enough to say values or a certain drive is innate or fundamental. They are usually a reflection of the person's current understanding of the world and are highly dynamic. They may develop in certain ways because of the person's brand of cognitive processing, but you can't assume that they are the creature and not the shadow. An F type is not run by a set of values. They store information and understanding in a way which resembles them. Many types have similar values, they just express them differently as they have different cognitive approaches. Sometimes it is even just about what they see and understand or the way they comfortably approach problems.

It's an interesting idea to float though. I've wanted to minimise this stuff also and clear up some of the conflicts. The P/J part is quite a problem, because no matter how you look at it in the Myers-Briggs scheme, you aren't going to be an N dominant who is half Ne and half Ni. It is clearly a weakness in the MBTi system if it is meant to map to Jungian processes.

 

[Athenian200]

One of the most common non-standard functional orders occurs when the secondary function is underdeveloped. For instance, ENTPs with very poor secondary Ti come off as Ne+Fe and tend to exhibit signs of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Without a strong introverted function by which to internally reconsider and evaluate one's own beliefs, one becomes entirely dependent upon external validation and suffers from serious self-image issues.

Again the problem with this functional order, while it does exist, is that it lacks balance for two reasons:

A) It doesn't have an introverted function available, and
B) The tertiary function doesn't show the same potential for growth and development as the auxiliary, so not only are we stuck lacking a strong introverted function with Ne+Fe, we're stuck with Ne+poor Fe! The answer is to develop the auxiliary. This is how to achieve balance between the internal and external worlds and create a healthy self-image and productive lifestyle.

This is very interesting, actually.

Do you think that an INFJ with Ni+Ti would show symptoms of... say, Aspergers or something? The first psychologist I saw after being homeschooled since 3rd grade thought I had it, but then 3 years later after I'd been in school for a while, another psychologist said I probably didn't have it, but was borderline (because my improvement was much quicker than it should have been if I'd had the disorder). They said that in my case it could probably be blamed on poor parenting that encouraged my natural Introversion and paranoia rather than discouraging it, though.

Is it possible that most psychological disorders are caused (partially) by people having unbalanced functional orders?

 

[Little Linguist]

Anyway, I wasn't being facetious - I really would love to know what I am...It's just so confusing and none of it seems to make any sense. So I've basically said, "Awww, to hell with it," and put an x there even though neither really fits.

 

[simulatedworld]

WHY would these necessarily be diametrically opposed, and WHY can't you have both?

Already explained; read thread. Xi and Xe disagree on where the source of the values should come from: the self or the environment.

And how can you explain Fe > Ne > Te > Se? Theoretically, I should not be able to have all these in the top four, but I definitely do.

My interpretation of this is that you have a weak understanding of functional theory and don't know what you're talking about. I don't believe that your function order is Fe Ne Te Se. Where did you get this idea, a cognitive function "test"?

I'm not saying "OOOOHHHH I'm sooooo special because I don't know what the hell I am!" It's actually quite frustrating, and I would just like to know what the truth is.

Fact of the matter is: I don't know what I am because of the following reasons:

First, an ENFP should have a great deal of Fi mixed in there, which I don't show. Although Ne and Te are strong, I exhibit almost no Si. In addition, I exhibit a great deal of organization and future-planning, which is kind of extreme and baffles most ENFPs I know. Others claim that my Fe is too strong to be ENFP, which annoys the crap out of the most ENFPs I have contact with. The recent argumentation for the so-called Te was that my organization and problem-solving, which may seem/appear to be Te in character is really extremely-organized Fe??? Some even claim they can't see my Ne and it's really Ni. Yeah, so most xNFPs say, "No, sorry, no can do. No ENFP here."

No offense, but you don't understand this because you don't understand the functions.

However, most ENFJs and INTPs say "NO way, buster, no way in hell are you ENFJ." They don't see my Ni. They claim my Fe isn't high enough because I often bungle up certain things I SHOULD say in a given situation. In some situations I really care about what people think; in others, I couldn't give a crap (Fe/Fi). Apparently, I don't socialize enough nor do I like to give parties or host or whatever. Although my Fe and Se are strong, my Ni and Ti are non-existent. So they say PFFFT ENFJ - who are YOU kidding?

They're probably right. Your thinking comes off as fragmented and non-linear, which is characteristically P.

I guess the fact that I'm borderline on everything really does not help matters. I'm literally 50/50 J/P and 50/50 T/F and 55/45 E/I and 60/40 N/S. I guess maybe I have an underdeveloped personality??? Who knows?

No, you're a perfect example of an ENFP who doesn't understand functional theory enough realize her own type/has a lot of misconceptions based on bad information from other uninformed people. Type "tests" are garbage.

Maybe I am totally something else, and no one has figured it out yet - like an ISTJ or INTJ whose weird shadow self is showing. That'd be amusing.

This part seems especially Ne. "But what if this or this or this or THIS?"

Anyway, point being, I'm not ENFx because I think I'm so and but because I simply can't make heads or tails of my situation. So back down, and if you're so good at telling people's type, maybe you can make sense of this conglomeration of nonsense that calls itself Carolyn's Personality. 'Cause I sure as hell can't.

Incredibly ENFP. The whole attraction to being different and unique and "defying categorization" isn't a conscious process, but it's very heavily linked to Ne's value system. You don't know enough typology to know what type you are but the prospect of being "something entirely DIFFERENT" is subconsciously attractive enough to you that you don't really bother to find out.

If you did discover which mold you fit, you wouldn't be able to claim a special and unusual function order anymore...why, then you wouldn't be out of the box at all! And we can't have that...

Four dimensions help remove the contradictions in use of functions. It is not enough to say values or a certain drive is innate or fundamental. They are usually a reflection of the person's current understanding of the world and are highly dynamic. They may develop in certain ways because of the person's brand of cognitive processing, but you can't assume that they are the creature and not the shadow. An F type is not run by a set of values. They store information and understanding in a way which resembles them. Many types have similar values, they just express them differently as they have different cognitive approaches. Sometimes it is even just about what they see and understand or the way they comfortably approach problems. It's an interesting idea to float though. I've wanted to minimise this stuff also and clear up some of the conflicts. The P/J part is quite a problem, because no matter how you look at it in the Myers-Briggs scheme, you aren't going to be an N dominant who is half Ne and half Ni. It is clearly a weakness in the MBTi system if it is meant to map to Jungian processes.

Fair points, but I think there are actually a lot more contradictions in the four-dichotomy MBTI system than in Jung's functions--like the P/J issue at the heart of this thread.

My reasoning for thinking that people can't be half Ni and half Ne, though, has absolutely nothing to do with MBTI's function molds. It has everything to do with the fundamentally opposing values of those functions.