# Thread: Fudjack/Dinkelaker Functional Preferences Instrument

1. y2>F = FSNT = Fe Si Ne Ti = ESFJ = 01278.

F>y2 = FSNT = Si Fe Ti Ne = ISFJ = 21087.

y2>S = SFTN = Se Fi Te Ni = ESFP = 01278.

S>y2 = SFTN = 21087 = Fi Se Ni Te = ISFP.

y1>S = STFN = 01278 = Se Ti Fe Ni = ESTP

2. S>y1 = STFN = 21087 = Ti Se Ni Fe = ISTP.

y1>T = TSNF = 01278 = Te Si Ne Fi = ESTJ.

T>y1 = TSNF = 21087 = Si Te Fi Ne = ISTJ.

x2>T = TNSF = 01278 = Te Ni Se Fi = ENTJ.

T>x2 = TNSF = 21087 = Ni Te Fi Se = INTJ.

x2>N = NTFS = 01278 = Ne Ti Fe Si = ENTP.

N>x2 = NTFS = 21087 = Ti Ne Si Fe = INTP.

N>S

N1. INTP and INFP.

N2. ENTP and ENFP.

N3. ENFJ and ENTJ.

N4. INFJ and INTJ.

N5. ISFJ and ISTJ.

N6. ESFJ and ESTJ.

N7. ESFP and ESTP.

N8. ISFP and ISTP.

3. T 14, N 11, S 8, F 4.

4. I'm N-F-T-S iNfp.

N=16
F=8
T=7
S=6

I could predict the result because in the function order test my results were
Ne, Fi
Ni, Ti
Si
Te, Fe, Se

5. That would make: TNFS??? Oh, well, it is not included in the categories. and, if I assume I am INTP, this would be Ti, Ne, Fe, Si? then my inferior function would be introverted S and not extroverted F, unlike the typical INTP?

intuiting =9
sensing =6
feeling =7
thinking =15
N-F-T-S = iNfj, iNfp, eNfp, eNfj
F-N-S-T = inFp, inFj, enFj, enFp
N-T-F-S = iNtj, iNtp, eNtp, eNtj
T-N-S-F = inTp, enTj, inTj, enTp
S-F-T-N = iSfj, eSfp, iSfp, eSfj
T-S-N-F = isTp, esTj, isTj, esTp
S-T-F-N = iStj, eStp, iStp, eStj
F-S-N-T = isFp, esFj, isFj, esFp

6. I'm ENFP, but according to this, I'm ENTP or ENTJ (I'm not an introvert). I'm not really surprised.

intuiting =12
sensing =6
feeling =8
thinking =11
N-F-T-S = iNfj, iNfp, eNfp, eNfj
N-T-F-S = iNtj, iNtp, eNtp, eNtj

7. This test's point of view is refreshing. I wonder what the differences between iNfps and inFps in general are-- maybe the more philosophical NFs are generally Nfs and the more people-oriented NFs are generally nFs.

What about the other types? What sets an St apart from an sT? How does one recognize an Nt as opposed to an nT? Not to forget Sfs and sFs, of course.

8. But the S/N and T/F mark the dominant/inferior function? So, supposedly, if T is one's dominant then F could not be the tertiary , should obligatory be the inferior? and the other axis would mark the auxiliary/tertiary? Then a result TNFS would contradict the functions hierarchy?

9. Originally Posted by lastrailway
But the S/N and T/F mark the dominant/inferior function? So, supposedly, if T is one's dominant then F could not be the tertiary , should obligatory be the inferior? and the other axis would mark the auxiliary/tertiary? Then a result TNFS would contradict the functions hierarchy?
I suppose.

I wondered why there were no F-T-x-x, T-F-x-x, N-S-x-x or S-N-x-x types. But I guess that, according to the theory upon which these types are based, one must use the judging function (T/F) approximately as much as one uses the perceiving function (N/T). It seems to be assumed that one can't judge more than one perceives, or perceive more than one judges. This forces the order to T-x-x-F, F-x-x-T, S-x-x-N or N-x-x-S.

Fi+Ti+Fe+Te = Ni+Si+Ne+Se

If you are an Nt, then

Ne+Ni > Te+Ti > Fe+Fi > Se+Si

I suppose it makes sense.

10. Originally Posted by Kaveri
...

I guess it makes sense.
Yes, that's how I see it too, so I should assume that this test, being in experimental stage, can give some not coherent results, like the ones I got. Though I am trying to understand a bit better the functions dynamics (hadn't bothered enough before), before dismissing it, given that I have serious doubts about my type, in first place

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•