Yes, but then why didn't I do that, if we are the same, functionally i.e. Ji - Ne - Si - Je?
OP #5 you asked basically an "extraverted" question; i.e. focused on the outside world. So of course he turned to his preferred extraverted perspective. (hence, "possibilities" of what others would think). On your answer, you again used instinctual variants only, but even still, you do reference possibilities (how people "can" see you, how you "can" come off, how you think you don't come off, with even an admission of uncertainty)It's not side-stepping. It's realizing the flaws of the system.
#6 I see Ti. What you seem to be doing is interpreting all his Ti as Enneagram 5, and it may match somehow, but you seem to be using one system to sidestep elements of the other, to place him in a type of that other. That doesn't make senseI disagree because...
#11, don't forget that Fe is inferior, so a young INTP will likely complain just as much, if not more, about social values. This is when Lenore's theory of the "right brain alternative" (Fi "Crow's Nest") would come in as well.I don't buy this. I don't think cognitive function development occurs this linearly among people. In fact, I think it's highly unlikely that people are going to differentiate their auxiliary fully even at old age. This is why Jung is more concerned about the dominant than the auxiliary or tertiary. I can attest that my auxiliary is not fully differentiated. I have a preference towards extraverting it, but in a general sense I can consciously direct it as being either Ne or Ni. I notice this very clearly when I was studying anthropology because when I'm performing symbol analysis there is a change in my perception. I'm suddenly looking at a different kind of data.
(It should also be noted that the ages of development of aux. and afterward will vary. My tertiary Si developed young; beginning around 12, while the tert. is often said to develop in the 20's. So it doesn't matter which of you is older (by just 7 years, yet).I think this is mostly because a) people don't score honestly or exaggerate or b) Nardi's questions are poorly phrased or c) people are uinque and aside having a dominant preference everything else below that is simply a mess.
Feeling being undifferentiated right there should be the defining identifier of it as inferior. The aux. should be developed by his age. It's possible for it to not be, but I think that is probably rare.
That's also why you have Lenore's theory, which says that the Fi might even show up before Fe. Many people's K2C results even match this.I don't think it's a making it confusing. I think it's making it correct. You're simplifying, not seeing the depth. You look at the surface level but instead of penetrating further you stop. Ultimately, what type would you give me according to the questionnaire? And yes, I focused on enneagram because it was the most discernable but also because it's important to realize that a need for authenticity as in my case has to do with enneagram, not Fi. There are plenty of Fi types who are not 4-fixed or 4 core. I just happened to be one. I also wanted to show the difference to the OP between a 4 and a 6 wing. Anyway, the point wasn't about my personal self-analysis (that was for the OP anyway, not you), but about the content of the answers I provided.
Yes, I believe they parallel, and I believe the Enneagram seems to match this parallel, but again, the way you're doing it, you have one system tacked on as an appendage, that you use as a contrary explanation of something that can be described by the functions. So the OP, instead of simply being an INTP becomes an "ENFP5", because everything he does that looks like "Ti", is really this fifth variable, the Enneagram type. This to me seems to be making it more confusing.
Also, another point I want to raise is that if you claim the inferior is not fully differentiated, then the dominant cannot be since the inferior will always be of the opposite function and attitude to that of the dominant. And that simply doesn't make a lot of sense at all.