Never scored ISTJ though, the closest is INTJ.I know two Fi-dominants (INFPs), who I have personally given the test to, who both scored as ISTJ on the test (one being my brother, who scored as ISTJ twice).
I know an ENFP well who scored ISTP but the thing is that I can kind of see the logic in that too. She's a pretty hands-on and concrete person and likes doing things with her body and hands (possibly enneatype 8) and she's not very fond of emotional display and has issues expressing emotions (we spoke about this). She's also socially introverted and the only reason why I don't type her as an INFP is because I feel there is a fundamental difference in our cognition where she is simply more objectively oriented. I can't put that into words exactly why I feel that way about her, most people who know the system well and knew her well could potentially type her as an ISFP or INFP. Yet I think inferior Si fits her much better than Te even though she can have moments of what you could say, "Te tyranny", but I don't think those outbursts are nearly as bad as mine would be.An ISFP I know scored as ISTP.
Then in the same group of people there's this guy I am fairly sure is an ISFP and it's interesting how different we are as people. He's either a 4 or a 9, possibly a combination of 469 in some order, I can't quite tell which is dominant, but his entire demeanor is very different. Very feeler-y, softer, easy to mistake for an Fe type because he's more emotionally sappy and wears his emotions more on his sleeve. Clearly phlegmatic/sanguine as opposed to me and my ENFP friend who are both melancholic/choleric. I think most people would easily identify this guy's type and get it correctly assuming they're any decent typers, and if they wouldn't, they would not mistake the fact he's a feeler. I did consider ISFJ for him but I don't think that's right. He does score ISFP on the test and it could be because he's potentially a core 4 since there's this overlap with ISFP and 4s being artistic which he is (he's a musician).
Ultimately this relates back to the purpose of why we type people the way we do and what kind of type leads to the most self-growth. There's a reason the MBTI theory is being propagated in the work place and other places because if you disregard that it may not get Jungian cognition right, the purpose isn't necessarily to get it right but to have people be effective at their job in the work place. If this is how we understand MBTI type than your MBTI type is clearly found by taking a test and being sorted out that way.
We can for example disregard Keirsey's work and say he's not doing MBTI but something else, but he is still considered an MBTI theorist. What makes Keirsey worse than Beebe?
A question, but facetious how?Also, I sense you're being somewhat rhetorical and facetious here,
To me, it clearly depends on the perspective you're utilizing how you define the MBTI type as I laid out in the above, and the reason why you seek your type or why someone else would want you to be typed. You could say it's not theoretically correct but again, it comes back to purpose.but I really don't think using professions as a proper basis for determining a type.
Care to give any examples of how it's Se-like? You could also argue that Ne would seek that too, with constant change in environment but perhaps less interest with hands-on work but if Si is strongly present, I don't see why this would not be the case either. In a way Si is more hands-on than Se. My grandmother who is some xSFJ must for example often physically touch things in order to get a sensation "feel" for the object. Similarly, she also insists other touching objects for the same reason. This is very contrary to how I see my ESTP cousin operating. She doesn't need to create such a personal relationship between herself and objects.That's one aspect where I think a lot of MBTI profiles are wrong. For example, I have literally seen "farmer" listed as a potential ideal job for an ISTP. Talk to most ISTPs and suggest becoming a "farmer"...see the reaction that comes from that (I would imagine at best, it would be a collective *facepalm*; at worst, serious trolling and ribbing would ensue). If we just went on the basis of professions, I would be INTP myself. I do not seek adrenaline, thrill-seeking environments. However, I would rather have a work environment that is action-oriented and hands-on, i.e. where I can take direct action towards a realistic goal, even if it involves "theory". I need lots of variety or I go stir-crazy. This is very Se-oriented, even though I do not relate to the stupid grease monkey or adrenaline junkie descriptions.That's kind of the point I'm getting at with this thread. Why do people have that idea of type to begin with if the MBTI is not intended to measure persona? What is the MBTI type really measuring? What's the purpose of the MBTI?
The thing about people being convinced you're an INTx type. I was convinced my brother was INTx type. I don't trust that persona anymore.No, that's fine.
I know I keep referencing my brother, but he's a wealth of information and my primary source for practically understanding Fi, so bear with me.
Let's say, pretty much all of it unless you can dig one out that's actually indicative of type. As a whole INTP profiles tend to describe me better.I don't know exactly which parts of the typical MBTI INFP descriptions that you don't relate to, but I think I guess fairly well.On the other hand, I don't see it contradicting an NT-preference either necessarily. My cousin is an ESTP (she's never taken a test so I'm unsure what she'd score but she could score as ESFP maybe, I am not sure if she thinks of herself as a thinker) and is working as a social worker, after all. Which I guess comes back to that in actuality there is little correlation with the jobs we may seek and the professions we possess if judging by actual type, anyway.
One, you're a 5, and that's going to affect a lot of things; two, I have my brother's experience for a point of reference. You've already mentioned that you're not "people-oriented" like a lot of NF descriptions, and you're not outwardly emotive. Fields such as public service, teaching, counseling, and whatever else INFP descriptions say are ideal jobs would not appeal to you. You also don't fit into the humanitarian, soft image of the badly-written INFP descriptions. Let's look at your area of interest: anthropology. It's a very academic, intellectual, research-oriented field, and what people would immediately say, a-ha! that's NT (because of course, SJs, SPs, and NFs can't be interested in such things...fracking Keirsey). But, what an interest in anthropology shows me is a fundamental interest in humanity, which does not contradict INFP in anyway.Perhaps.
It is on a more personal level for you, but what else illustrates Fi better?
Care to give any examples of such literature?A true INFP is the INFP who, while is sensitive and experiences emotions very deeply and richly, is outwardly cold and aloof, and perhaps apathetic to anything outside their own evaluative and emotional experience. The INFP can be the friendly, easy-going person, but then in a flash is as rigid and immovable and argumentative as the most aggressive ExTJ. Understanding and forgiving of people on one hand, the hypercriticism of mostly themselves but also of others, the perfectionism, and stubbornness on the other hand. I could go on, but I don't see a "true" INFP being different to an MBTI INFP or different to Fi-Ne. Because, I don't see the discrepancy being as great as you describe. The majority of MBTI literature that I own describes INFP very similarly to how I've seen Jungians describe Fi.lol. Doesn't mean they can't be Fi types though, it's just a very different kind of Fi, so to speak (although I suspect many people who are like that are most likely Fe types due to the overt emotional display being expressed which Fi doesn't do). Fi types can't really speak about Fi with other Fi types and expect agreement about what Fi is about because it's experienced so differently by everyone. That's the problem with introverted functions, I guess, due to the experience itself being personal.
There of course some things that I disregard automatically in these sources. For instance, anything referring to jobs or hobbies, which I believe to be more environment-based than preference-based. But the true meat of the descriptions I believe effectively describe INFP and effectively describe the experience that such a type may go through. When I refer to "true" INFPs, what I mean is simply people who are actually INFPs opposed to people who think they're INFPs based on the fact that "OMG! INFP is the most unique and rare and imaginative and creative type, I'm unique, imaginative, and creative, and emotional and I luv everybody, except for those awful meany thinkers with no souls! <3<3 xoxoxox :3:3, I must be an INFP!!!!!" *700 quazillion thanks received* (I strongly suspect that people who post like that are 13 year old girls).Is there any good one you could point to that I could read, then?
But that mentality of typing based on cutely packaged adjectives without digging deeper. But with that sort of display running rampant in the xNFP forums, I see why some who actually uses Fi, i.e. you and several other Fi-Ne users I've interacted with on PerC, would not relate to that sort of thing at all. The good INFP descriptions, I feel, don't misrepresent INFPs in this way. It's mainly the crappy internet ones of dubious origin that do.