User Tag List

First 89101112 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 140

Thread: ENFP/INFP

  1. #91
    Senior Member Dom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Initiating Receiving 6
    Expressive Contained 3
    Gregarious Intimate 7
    Active Reflective 7
    Enthusiastic Quiet 6

    Average: 4.8 (E)

    Logical Empathetic 4
    Reasonable Compassionate 6
    Questioning Accommodating 4
    Critical Accepting 4
    Tough Tender 6

    Average: 4.4 (T)

    I'm not sure I like this test... but both of your scores based on an average give potential false negatives, you become E only because of the exceptionally low score on Expressive/Contained. All other point to a mild preference for introversion.
    As for the T/F sunscales, I onject, that Reasonable and compassionate shouldn't be in contention, they are not opposites or opposed, such as logic and empathy are not. Picking which adjectives I'd prefer to call my self from those five options, I'd be close to coming out T too... is this a test somewhere? I'm curious to give it a try...

    I think it is safe to say both the I/E and T/F preference is very mild. I still think you may have a personal desire to call yourself ET which could, in it self, be indicative of your preference.

    I have to say to after reading about how you met your wife, and implictly about your obviously deep felt religous beliefs I think INFP is probably the closest fit. This is of course marked by personal bias, but every experience I've had with ENTPs leds me to dangerous generalisations, but none of them had anything that even remotely looked like a faith or belief system in anything. Implict in your description of deciding to marry is a sudden and deep contection made quickly. ALso your liking of Fe, again in my experience most ENTPs felt strong Fe in their partners, was smothering, fussy and unactractive, expecially if the partner wanted that to be recipricated in some token fashion.

  2. #92
    Senior Member Dom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Can I just clear a few things up...

    I've never said that Fs are incapable of logic.
    I further described logic (as I see it) as objective and not subjective (obviously not 100% objective as that's impossible for many reasons that should be obvious).
    Dom, you really need to remember that when I'm being sarky you'll get no warning... mind you though it does work better when you can see the smug grin as I light the blue touch paper and pull the ballistic shield up
    Lastly, of all the types NFs are the ones I choose to hang around with cause they're usually good fun and warm. Sure I'm more relaxed around NTs but also they make me bristle on occasion. Plus, being INTP about it all, the proper quote is "But some of my best friends are black".

    Damn your INTP nickpicking worked this time, you are right it should be "SOME" lol. What is it with INTPs and detail, you guys hate it most of the time, then love it when you think you can pull it out a hat so you can stick your tongue out?!!

  3. #93
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom View Post
    I'm not sure I like this test... but both of your scores based on an average give potential false negatives, you become E only because of the exceptionally low score on Expressive/Contained. All other point to a mild preference for introversion.
    I actually made a couple of mistakes. on I/E, to get the average, I divided the total (29) by 6, instead of 5, for the five scores (Don't know why I got that mixed up; probably from rushing). So it's really 5.8, which falls on the I side, after all. For T/F, I got the wrong total of 22, when it's really 24. So 24/5 is what is 4.8. That's still on the T side, but much closer to the "boundary" with F.

    As for the T/F sunscales, I onject, that Reasonable and compassionate shouldn't be in contention, they are not opposites or opposed, such as logic and empathy are not.
    I question that too, but Hartzler's book Facets Of Type makes it easier to understand and choose from the facets.
    Picking which adjectives I'd prefer to call my self from those five options, I'd be close to coming out T too... is this a test somewhere? I'm curious to give it a try...
    To take the whole test is300 questions, and about $80 or so. So what someone suggested for me was a "shortcut" to just grade the subscales directly from 0 to 10 0-4 would be the E facet, and 6-10 would be the iI facet. 5 is right in the middle). I got the I/E and T/F ambiguities, so to make sure I was understanding them correctly, I got Hartzler's book, and used the definitions and "activity" examples to help determine them. With around 3 definitions of each facet, and around three exercises for those definitions, that is more like taking the whole test.
    I think it is safe to say both the I/E and T/F preference is very mild. I still think you may have a personal desire to call yourself ET which could, in it self, be indicative of your preference.
    I originally thought it was IT, and this helps confirm it.
    I have to say to after reading about how you met your wife, and implictly about your obviously deep felt religous beliefs I think INFP is probably the closest fit. This is of course marked by personal bias, but every experience I've had with ENTPs leds me to dangerous generalisations, but none of them had anything that even remotely looked like a faith or belief system in anything.
    It has always been extremely difficult for me, because I tend to be so skeptical and "questioning". It's just that some of it made sense to me when saw it expressed in a different way. So it was more a logical belief, and it hasn't been disproven, so why assume it's wrong? (Many people who outright reject it are reacting to bad memories and images of past abuses of religion. I myself grew up in an agnostic household, so I did not have those issues, and could look at it more objectively from the outside, and then separate out the nonsense from what good points it made).
    So it's not deeply felt, but more like deply reasoned. The problem is, I end up with an almost purely "intellectual" faith, and cannot muster the emotions others (including my wife) have towards God in singing, praying, etc. It's always been a big problem for me, (especially in a religion famous for putting down logic or "head knowledge only") but I've given up trying to force myself to do those things. I have held on by a string at times.
    Implict in your description of deciding to marry is a sudden and deep contection made quickly. ALso your liking of Fe, again in my experience most ENTPs felt strong Fe in their partners, was smothering, fussy and unactractive, expecially if the partner wanted that to be recipricated in some token fashion.
    That actually fits me exactly as well. I like the idea of it, until it demands from me. (and I think she mixes some shadow Fi with it as well). One site does say that ESFJ's and INTP's are attracted to each other. For an NFP, Fe would be in the shadow range.

    And they emphasized chastity so much (perhaps too much, while other sins are ignoored), so it was engrained that I should wait for marriage, and it was difficult, and inasmuch as I do have some F leanings, the whole connection and ideal relationship thing came into play as well.

    Also, just did cognitiveprocesses over, and this time took my time and really thought more deeply aboit it better. More confiirmation of what I've been saying:

    extraverted Sensing (Se) ******************* (19.1)
    limited use
    introverted Sensing (Si) **************************************** (40)
    excellent use
    extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ************************************************* (49.4)
    excellent use
    introverted Intuiting (Ni) ************ (12.8)
    unused
    extraverted Thinking (Te) ************************ (24.9)
    average use
    introverted Thinking (Ti) ********************************************** (46.5)
    excellent use
    extraverted Feeling (Fe) *********************** (23.9)
    limited use
    introverted Feeling (Fi) *********************** (23)
    limited use

    Summary Analysis of Profile
    By focusing on the strongest configuration of cognitive processes, your pattern of responses most closely matches

    individuals of this type: INTP [however the order of Ti and Ne would suggest ENTP]

    When I really think of it, I really do not understand Fi stuff like "being in touch with/evaluating what you want for your life and what's most imporatant". When people used to ask me stuff like that, I was always "I don't know", or my attitude like "whatever". And it said if you don't understand it, you should put "not me", because the words used are designed to "look good to the right people", and are not for everyone (that was part of the analysis). I really had to strain to try to figure out if I truly evaluate importance (just getting upset when something happens does not seem to be what those questions were getting at). So perhaps Fi should technically be a little higher, but I think this is more accurate, and notice how the functions are more in order now. (No Fi running neck and neck with Ti followed somewhat closely by Te).

  4. #94
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Gary Hartzler's Facets of Type really helped me with the subscales, and when I redid I/E and T/F using his descriptions, I got this:

    (From 0, being strongest in the facet on the left, to 10 being the facet on the right; 5 being dead center):

    Initiating Receiving 6
    Expressive Contained 3
    Gregarious Intimate 7
    Active Reflective 7
    Enthusiastic Quiet 6

    Average: 4.8 (E)

    Logical Empathetic 4
    Reasonable Compassionate 6
    Questioning Accommodating 4
    Critical Accepting 4
    Tough Tender 6

    Average: 4.4 (T)

    So you can see that in two of the T/F subscales, I do lean towards F (both scores of 6 in "compassionate", and "tender"). This is what you all are seeing. Yet otherwise, I have a T preference, though it is still close to the middle.
    What type of person wrote the test?
    What was their objective?
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    The INFP never struck me that way. That was part of the problem.
    That causes me concern but perhaps not considering your second response.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I don't. I think I've been sharing a lot.
    Classic F. I didn't say you were. I said that whilst reading the description of INFP try to ensure you're not defending yourself. You have been candid that much is true but I find that INFPs can deceive themselves quite well, but note that I am not saying you are... just checking that your checking
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  5. #95
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom View Post
    Damn your INTP nickpicking worked this time, you are right it should be "SOME" lol. What is it with INTPs and detail, you guys hate it most of the time, then love it when you think you can pull it out a hat so you can stick your tongue out?!!
    Jealousy will get you no where.

    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  6. #96
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Eric,
    I have a question but it's possibly personal so please do refuse to answer if you wish.

    Why do you want to know so badly that you'll put all this effort into it?

    You don't seem INTP to me as you're not going in depth but rather broadening with each thought. You include more and more information from other systems but you've not really looked into any one with any depth (aside from the Arno stuff). Also you don't seem very INTP in that you're not questioning these tests but rather accepting these external authorities as valid measures with not much evidence of thought (note I'm not saying that's what is just that's what I'm reading).

    Now I could quite figure that a religious background could alter your display of your type significantly. I cannot think what I would have been like in a religious background and I'd guess I wouldn't be a million miles away from your current position but I'm looking past what is expressed and trying to see what is used for what is expressed (your actual type and not the one you appear to be).

    Anyhow hopefully that'll cause some interesting thoughts for you and also hopefully not prod anything painful.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  7. #97
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    What type of person wrote the test?
    What was their objective?
    MBTI Step II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Isabel Briggs Myers had noted that people of any given type shared differences as well as similarities, and at the time of her death was developing a more in depth method to offer clues about how each person expresses and experiences their type pattern, which is called MBTI Step II. In the 1980s, Kathy Myers and Peter Myers developed a team of type experts, and a factor analysis was conducted. This resulted in the identification of five subscales (with corresponding pairs of facets each) for each of the four MBTI scales.

    These break down the uniqueness of individuals into greater detail, by bringing to light the subtle nuances of personality type; thus avoiding the reduction of all of personality to just the 16 types.

    It is particularly used in one-to-one executive coaching and in working with teams who have already had some exposure to MBTI Step I. It is also useful in helping individuals to clarify their MBTI Step I best fit type.

    Here's also a link to its own site:
    PersonalValuation.com - Personality Tests

    (Type Coach Vicky Jo, who is licensed to administer it, also thinks it is some sort of profit ploy, she just told me yesterday).

    That causes me concern but perhaps not considering your second response.

    Classic F. I didn't say you were. I said that whilst reading the description of INFP try to ensure you're not defending yourself. You have been candid that much is true but I find that INFPs can deceive themselves quite well, but note that I am not saying you are... just checking that your checking
    I know I have F traits, but in actuality, I am more inclined to not "share" all that stuff with strangers. I have been criticized before for being so "impersonal" with the technical details only and not revealing more of who I am, so since I am now looking at my own type, I might as well "share" more. (Thus I would think this "sharing" would be more a less developed Fe than Fi).

    Eric,
    I have a question but it's possibly personal so please do refuse to answer if you wish.

    Why do you want to know so badly that you'll put all this effort into it?
    Doesn't it make sense to you? Taking something apart (including ideas/theories) to understand how it works. Critiquing why a type or role variant others are suggesting for me doesn't seem to fit completely, etc. Plus finding the type that fits me best. The ones people are suggesting are based on what they see, but inside, I know something is missing in them. So I'd like to be able to explain my personality from both systems in a way that matches.
    You don't seem INTP to me as you're not going in depth but rather broadening with each thought. You include more and more information from other systems but you've not really looked into any one with any depth (aside from the Arno stuff).
    Not going into depth? Why do you think that? I don't even think of Step II as "another system", really, but rather a more "in depth" version of MBTI. And I think it has helped me understand the whole thing as well as my own processes more in depth (along with all I have been reading).
    I've been told something like that before, and then figured "Oh, well; I guess then I don't use Ti well"; and this was right before I got all the books and really understood the functions better. But again, I think what you all are looking at is the apparent Te I use to try to put the systems together, and you figure this is what I am primarily operating off of. But Te will naturally be more visible to the outside world. It doesn't mean the Ti isn't there. You don't see how much I have "looked into" any one or all of them. You only see me mentioning them, and trying to fit them together.

    As I had had discussion with you and a few other INTP's, I notice that you all do seem to show some amount of interest in my ideas, but it seems people have a hard time grasping them. You know a little about FIRO, but others, it is still like a foreign language. That's because you as Ti preferring already have your own models in your heads, so from what I see, and from people's own admissions, it can be hard to wrap your minds around a totally foreign model. (I forgot whether you yourself said something like this in the PM's or e-mails, but another one did say it would take time for him to grasp it, and maybe Jennifer too). That kind of makes sense, especially having only limited tome to think about this stuff, and you're already immersed in something totally different. Me, I started with the FIRO-based system, and made it my own internal model of personality. So when I was introduced to the Keirsey system, and by extension, MBTI, it took me a long time (especially with my time and other interests) to really grasp it. (And I believe the so-called "alphabet soup" system is much harder to learn than the simple e/w matrices, which were used in some form for perhaps most of temperament theory's history). Thus, I slowly began "broadening" my perspective.
    Also you don't seem very INTP in that you're not questioning these tests but rather accepting these external authorities as valid measures with not much evidence of thought (note I'm not saying that's what is just that's what I'm reading).
    Others have said this as well. I think both systems are interesting, and have something to offer personality theory, so that's why it looks I am just accepting and then "rearranging" things Te style. But I did start out questioning. My first objective was to compare the 16 types to my own internalized model. I did not try to simply put it together with Keirsey's temperaments (which I thought were fake or irrelevant or something) and the Interaction Styles (which I did not know about at first), but started from scratch looking at each of the 16 types for common features. As I look over my notes, I see where a new modelwas beginning to take shape. I then join internet discussions, and begin learning more from people familiar with it, and soon find out about the Interaction Styles, which was a key to making the connections. They were somewhat similar to what I was already grouping out. I looked at them, and they seemed to fit the Inclusion area, so I tested them against it, and sure enough, it was a good match, so I went with that. Over more time, I see that Structure/Motive and Cooperative/Pragmatic would be good fits for the Control factors. So it was like "Hey, Keirsey's system does fit the model after all!" I did and do continue to dispute him on NF being Choleric and NT being Phlegmatic (and you have even seemed to agree with that), yet everything else he did seem to get right. I even then traced his theory back, and saw where his "strain" diverged from the e/w line of theories, and why he mixed up Choleric and Phlegmatic.

    All of this time, I was not really interested in the cognitive functions. Keirsey himself didn't use them, so I figured they were probably not that vital. But I see others using them, and they seemed interesting as well, and I over time began trying to learn them, first with the influence of the preferred pair (dom, aux), which also fit my model (TJ's are both Directive and Structure-oriented and this fits Melancholy/Choleric mixtures) then the non-preffered pair and then finally the shadows. Again, it took time, because I was still working out the temperament model. So it may look like I just jumped into this juggling prepackaged concepts around and not going into them in depth, but I really did break them down and then put them back together again.

    So now, with Step II, I do question it, but I have just really gotten into it, and do want to really break it down further, and see if it helps me improve my ideas of how it fits with FIRO. I tried it on myself, was skeptical about the first resules, so I got Hartzler's book, and he broke it down, clarifying the facets. And it does seem to help separate the areas where I have conflicting I/E and T/F preferences. And as I see others struggling with their type, I suggest it to them, too.

    Now I could quite figure that a religious background could alter your display of your type significantly. I cannot think what I would have been like in a religious background and I'd guess I wouldn't be a million miles away from your current position but I'm looking past what is expressed and trying to see what is used for what is expressed (your actual type and not the one you appear to be).

    Anyhow hopefully that'll cause some interesting thoughts for you and also hopefully not prod anything painful.
    No problem.
    I was grown when I made the decision to accept Christianity, so it was just my on decision, and I always made up my own mind, and tried to figure out what scriptures and doctrines [supposedly!] derived from them really meant. It is my current thoughts on this that also led me to see that I probably really do prefer Ti over Te, because I always wanted to know what things meant, and I get tired of people just projecting their own thinking into the Bible to make it say whatever they want it to. (that's the cause of a lot of the corruption and fear tactics, etc. that so many people are reacting to today). I jumped in and engaged in the back and forth Te debating for years, but recently got tired of it. It was a defensive strategy, yet ultimately, it doesn't lead anywhere but confusion. I'd just rather understand it better myself now than try to convince someone else of something.

  8. #98
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Eric,
    Sorry for the time delay, I've been busy.

    Reading your response it becomes clearer that you certainly don't think of things in the same manner as I do. I tend toward calling such instances as a difference of type but I would admit that it is entirely possible for you to be an INTP (which was one of our discussed possibilities at one point and hence why I keep refering to it).

    Now my post, the one which you have replied to above, was not supposed to be a critique of your manner of thinking, nor call into question the validity of your thinking or decisions but rather a commentary on what I thought was different between how you approach things and how I do. I may well appear to favour my own approach but I consider such normal and have given up trying to eliminate this vesitge.

    Anyhow, does INFP fit well?

    Oh and the whole inquiry into why you want to know isn't a question regarding sorting out a system, it was more a personal inquirey. See I do see the validity in testing a system by figuring out how it would work out on myself and gauging it by it's responses but I also realise that most NFs who I have known take the test see it more as what it possibly tells them about themselves and how others percieve them (well at least that's what I pick up from them). It was more of an information gathering exercise. Rather than asking outright A or B I just asked it as an open ended question to see your response. As such then yes I'd say it's more of a Te approach than Ti (you're not looking for the optimal points of torque for example).

    I'm happy with INFP, as much as one can be considering the vagaries of the mediums we're using to communicate. Are you?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  9. #99
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Eric,
    Sorry for the time delay, I've been busy.

    Reading your response it becomes clearer that you certainly don't think of things in the same manner as I do. I tend toward calling such instances as a difference of type but I would admit that it is entirely possible for you to be an INTP (which was one of our discussed possibilities at one point and hence why I keep refering to it).

    Now my post, the one which you have replied to above, was not supposed to be a critique of your manner of thinking, nor call into question the validity of your thinking or decisions but rather a commentary on what I thought was different between how you approach things and how I do. I may well appear to favour my own approach but I consider such normal and have given up trying to eliminate this vesitge.
    I didn't take it as a critique of my thinking.
    You were giving your own reasons why you thought I was an F.
    Anyhow, does INFP fit well?
    I initially thought it was better than the originally suggested ENFP (this was in the late winter before I joined this board). While I do have some similarities with it, from identifying with the Behind the Scenes Interaction Style, I can see that I do not really share it's Fi dominance. In fact, it to some extent goes over my head, as I saw when I took the cognitive test over, and really thought about the Fi-related questions (evaluating importance, etc). On another board, the host is INFP, and we are clearly different in the way we think and while I may appear to be using Te, he still sees my liking to take the systems apart as Ti conflicting with his Te that wants to keep the four temperaments whole. His Fi always speaks in terms of "the real you", and that sort of language I have never related to. My parents probably have relief Fi, and they always insisted on "importance", and complained that I didn't regard it.
    Oh and the whole inquiry into why you want to know isn't a question regarding sorting out a system, it was more a personal inquirey. See I do see the validity in testing a system by figuring out how it would work out on myself and gauging it by it's responses but I also realise that most NFs who I have known take the test see it more as what it possibly tells them about themselves and how others percieve them (well at least that's what I pick up from them). It was more of an information gathering exercise. Rather than asking outright A or B I just asked it as an open ended question to see your response.
    What I was trying to prove in my response was that it was Ti. Trying to analyze, using a model. Telling me about myself is like a secondary "fringe benefit". (This type of reason is why I realize I do not really prefer Fi). I was never interested in personality theory until my wife got into the APS, and when I saw how well it explained all of us, and consisted of these interesting symmetries, (which for once in my life, were practical for something), then I got into it for it's own sake, and then when I encountered other systems, I wanted to see how they worked and how they fit.
    As such then yes I'd say it's more of a Te approach than Ti (you're not looking for the optimal points of torque for example).
    OK; I've never heard the term "torque" used in this context before. Are you referring to Ti's "leverage points"? I have used that in seeing what works in fitting the systems together. Again, it may look like I have just pasted two things together, but I did break them down, try different approaches, alter possible connections to see if things fit better.
    Like when it was first suggested that I was NFP, that did not seem to match my APS, though it did jibe with Keirsey's claim that NF was Choleric. Yet I believe he was wrong on that, so I had to look why this was happening. Maybe my theory was wrong. But it seemed to work elsewhere in the types. There was the idea that the NFP's "choleric" traits lied in the Te, so I considered that. But the SFP's have Te in the same place, and they're not considered Choleric. Maybe my theory was right, but my APS score was wrong, and I was really a Phlegmatic in Control. But that didn't seem realistic either. So then if I look like an NFP to everyone because I'm really displaying all of this Te and Fi, I then had to look at the possibility of them being active shadows. I initially was not focusing so much on the functions, but this forced me to really read up on them, and sure enough, both of those functions seem associated with stress and other negative uses, while Ti is not.

    Continuing to try to optimize my model: when I ran across the articles of Roger Bissell (a freelance type theorist who's an INTP, and also sees me as one), and his insignts helped me a lot, and yet he rejects Keirsey's sytem in favor of more "symmetrical" models, and goes into a lot of other possible groupings, such as TP, TJ, FP, FJ, and SP, SJ, NP, NJ. I then looked at those as well. (But still came back to Keirsey/Berens, because they seemed to fit what I was looking for better).

    (Another big Ti trait is "referencing multiple frameworks", and this is what I do when discussing my or anyone's type. I use Keirsey temperament, Interaction Styles, classic temperament, FIRO/APS, cognitive dynamics, or the four letters by themselves).


    Another good point I have completely forgotten to mention all this time is that there is not complete agreement on the relative place the shadow functions really have. To some, they simply follow the primaries, from 5 to 8, but another view suggests that each shadow might be used as much as its primary counterpart. And then when you look at the archetype names, the "good side of the shadows" name for the fifth place ("oppositional") is "backup", which acccording Berens "provides depth to our leading role process, backing it up and enabling us to be more persistent in pursuit of our goals" (and wouldn't this make perfect sense for a process like Te?). So then Ti types would use Te a lot. Again, if Ti takes things apart, they do have to be put back together. And then if the shadow is overdeveloped, like I have been suggesting, then the process would be even more apparent.
    I'm happy with INFP, as much as one can be considering the vagaries of the mediums we're using to communicate. Are you?
    You mean happy with it for me? Not for yourself, right, because you said you were INTP?

  10. #100
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I actually made a couple of mistakes. on I/E, to get the average, I divided the total (29) by 6, instead of 5, for the five scores (Don't know why I got that mixed up; probably from rushing). So it's really 5.8, which falls on the I side, after all. For T/F, I got the wrong total of 22, when it's really 24. So 24/5 is what is 4.8. That's still on the T side, but much closer to the "boundary" with F.

    I question that too, but Hartzler's book Facets Of Type makes it easier to understand and choose from the facets. To take the whole test is300 questions, and about $80 or so. So what someone suggested for me was a "shortcut" to just grade the subscales directly from 0 to 10 0-4 would be the E facet, and 6-10 would be the iI facet. 5 is right in the middle). I got the I/E and T/F ambiguities, so to make sure I was understanding them correctly, I got Hartzler's book, and used the definitions and "activity" examples to help determine them. With around 3 definitions of each facet, and around three exercises for those definitions, that is more like taking the whole test.
    I originally thought it was IT, and this helps confirm it.
    It has always been extremely difficult for me, because I tend to be so skeptical and "questioning". It's just that some of it made sense to me when saw it expressed in a different way. So it was more a logical belief, and it hasn't been disproven, so why assume it's wrong? (Many people who outright reject it are reacting to bad memories and images of past abuses of religion. I myself grew up in an agnostic household, so I did not have those issues, and could look at it more objectively from the outside, and then separate out the nonsense from what good points it made).
    So it's not deeply felt, but more like deply reasoned. The problem is, I end up with an almost purely "intellectual" faith, and cannot muster the emotions others (including my wife) have towards God in singing, praying, etc. It's always been a big problem for me, (especially in a religion famous for putting down logic or "head knowledge only") but I've given up trying to force myself to do those things. I have held on by a string at times.
    That actually fits me exactly as well. I like the idea of it, until it demands from me. (and I think she mixes some shadow Fi with it as well). One site does say that ESFJ's and INTP's are attracted to each other. For an NFP, Fe would be in the shadow range.

    And they emphasized chastity so much (perhaps too much, while other sins are ignoored), so it was engrained that I should wait for marriage, and it was difficult, and inasmuch as I do have some F leanings, the whole connection and ideal relationship thing came into play as well.

    Also, just did cognitiveprocesses over, and this time took my time and really thought more deeply aboit it better. More confiirmation of what I've been saying:

    extraverted Sensing (Se) ******************* (19.1)
    limited use
    introverted Sensing (Si) **************************************** (40)
    excellent use
    extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ************************************************* (49.4)
    excellent use
    introverted Intuiting (Ni) ************ (12.8)
    unused
    extraverted Thinking (Te) ************************ (24.9)
    average use
    introverted Thinking (Ti) ********************************************** (46.5)
    excellent use
    extraverted Feeling (Fe) *********************** (23.9)
    limited use
    introverted Feeling (Fi) *********************** (23)
    limited use

    Summary Analysis of Profile
    By focusing on the strongest configuration of cognitive processes, your pattern of responses most closely matches

    individuals of this type: INTP [however the order of Ti and Ne would suggest ENTP]

    When I really think of it, I really do not understand Fi stuff like "being in touch with/evaluating what you want for your life and what's most imporatant". When people used to ask me stuff like that, I was always "I don't know", or my attitude like "whatever". And it said if you don't understand it, you should put "not me", because the words used are designed to "look good to the right people", and are not for everyone (that was part of the analysis). I really had to strain to try to figure out if I truly evaluate importance (just getting upset when something happens does not seem to be what those questions were getting at). So perhaps Fi should technically be a little higher, but I think this is more accurate, and notice how the functions are more in order now. (No Fi running neck and neck with Ti followed somewhat closely by Te).
    There's a description of how that test works in one of the papers on Dario Nardi's site (the cognitiveprocesses test). I still think some of the questions on that test are a bit misworded, and I told them so in the feedback form. My Ne score was low because I missed all the Ne questions that had the word "random" in them. (I told them, 'the whole point is that it's NOT random',)

    I actually completely disregard that facet stuff, and ever since I read about the facets in a sample MBTI part II report, I've concluded that they're BS. And I keep wondering, What did they base those on? (I bet that it's some circular logic thing where they based it on how people answered step two questions.) Facets schmacets. (according to the step II, am I supposed to 'accomadate' you right now and pretend that I think the facets are for real? OMG, I must not be a real ENFP).

    from INFJ or INFP? a closer look
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More with the stereotypes! Here's the latest: people assume Feeling types are touchy-feely warm and cuddly.

    Nyuh-uh.

    Once you learn about interaction styles, you will discover this image is not necessarily true!

    I had an encounter with an INFJ girlfriend recently who insisted that her husband was more "effie" than she is, and ergo must be a feeling type. My take on the husband was that his preferences were more likely for INTP. But, ironically, INTPs regularly come across as more "effie" than many Fs do. Most of the INTPs I know seem like big cuddly bears, despite their Temperament!

    I've also met a number of INFPs who believe they are NTs because they don't think they are "effie" enough to be an F. But doesn't that make sense?! After all, their Feeling function is introverted, and they don't show it around to everybody. They prefer to feel harmony in their environment -- but that doesn't mean they're some font of outpouring love with everyone they meet! Their Feeling function is directed inwards, not outwards.

    INFJs aren't very "effie" either, I regret to say. We can be rather harsh critics at times, thanks to our extraverted Feeling judgments. Put that in combination with our devotion to Time & Task and our directing style of communication, and it's no wonder so many INFJs believe they're INTJs instead!

    For all Feeling types, Dr. Beebe says that people often make the mistake of assuming Feeling = caring, when in truth, it can sometimes be cold, ruthless, and calculating instead. So some Feeling types can be extremely nasty indeed!

    This is one of those times when "trait" descriptions really get in the way of "pattern" descriptions. People would rather believe all Fs fit some kind of friendly stereotype without taking the time to realize the falsity of this belief. Don't make that mistake

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Warning: The more I hear people spout feeling stereotypes, the bigger bitch I'll be. I suppose the whole forum knows that by now though, huh?

Similar Threads

  1. [INFP] ENFP/INFP differences in dealing with conflict
    By Anomoly in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-25-2015, 07:06 PM
  2. [ENFP] ENFPs & INFPs: Our Relationship
    By Adasta in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 10-13-2011, 04:14 PM
  3. [ENFP] ENFP/INFP relationship
    By tortoise in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-10-2010, 08:55 PM
  4. [MBTItm] ENFP / INFP couples?
    By Mighty Mouse in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 08-31-2010, 12:25 PM
  5. [MBTItm] ENFP-INFP: How much emotion and vulnerability do you show others?
    By heart in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 05-22-2010, 10:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO