You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.
One broad argument I will make is that all you have to go on for my type is what I say about myself on this forum. I see it as entirely possible that I am portraying an image of myself that is not in line with who I am, and that perhaps if you knew me in person you would see how I differ from an N.
However, I will re-read your posts and think it through and give a reply to each of the points you have raised shortly. I will try to suspend judgement of what type I think I am and analyse myself with less bias, however I am inevitably going to push for the ISTJ case since it is quite solidified in my mind at this point that this is my type. I am interested to know however if I have indeed mistyped myself.
I've now read quite a few of your TC posts, and this triple-post is mostly a roundup of some of them with type-related commentary.
I previously linked you to a couple of posts of mine (one and two) with T/F input, and you've obviously looked at them. Here's a bit of supplemental recycled reckful on the issue of INFs mistyping as INTs:
Of the four MBTI dimensions, T/F is the dimension where I'm least satisfied with the standard ways MBTI sources tend to describe the essence of the dimension, so I think there may be a greater possibility with T/F than with the other three dimensions that someone might end up with mixed or in-the-middle results, or otherwise confused, even though they really have a significant preference. Besides being somewhat entangled with male/female, I think T/F may well turn out to be two or more personality dimensions somewhat incorrectly rolled into one — with the result that, to a substantially greater degree than the other three MBTI dimensions, it may be fairly common for someone to be, in effect, a T (and even a fairly strong T) with respect to certain T/F facets and an F (and even a fairly strong F) with respect to certain other T/F facets.
I think it's not uncommon for INFs to test as INTs, at least partly because many of the F choices on typical MBTI tests (including the official test) are choices that are more likely to appeal to SFs and EFs than INFs — and I think that's probably more true of female INFs than male INFs. I think male F's are often aware that they differ from cultural male stereotypes in ways that make them more "F-ish" than average whereas, by contrast, I think INF women who compare themselves to cultural female stereotypes — not to mention the majority of actual women — are reasonably likely to think of themselves as more T-ish than those "feeler" women (EFs, SFs and, especially, ESFs).
I also think the T-ward skew tends to be somewhat greater for INFJs than INFPs. In any case, it's certainly been my experience that it's considerably more common for an INFJ (male or female) to mistype as INTJ (and later conclude they're really INFJ) than vice versa. I think that, in some ways, it's fair to say that INFJs are both the "least F" of the F's and the "least NF" of the NFs.
As a supplemental note, and just in case you're a glutton for punishment, this l-o-n-g "T/F's a mess" post (at PerC) has a lot of further explanation of why I think T/F may be a tangled dimension where, at least for some people, it may not be realistic to think they can end up positioning themselves in a single location along anything like a unified spectrum.
I think I am a mild T who happens to be a nice person. I believe I have more T traits than F, but I may idealise F's so highlight these aspects of myself more.
Another potential complicating factor when it comes to MBTI typing is that, as you probably know, there's a well-established fifth temperament dimension that isn't included in the Myers-Briggs typology and is often referred to as "neuroticism" (although it isn't a psychological disorder). The Big Five/SLOAN typology labels it Emotional Stability and refers to the two poles as Calm and Limbic. Being Limbic on that dimension tends to be associated with, among other things, anxiety/worry-proneness; emotional sensitivity/volatility; proneness to annoyance/irritation; self-consciousness; and (sometimes) depression. I'm Limbic, and it makes me less of a cucumber than some of my fellow INTJs, and it sounds to me like you're Limbic as well. And it can sometimes muddy the waters for somebody trying to figure out their T/F preference.
If you're interested, the Big Five test I generally point people to is this similarminds Big Five/SLOAN test, which will (purport to) type you on the Emotional Stability dimension — in addition to the four Big Five dimensions with substantial MBTI correlations. And I've put some more information about the Big Five and that similarminds test in the spoiler.
Here's a table that shows which Big Five dimension essentially corresponds to which MBTI dimension:
SLOAN dimension
SLOAN poles
corresponding MBTI poles
Extroversion
Reserved vs. Social
I vs. E
Emotional Stability
Limbic vs. Calm
n/a
Orderliness
Unstructured vs. Organized
P vs. J
Accommodation
Egocentric vs. Accommodating
T vs. F
Inquisitiveness
Non-Curious vs. Inquisitive
S vs. N
I kind of like the linked Big Five test both because I think it does an OK typing job and also because, unlike the official MBTI and many of the online type tests, it's not "forced choice." It gives you five choices for each question — an "in the middle" choice as well as mild or strong in each direction. For that reason, it's reasonable to expect the SLOAN percentage scores to have something to say about the strength of your preferences. With a forced choice test, that's not really true. Somebody with, say, a mild S preference could easily take a forced choice test and, assuming they knew themselves well and interpreted the questions properly, end up choosing the S response for almost all (or all) of the questions, with the result being a very high S score. (That said, I think scores that are close to the middle on forced choice tests tend to be some indication that your preference on that dimension — in whichever direction — is probably on the mild side.)
BUT NOTE: Although I kind of like the similarminds SLOAN test, I don't think much of the corresponding personality type descriptions at the similarminds site, for a number of reasons, one of which is: Most MBTI sources reflect the perspective that it isn't better to have one preference rather than its opposite on any of the four MBTI dimensions. The descriptions at the similarminds site, on the other hand — somewhat consistent with Big Five sources generally — definitely favor Accommodating over Egocentric (F over T) and Organized over Unstructured (J over P). And if you're Limbic (even mildly), that earns you a negative-adjective bonanza. So I recommend using the similarminds test as a sort of double-check/quantifier for the MBTI dimensions, but I think the personality descriptions in a typical MBTI source are better.
In case you end up taking either of the tests I've linked to, I'd be curious to see your scores, but only take them if you really want to for your own purposes.
Openness to Experience/Intellect
High scorers tend to be original, creative, curious, complex; Low scorers tend to be conventional, down to earth, narrow interests, uncreative.
You are somewhat conventional. (Your percentile: 20)
Conscientiousness
High scorers tend to be reliable, well-organized, self-disciplined, careful; Low scorers tend to be disorganized, undependable, negligent.
You tend to do things somewhat haphazardly. (Your percentile: 35)
Extraversion
High scorers tend to be sociable, friendly, fun loving, talkative; Low scorers tend to be introverted, reserved, inhibited, quiet.
You probably enjoy spending quiet time alone. (Your percentile: 1)
Agreeableness
High scorers tend to be good natured, sympathetic, forgiving, courteous; Low scorers tend to be critical, rude, harsh, callous.
You find it easy to criticize others. (Your percentile: 17)
Neuroticism
High scorers tend to be nervous, high-strung, insecure, worrying; Low scorers tend to be calm, relaxed, secure, hardy.
You tend to become anxious or nervous. (Your percentile: 71)
I put the adjectives which best describe me in bold.
We now move to the post round-up...
I'd say trolling is more characteristic of P's than J's, with TP's being the most prone, and FP's more sensitive to not being hurtful.
Being "a bit blind to the negative effects" is a more likely T weakness than F.
Yeah, but how much trolling did you really see when going through my posts? The occasional joke here and there... but I don't think there's a lot? I would say I want to not be hurtful, because, rationally I would see this is a bad outcome. I think being blind to effects fits me better than being sensitive to it though.
As you'll see, I think your "main mistype" is INTP partly because you're an IN.
Well, I used to mistype that way since it's the first things I scored in an MBTI test.
Writing music — and particularly music that's "unique and unlike anything else I've heard" — is significantly more characteristic of INs than ISs, as is writing poetry and "philosophical writings" (particularly if they're "quite imaginative").
Hmm... I don't want to make it sound like I write a lot of music or write great poetry or overly imaginative philosophy. I like to play around with my ideas in an artistic fashion, but it's not something I put all that much effort into. I don't think showing creativity means I am an N, even if it uses an N function, especially since I don't do that much of it.
If this is how ISTs talk about the nature of existence, how do you think INFs talk about it?
Couldn't any type be capable of writing something like that? I mean, for all you know I could have read someone else say that same thing, and taken it on as my own thought.
It doesn't matter if you "don't really relate to any" of your supposed type's descriptions if it doesn't matter if you're correctly typed or not.
Well, it does matter to me if I am correctly typed, but I just don't think a single description can really capture the variety present in a type, especially if the person is somewhat of an outlier for their type.
This was your answer to the question, "Which MBTI type do you get along most in real life?" And it's a pretty unlikely answer for an IST.
Myers and Keirsey had somewhat different perspectives when it came to the most meaningful way to group the 16 types, but one thing they both agreed on is that, when it comes to relating to other people, S/N is the dichotomy that makes the biggest difference. Somebody who's an N is likely to find that most of the people who feel like "kindred spirits" are fellow N's.
I just went by what types my friends happened to be. Now my answer would be different because I have somewhat different friends. I don't think I really get on better or worse with one type over another, but I tend to be friends with N because they are more likely to be intelligent or appreciative of intelligence.
I don't see Ns as being kindred spirits. I see them as fascinating, and people I can learn a lot from, but whenever I meet someone who I see as the most similar to myself, I tend to type them as an SJ - whether I am accurate in my assessment or not is a different story.
See previous comment. Keirsey believed in "complementary opposite" attractions, and Myers stressed that, although "birds of a feather" marriages were the most common, there also appeared to be something to the "opposites attract" notion. But both Myers and Keirsey stressed that matching on S/N appeared to be the most important match for compatibility purposes.
Never say never, of course, and there are unquestionably romantic relationships involving every possible MBTI pairing — but as a typical matter, ENFPs are not not not attracted to ISTJs. If one or two ENFPs had shown an interest in you at some point, that would be one thing, but the fact that "the majority of girls to show interest" have been ENFP is worth N points.
SJs often complain about the fact that MBTI descriptions have a tendency to portray them as the most predictable/boring/conventional types, but it's not like there's nothing to that notion (relatively speaking) — and as among the other types, I think it's fair to say that the NFPs are among the types most likely to view SJs in those terms.
Well, when I said that, I had the belief that ENFP and ISTJ were an ideal pairing, a la socionics, and I no longer have a firm view of what types are most ideal for each other. I do think that girls who show interest in me have tended to be NFP, but I'm not sure just what percentage have, really there have only been a few of them. It could have other explanations why I saw this trend.
And similarly, in the "Those with no romantic partner... do you have a specific type in mind for a romance?" thread, you said...
NFs tend to be intelligent and have a more moral outlook, which are things I appreciate.
That's from the thread, "What draws different types to MBTI, Enneagram, Instinct etc..." And it's an intellectual IN's reply, not a practical, down-to-earth IS's reply.
How would an IS reply? I will say that, since it's the internet, I have time to structure my post, so I could be drawing upon my N even if it is not natural for me? And what about the contend of what the post says - isn't the fact that I keep up with the same interest for a long period of time indicative of being an SJ?
Needless to say, personality type is about tendencies and probabilities, and you should virtually never say never, and there are unquestionably a fair number of S's with some interest in personality. But the more extreme (and/or non-sensible) somebody's manifestation of a type-related characteristic is, the less likely it generally is that they're on the opposite side of the relevant dimension. Somebody who "spends so much time absorbed in Jungian typology that ... it could be called a religion" — and, more generally, is prone to "obsessions" with "things such as MBTI" (i.e., philosophical and/or theoretical and/or psychological stuff) — is not very likely to be an S.
Well, there are plenty of S's on this forum. Personally I think an MBTI obsession could be the result of an overused but not very effective N function, because honestly I am terrible at the whole typing thing and the whole venture has been somewhat of a waste of time.
As you may remember from my J/P roundup, I think it sometimes makes more sense to look to J/P (or any other type-related preference) to explain why someone's more likely to err in one direction than another. Someone who's viewed as temperamentally inclined to take things too seriously is somewhat more likely to be a J, and someone who's more likely to laugh when he "probably shouldn't" than not laugh when he should is somewhat more likely to be a P.
And similarly, if someone describes themselves as generally "indecisive," that's worth a P point, and if somebody describes themselves as "insanely" indecisive, that's arguably worth two or three P points.
Yeah, I'm not sure why it is that I laugh so much. I like humour. I think this is just a quirk of mine ad unrelated to type.
"Insanely" was an exaggeration I suppose, but I am definitely indecisive and others have described me as such. I think this might be common for IJs? Your experience may say otherwise...
The men most likely to manifest traditional "gender roles"? ST men. The least likely? NF men.
How is it that ST men come to manifest a gender role? Isn't this learned behaviour?
Significantly more characteristic of N's than S's, methinks. Threads at INTJforum have made it pretty clear that, when it comes to friendship (as opposed to SOs), male INTJs have a significant tendency to prefer female company and female INTJs have a significant tendency to prefer male company.
Well, throughout all of high school I didn't really have any female friends. Now I do, but I also have male friends. I prefer being around a female because it's just... nice. I don't know that it is type related, except it may point to my interest in the feeling function, whether or not I happen to be a feeler.
This was your response to the question, "What would your ideal wife be like?" And honest to freaking god, Legion, if this is an IST response, what do you think an INF response would sound like — and on the other side, what types are the vast numbers of men who'd be very unlikely to answer the question that way?
I don't think there is a direct correspondance between someone's type and how they would answer that question. Intelligence is only correlated with N, and spirituality may be as well but anyone can be spiritual. I think I was painting the picture of an NF a bit, but this might just suggest I have a thing for NFs.
Pretty much anyone who isn't a sociopath experiences at least some discomfort from hurting others, but I'd say this post is worth an F point or two.
I agree that this is worth an F point, and I see myself as having a fairly good F side for a T, but I think I am more of a T overall. However, I believe in the function model, in which my functions are Si-Te-Fi-Ne, with extra introversion, so that the Te and Fi are really close together.
Honest to freaking god, Legion, if this is an IST reading list, what do you think an INF reading list looks like? (Does that question have a familiar ring? )
Well, it's not that I read a lot. I don't even tend to finish the books I read. I imagine an INF would have a much wider variety of books. I also have no idea what an IST would read about. Maybe if I was exposed to IST reading material I would find it more captivating, who knows. I agree that Ns are more likely to have written the books I like to read, but this just means I am drawn to intuition, not that I use it myself.
As among ST, SF, NT and NF, I'd say NF is definitely the best match for the particular mix in that "ideal self" list.
Well, I think the thing about an ideal self is that it can be completely different from your actual self. If I were to give a type to my ideal self, it would be ENFJ, but that probably indicated that I am very far from an ENFJ.
As a hobby activity — no lie! — Mystery Type Subject 387 has recently embarked on a "cognitive function based model of language processing."
More likely an S guy or an N guy? Hmmm. Can I think about that and get back to you?
Meh, it was just one page of writing. A single idea I had that wasn't too well developed. I may have been using N, I don't know, but that doesn't mean I am strong in the area.
Yes, that did sound pretty N. I have intellectual interests, but is it really me? I see it more as that I am intelligent, and so I go for things I see a typical intelligent person as liking. What interests would an intelligent S have, if things like maths and philosophy aren't appealing? I will note that I was better at maths in high school than university, and I failed the only essay-based philosophy course I took.
Yes, this is probably my F-side, but I think the post makes it sounds like I am more F than I actually am.
Viewing yourself as a "philosopher" is worth an N point or two, as is finding that you're something of a brain-twin with an INTP (assuming he was correctly typed).
And as far as "subjective" type vs. "objective" type is concerned, I already gave you a quote from the MBTI Manual about the proper ("shoes off") frame of mind for taking the official MBTI.
I often describe the MBTI preferences — at least in terms of many of their aspects — as "temperament tugs." In cases where you're conflicted and one side of the conflict is more the "gut level" or "natural inclination" you and the other side is a more rational/calculating side of you that, to some degree, wants to rein in (or thinks you should rein in) your more natural inclinations for the sake of external results or for any other reason, your MBTI preference is more likely to correspond to your natural inclination.
I think viewing myself as a philosopher means I view myself as an N perhaps, not that I actually have one.
As for the natural inclination... it's hard to tell, I mean even though I was answering quickly there was still a quick level of calculation going on. I don't know how I would answer that sort of thing completely naturally.
Yes, I am aware. However they are also, I believe characterised by introversion, and I think I relate more to 6 and 9 now than I do to 4 and 5. Type 9 being strong perhaps ties into why I can seem a bit like a feeler. To put all 9 types in order I would say I relate to 6 > 9 > 4 > 5 > 1 > 3 > 2 > 8 > 7
Describing yourself as "an intellectual, basing my self-concept around my philosophies and mathematical abilities" sounds much more like an N talking than an S talking.
Or, someone who -sees- themself as an N. This may not be the case in reality. I don't think the statement is even true.
The fact that you've been described as "Jesus-like in my attempts to calm down arguments" is a significantly better fit for INF than INT (and ditto for ISF > IST). Have you ever heard Jesus typed as an IST?
Don't take that quote too seriously... it was only the one time when I was drunk that I was referencing. When I'm drunk and everyone else is drunk, there tends to be more conflict, and I gain confidence so I feel able to help calm people down. Sometimes people say I look a bit like Jesus because I often have a beard. I don't think I am actually anything like Jesus in personality, it's just something I thought would be interesting to say...
Similarly, feeling sick in the face of conflict is significantly more characteristic of F's than T's.
Yeah, possibly so. However, I think it is especially when the conflict involves me. I don't think I react that strongly if others are in conflict independent of myself.
And viewing yourself as "somewhat generous, people-pleasing, helpful," besides being more characteristic of F's than T's, is also probably less characteristic of INTs (in particular) than any of the other N types.
I see it as being weak-willed... I don't assert myself so I tend to give into the demands of others. With enneagram, I see it as the 9-fix, but I don't know how strongly I believe in enneagram anyway. It's useful for descibring things though.
Seeing yourself as "unique," and saying that would be "one of the first adjectives to describe myself," is classic E4, as you know, and quintesentially NF in MBTI terms. And what "quintessentially NF" means is that NFs are the most likely types to view themselves in those terms, but also (1) that an N is more likely than an S to view themselves in those terms, (2) that an F is more likely than a T to view themselves in those terms, and (3) that an ST is the least likely type to view themselves in those terms.
Yeah, but an ST who comes across as an NF would be pretty unique, no? So... if I am an ST I think it would make sense to describe myself that way because I happen to be different from most people you will come across.
Others viewing you as a "thinker and overthinker" reflects the fact that you're an IN substantially more than it suggests T over F.
Hmm... I thought it was being reserved (the thinking) and limbic (the overthinking). What makes this N?
Low self esteem is somewhat more characteristic of P's than J's. As you know from my previously-linked J/P roundup, one of the six facets of the Big Five equivalent of a J preference on the NEO-PI-R is Competence, and here's part of McCrae & Costa's description: "This facet refers to the sense that one is capable, sensible, prudent, and effective. High scorers on this scale feel well prepared to deal with life. Of all the Conscientiousness facet scales, competence is most highly associated with self-esteem and internal locus of control. Low scorers have a lower opinion of their abilities and admit that they are often unprepared and inept."
Being obsessed with something sounds like having narrow interests to me, which is an S thing. However I know an N who also has an MBTI obsession. Personally, I think an N would be better at using the system if they became so obsessed with it, whereas an S like myself would be useless at it...
None of your explanation for why you "relate" to "type 6" is inconsistent with an IN (and especially an INF) who's significantly above-average in neuroticism. The Enneagram associates "anxiety" with certain Enneagram types (including 5 and 6, but not 4), but the fact is that any MBTI type can be neurotic (in Big Five terms), and the statistics indicate that an INF is no less likely to exhibit anxiety/neuroticism issues than an ISF. And on the other hand, the fact that you're "having a hard time ... seeing how I focus on 'security'" is a meaningful non-E6 indicator, and would be more characteristic of an NJ than an SJ, and also more characteristic of an NP than an NJ.
As for why you relate to type 5, the fact that you're "quite ... intellectual with my interests" is, again, a good N indicator — and I'd also say that describing your interests as "dark" is maybe somewhat more characteristic of INPs than INJs. And the fact that you see yourself as having more "interest with friendships" than a typical E5 is worth an F point or two.
Hmm... idk! I may focus on security, perhaps to a very strong degree, the word just sounded off. Again, there is the problem of how I see myself in terms of the words I use to describe myself... and how I actually am in reality.
As among the IN types, I'd say feeling like you "couldn't manipulate someone if my life depended on it" is most characteristic of INFPs.
Is an ISTJ particularly manipulative though? I wouldn't think they are. I've read about how ISTJs are very honest and can't stand mind games, and I very much agree with that. Now... the fact that I might be describing myself in ways which are out of line with who I am, might suggest that I am not honest at least with myself, but I do get comments on how honest I am.
Keirsey stressed that the NFs were the most storybook-romantic types, and I agree. Especially for a male, your wish to "find someone who will complete me and become my everything" is significantly more characteristic of INF than INT, and the focus on helping each other grow is also more quintessentially NF than NT.
I think it's fair to say that, of all the types, male INTs are the most aloof, and the least likely to be described as having their lives revolve around their relationships. It's not that INTs don't love their mates; but their mates aren't likely to be their "everything" — even in their fantasies.
I don't think I am storybook romantic. It is just a part of who I am.
Describing "being good" as the "primary purpose of life" — and saying "I wish to see everything as good because it is part of the greater whole, and love in turn generates love" — are worth F points.
Why wouldn't someone want to do good though? Isn't that the point of everything that exists, to be good? If you have two options to choose, you choose the one with the better outcome, and if you are an objective person, you focus on the better outcome for the whole. :/
The drive to "learn all I can" is quintessentially IN — and not T > F.
yeah, but do I really live up to this drive? I don't think I spend much time learning.
The emphasis on creativity is significantly more characteristic of N's than S's (more here), and the way you worded it — "I see myself as having creative talents and I wish to unleash my creativity and create something which is truly me" — has a little more of an INF flavor than an INT flavor.
I was being dramatic with that wording... it's probably not very accurate. Personally I think any type can be creative, just like they can be intelligent, though there is probably a good correlation.
On helping people and serving others (as well as some other INF vs. INT issues), here's a substantial slab of recycled reckful from another TC type-me thread:
In your last post, you said, "All feelers have something in common, but an introverted feeler doesn't use his feelings the same way as extroverted feeler does." As you know, I have my doubts about whether Fe vs. Fi (at least as they're slotted in the most popular functions model) is the best way to frame this issue, but I couldn't agree more that some types of F's are "feelers" in a way that others definitely aren't.
You've said that one of the reasons you've wondered about whether INFP really fits you is "I have a hard time to relate to how caring and nice and sensitive natures xNFPs seem to be. I don't see myself like that at all. I am sensitive, but I don't know if in the way of being a feeler. I can't imagine myself being in some caring position, or nurture others."
Well... first of all, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that at least half the population is made up of F's. [According to this source,] the official MBTI folks are apparently now estimating that, whereas 43.4% of men are F's, only 24.4% of women are T's — which suggests that something like 60% of the population may be F's. But in any case, even if you just assume that around half of people are F's, has it been your experience that around half of the population is made up of people who are notably "caring and nice and sensitive" and prone to "nurture others"? No? I didn't think so.
I've been participating in type-me threads for four years now (mostly at INTJforum) and, in my experience, it's not uncommon for INFs to test as INTs. ...
In particular, it seems to be pretty common for INFs (female or male) to question their F preference because of what they see as their relative lack (compared to some of the other F types) in terms of things like outwardly-directed emotional warmth and active helping/service behavior. And I think introversion and an N preference can each make some contribution to what an INF may view as that kind of "lack of F." I think an N preference tends to be associated with a significant degree of what you might call emotional detachment. Myers referred to SFs — rather than the F's in general — as the "sympathetic and friendly types." And Jung went on and on about introverts' fraught relationship with their emotional side. "Both [extraverts and introverts] are capable of enthusiasm," he explained. "What fills the extravert's heart flows out of his mouth, but the enthusiasm of the introvert is the very thing that seals his lips."
I'd say all the INs (INFs and INTs both) share at least some significant potential to be the kind of people who will more often feel deeply and meaningfully stirred by aesthetic experiences than by their day-to-day interactions with others. And I think it's reasonably characteristic of an INFP for their F preference to be more prone to take the form of a drive to somehow "serve humanity" or "make the world a better place" than a service-to-others streak directed at the people they're interacting with on a day-to-day basis. I'd say passionate involvement in, e.g., environmental or other progressive causes is pretty characteristic of INFPs. And an INFP artist's desire for self-expression is reasonably likely to include at least some sense that the people who read her novels or poetry or whatever and are exposed to her perspective will be enlightened or otherwise have their lives improved.
And I'd also say that there's no question that an INFP — and especially an INFP with no family responsibilities — can end up being a fairly self-absorbed person (and you've described yourself as "more self-absorbed than sacrificing"). Not selfish in the sense of being unfair to others or wanting more than her share or otherwise violating the golden rule, but self-absorbed in the sense that, consistent with some of the NF descriptions in my last post, her goals of self-discovery, self-improvement, self-expansion, experiencing life "in the full," etc. are her central focus, rather than any kind of service-to-others drive.
It's also not uncommon to find INFs questioning their F (as you have) because they see themselves as more logical and analytical than they think "feelers" tend to be. (You said, " I am too ... rational to be a feeling type.") But the notion that F's are people who just let their emotions (or some non-logical "feeling function") make their decisions for them is one that doesn't even apply that well to ESFs, and certainly doesn't fit INFs well. All four of the IN types (INTs and INFs both) tend to be notably analytical (including a significant degree of analytical detachment from their emotions), and to bring logic into play when they're making important decisions. All other things being equal, an INF is more likely than an INT to feel like her emotions are significant and may have something important to tell her, but the devoted scrutiny an INF gives to her emotions is likely to include a healthy dose of critical analysis, rather than just blind acceptance.
In a couple of posts, you've mentioned that you "relate well to Ti" — but, notwithstanding the most popular cognitive functions model, the fact is that most INs, partly for the reasons I've just described (their highly analytical natures), tend to feel like they relate pretty well to substantial parts of typical Ti descriptions. As one collection of evidence, and as further discussed in [the spoiler in this post,] INTJs are supposed to be Te types but there's a 350-post thread at INTJforum that shows that, when INTJs take Nardi's keys2cognition functions test, they get high Te scores and high Ti scores — and Te really isn't substantially favored over Ti.
So... my arguments for not being F are not inconsistent with be an IF... interesting, and I can see how I might indeed be an IF, but based on the functions Te auxiliary with Fi tertiary makes the most sense to me. I think the main reason I doubt being an F is that I am not at all emotionally expressive, and I think even an IF would show much more emotional expression than I do. I know the female IFs that I know do, and I can't say I know many male IFs to compare with.
Yeah, baby. Further the progression of humanity towards transcendence is, like, the typical IST's mantra.
Hey, why not? I -sometimes- think or write about that sort of thing because I see it as important. I think any type can show the traits of any other type, but they may not be the predominant traits of the person. This is just something that makes up who I am, not the primary part.
Earth to Legion! Earth to Legion! If I may ask you to "perceive the world through your previous experience of it" for a moment...
According to offical MBTI statistics, S's appear to outnumber N's by about a two-to-one margin, buuut that still means that something like 30% of the population is made up of N's. Has it really been your "previous experience" of the world that something like 30% of people don't tend to "take note of the things they experience, [and] store it away for future reference," but instead "focus on inspiration at the expense of observation" to the point that the resulting "loss of touch with reality" is anything like "indicative of psychosis"?
I was recently involved in the type-me thread of a pretty clear J at INTJforum, but he viewed his J/P preference as unclear partly because, as he explained, "I also understand that I can't control every single thing happening in this world," and that "I can't exert my will on everything around me," and he said he was "open to the idea that something external and unplanned might screw everything up." And I explained to him that he was thinking in terms of a cartoonishly extreme version of J, and that if he treated P-ish tendencies the same way, he'd likely have a considerably stronger no-way-that's-me reaction than he had to his exaggerated versions of J-ish tendencies.
And it seems to me that that's what you've done to N. You understand that you're considerably more "philosophical" than the average Joe, and "quite imaginative," and that your reading list tends toward the likes of Jung (including his more esoteric stuff) and Crowley and the Tao Te Ching, and that your conception of the world includes important slots for "transcendance" and the "fractal nature of creation," and so on, but somehow you've managed to convince yourself that people with an N preference are people whose temperamental skew in the direction of immateriality-over-reality is so extreme that they barely "take note" of the actual world.
And speaking as a well-grounded (if I do say so myself) and yet strong N INTJ, I'm here to tell you that you're really straw-manning the nature of an N preference. And that I don't spend most of my time "extrapolating some grand meaning from my experiences."
There are undoubtedly people who are more "philosophical" and "imaginative" and "creative" than you, but are you among the more philosophical/imaginative/creative 30% of the population? Yes, you are. And I don't think it's a close call, really.
Ok... I didn't mean to straw-man. I didn't mean to put across the idea that I have a good idea of what N is whatsoever, but I was just saying how that particular description applied to myself. I couldn't fit it to how I am, and the best I could come up with was draw a link to how I am when I am psychotic, which is not to say that I think Ns are psychotic.
If I was an N, and being obsessed with MBTI, wouldn't I have a much better understanding of what it means to have a particular dichotomy in MBTI? I mean, the best I can do is repeat some words I have heard used to describe the function, though I think I would do better by thinking about the people I know who are Ns and seeing what they have in common. Only, I don't really have the ability to determine what a group of people have in common. I would have to do it very slowly like... ok this person does this, does this person do it as well? Yeah, what about this one? No they don't... hm.
How do I manage to type people at all if I don't know what makes a certain type what it is? Well, you see, I have a friend who told me the types of a bunch of people, and I am good at telling if one person reminds me of another person I know (very Si of me) so I draw the conclusion that they are the same type, then I check my vague understanding of the dichotomies or functions to see if it is consistent.
And here I think you're really misinterpreting what it means for an average S to be more likely than an average N to be content with a job that basically involves doing the same thing (something they're already good at) over and over, rather than being at least semi-regularly faced with new challenges and/or the need to expand their existing skill-set and/or to come up with new ideas/approaches/products.
You say you favor jobs that involve "the same thing over and over," but your explanation reflects a cynical attitude on your part that your job is not going to be something you're particularly interested in or passionate about — and therefore you'd prefer that it be a mindless job so that your mind is freed up to think about non-job-related things that actually interest you while your body (on "autopilot") takes care of the job-related tasks.
If you instead imagine that you're forced to choose a job that really calls for your full mental attention (no thinking about Jungian typology or fractal dynamics while you work), I expect you belong in the 30% of the population whose ideal job along those lines would be one that involved more imagination/creativity and/or intellectual problem-solving, rather than one where each week's tasks were essentially identical to the week before's, and creativity (or expanding your knowledge or skill-set) was rarely on the agenda.
Well, if I look at my day to day life, I tend to do the same thing each day. I don't think I would have much difficulty doing the same thing each day in a job. I really don't know if a more imaginative, problem-solving job would fit me. I would like to make use of my intelligence.
I took the Holland codes test the other day which says what sort of jobs you see yourself as being suited to, and I scored Conventional > Investigative > Social > Artistic > Realistic > Entrepreneurial.
I wouldn't say I have a strong lean for you one way or the other on J/P. Maybe a mild J lean, but I suspect that, whichever preference you have, it may be pretty close to the borderline. And I'm not one to rule out the "X" (effectively in-the-middle) possibility on any of the MBTI dimensions, and if you're interested, you can read more about that in this post,this post, and the two posts linked to at the very end of that second post.
I would say I am more like a J than a P, tbh. I'm just a lazy and indecisive one.
I'm not a big Thomson fan, and mainly pointed to her T/F table just as a way of showing that even the more function-centric modern MBTI theorists had moved quite a ways from Jung's framing of T/F as essentially involving two separate "cognitive functions" that people used to make judgments and decisions, with T more "logical" and F involving some kind of alternative, not-very-well-described emotional-yet-"rational" function that F's mostly looked to instead of logic and T's didn't really use much — and that modern T/F descriptions more often revolve around a set of people/relationship-oriented concerns that make those modern MBTI descriptions more consistent with the corresponding Big Five factor (which McCrae & Costa describe as "primarily a dimension of interpersonal tendencies") than Jung's original T/F framing was.
And most importantly, and as previously discussed earlier in this post, the way an F preference is likely to manifest in an INFP, for example, is substantially different from the way it's likely to manifest in an ESFJ when it comes to things like being a "people person" (in various ways), having a service-to-others streak, tending to adopt "group values," and etc. As one example, and as previously noted, an INFP may well be the likeliest type to end up fitting the "self-absorbed artist" label, in which case you're talking about an F whose "people" orientation manifests partly in an interest in self-exploration and self-expression, and partly in an interest in sharing their perspectives with others through their art (and being appreciated/validated by their audience).
And consistent with my earlier discussion of why INFs have a tendency to mistype as INTs, I'd say the F side of Thomson's table is likely to be a better fit for a typical EF and/or SF than a typical INF — and that would go double for a guy who describes himself as "more introverted than anyone I've ever met."
Similarly, an introvert — and particularly a relatively extreme introvert (whether IT or IF) — is not going to tend to be "relationship focused" in the way that an extravert tends to be.
Ok... so again IF isn't out of the question. I think an emotion is rational because it is a judgement of something. I see myself as preferring more detached forms of reasoning.
After I gave you a quote from the MBTI Manual about the right frame of mind for taking the MBTI, you said...
And again, I think that's because you're almost certainly an N, and probably an F.
I might pick N and F for reasons other than being an N and an F.
I suspect that one reason you may think SJ would be a better match for you than it really is is that you've bought into one or more aspects of "Si" characterizations that are based too closely on Jung's original conception of introverted sensation. So I've put some recycled reckful on that issue (just posted at PerC) in the next spoiler.
As a second point, several posts in this thread have suggested that the best way to solve the problem of inconsistencies and misunderstandings is for people to go back to Jung's original descriptions — and that, not to put too fine a point on it, is just ridiculous.
Here's some recycled reckful on that subject [(from this post)]:
Jung was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality. Myers adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she'd gathered from thousands of subjects, and by the end of the 1950s (as McCrae and Costa have acknowledged), she had a typology (and an instrument) that was respectably tapping into four of the Big Five personality dimensions — long before there really was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that identical twins raised in separate households are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs, which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to real, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality. They're a long way from being simply theoretical — or pseudoscientific — categories with no respectable evidence behind them.
McCrae and Costa are the leading Big Five psychologists, and they've studied both Jung and the MBTI. In the same article I linked to at the top of this post, they noted — correctly — that Jung's typology erred in lumping various psychological characteristics together that decades of studies have shown are not significantly correlated. By contrast, after Myers was finished adjusting Jung's system to fit the data, she had a modified version whose dichotomies passed muster by the relevant scientific standards. As McCrae and Costa explain:
As further discussed in [this post,] Jung included what's arguably the lion's share of the modern conception of S/N (the concrete/abstract duality) in his very broad notion of what E/I involved. But Myers discovered that there are abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), and that there's no significant correlation between Myers' (statistically supportable) versions of E/I and S/N. Jung said extraverts tend to subscribe to the mainstream cultural views of their time, while introverts tend to reject mainstream values in favor of their own individualistic choices. But Myers discovered that a typical ISTJ is significantly more likely to be a traditionalist than a typical (more independent-minded) ENTP. Jung said an extravert likes change and "discovers himself in the fluctuating and changeable," while an introvert resists change and identifies with the "changeless and eternal." But Myers discovered that it was the S/N and J/P dimensions that primarily influenced someone's attitude toward change, rather than whether they were introverted or extraverted.
And so on. The appropriate way to view the Myers-Briggs typology is not as some kind of simplified (and more "testable") implementation of Jung's original typology. Instead, it's fairer to say that the Myers-Briggs typology is basically where Jung's typology ended up after it was very substantially modified — not to mention expanded — to fit the evidence.
As a final example: when it came to Jungian functions in need of substantial adjustment, and as further explained in [this long post,] it turned out that there was no function in more need of correction than "Si." And this is not a controversial issue, nor is it a "dichotomies vs. functions" issue. As described in the linked post (with illustrative quotes), even the more function-centric modern MBTI theorists (Thomson, Berens, Nardi, Quenk) don't make significant use of Jung's Si description. Their IS_J portraits are very much like Myers' IS_J portraits, and are to a substantial extent the opposite of Jung's Si-dom portrait.
Jung said an Si-dom "has an illusory conception of reality," and that the relation between the actual physical world and the Si-dom's perceptions of it is "unpredictable and arbitrary," while Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk portray Si-doms as noteworthy for their down-to-earth, practical and reliable focus on the facts. Jung said it was understandable why the Si-doms (together with their Ni-dom cousins) are considered the "most useless of men" from the standpoint of achieving practical, real-world results, while Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk portray Si-doms as among the likeliest candidates for employee-of-the-month.
And again, there's a much lengthier discussion, with many more quotes, in that linked post.
And the reason Myers and Keirsey and all those function-centric theorists describe IS_Js in ways that bear little resemblance to Jung's Si-dom description is that, at the end of the day, facts are facts — and Jung agreed with that. Jung wasn't interested in coming up with typological "concepts" that were detached from reality. He believed that his types corresponded to real, underlying biological dimensions that he speculated had been fashioned by evolution because they represented alternative niche strategies for reproductive success. His typological categories made falsifiable predictions about people — e.g., that people hardwired to be introverts would be both shy/reserved and abstract in orientiation — and Myers ended up falsifying quite a few of them.
Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. If Jung was still around and became aware that, 90 years after Psychological Types was published, somebody was inclined to ignore all the improvements that had been made to his original ideas by Myers and others and was telling people they should be typing themselves based on his original descriptions, I really don't think he'd approve.
I bought into those descriptions of Si because it is how I see my cognition when I analyse myself.
As far as not relating AT ALL to Fe... the spoiler in this recent post is devoted to an explanation of why INFJs, in particular, are quite likely to find that they don't relate to several aspects of personality that are commonly found in "Fe" descriptions.
And it's maybe worth noting that it's been my experience that all four IN types tend to favor Fi over Fe when they take Nardi's cognitive functions test (a discussion of which I've already linked you to).
Hmm... but I do think I relate to Te. For example, I read that for a particular FJ, they must know how someone feels about a certain subject before discussing it with them. I relate to having to know what someone thinks about a certain subject, like what parts of it they understand, so I can know what I can take for granted in describing it to them. Is that Te? I don't know for sure.
I've already noted that it often makes more sense to look to type-related preferences to explain why someone is more likely to err in one direction than another.
When "imagination" (or theory) and "reality" oppose each other to one degree or other, it's quintessentially N to have a temperamental tendency to err in the direction of favoring the theory and resisting contrary facts, and quintessentially S to have a temperamental tendency to be overly focused on "just the facts, ma'am" at the expense of theoretical explanations and possibilities.
But again, you need to resist straw-manning a typical N as a guy who's off in imaginative lalaland, paying little attention to the real world, and having little concern with whether his theories have anything much to do with the real world. The majority of scientists are N's, and a typical scientist is very much concerned with the extent to which their theories actually relate to reality — in come cases just in terms of being true (in the sense of consistent with the evidence), but it other cases in terms of also wanting to be doing work that ends up serving a useful purpose in the world.
I think I am pretty realistic with how I see things tbh. Sure there is an element of theory, but I mostly don't favor it to what is going on in the situation... again I don't mean to strawman Ns, but the Ns that I do know seem way different to how I am.
And for your final quote... here was your post in the "Favorite Lyrics" thread:
Yeah, mama. If that's what an IST's favorite lyrics look like, what do you think an INF's favorite lyrics tend to look like?
Honestly, I rarely pay attention to lyrics... I just really like Burzum, and I thought the lyrics were cool. I wouldn't look too much into me liking those lyrics... it does suggest I tend to be attracted to metal music and esoteric subjects, but idk... I don't think it makes me an N/INF.
Anyway... in conclusion (thank God, eh?)... I've got a significant F lean, although a mild T wouldn't shock me, and a milder J lean, but a mild P definitely wouldn't surprise me.
But I really can't see you as anything other than an IN type, and I'm confident Crowley would agree — assuming we had a radio device capable of reaching his altitude in the philosophical ether...
Well, I of course would say I am slightly on the T and J side, clearly I, but also strongly S... however, I can see why you would see me as an N based on how I describe myself.
So... suppose that I really am an ISTJ. I am also intelligent and creative, and grew up in a household of N's. My friends tend to be N's, and the stuff I read was often probably written be an N. Suppose that I do not have a very clear self-concept. Can you see how I might then be an ISTJ and come across on here as though I am an N? My self descriptions may be way off. I mean if typing yourself was that easy, I don't think so many people would be confused about their type. It seems that I see myself as an N, and there could be any number of reasons for this, but I am still an S through and through.
Now, while I am sure you are very good at typing people, I have a friend who is also very good at it and she knows me in real life. She says I am clearly S by dichotomies and Si by functions. I personally trust her opinion on the matter very highly, and while you are certainly picking up on a very N-like image that I portray of myself, you do not know what I am like to interact with in person, or how I really behave and think.
So, I am an ISTJ who comes across, online at least, as though he is an INF. This is peculiar, sure, but I would say very possible. I do agree that based on what I have written one would be inclined to think I am an N, but the things I write just seem... not quite like who I am.
But yes, it is extremely odd for an S to come across as an N so clearly. So either I am an S who writes like an N, or an N who behaves like an S. There is something strange going on, for sure.
Im going for INxP.
As for enneagram i think an unhealthy 6w5 fits sorta.
I do see a lot of 9.
I dont mean to be a dick or anything but, you are who you want to be, interms of mbti. Tests are useless. If youre lost, seek professional help and find yourself. Dont rely on yourself to find yourself, interms of tests, cause there seems to be some biasness over here.
Im going for INxP.
As for enneagram i think an unhealthy 6w5 fits sorta.
I do see a lot of 9.
I dont mean to be a dick or anything but, you are who you want to be, interms of mbti. Tests are useless. If youre lost, seek professional help and find yourself. Dont rely on yourself to find yourself, interms of tests, cause there seems to be some biasness over here.
Well, if you know that ultimately you will end up deciding on your type, then why create a thread about it? Why bother asking for opinions when youre not willing to take them into consideration?
Well, if you know that ultimately you will end up deciding on your type, then why create a thread about it? Why bother asking for opinions when youre not willing to take them into consideration?
Im going for INxP.
As for enneagram i think an unhealthy 6w5 fits sorta.
I do see a lot of 9.
I dont mean to be a dick or anything but, you are who you want to be, interms of mbti. Tests are useless. If youre lost, seek professional help and find yourself. Dont rely on yourself to find yourself, interms of tests, cause there seems to be some biasness over here.
I forget if I mentioned it in the thread, but INxP is what I get on the usual MBTI tests most of the time, or at least when I am just answering naturally, and aren't adjusting to some type bias I have at the time.
So if it did turn out I was just INxP, then contrary to tests being useless, it would seem that they're pretty accurate and that the whole long process of questioning to find the right type is what is useless. That would be kind of funny, honestly.
^ I don't really know all that much about Lewis, but I see I once posted this at INTJforum: "I'd say definitely IN for C.S. Lewis (like most fiction writers), and probably IN_J, and maybe I lean a bit T also (so INTJ)." I don't remember what web (or other) browsing I might have done for purposes of making that post.
What I'm guessing you saw, since I've posted it multiple times, at more than one forum, is this (which is only about his possible T preference):
More generally, to me, doing things for each other is not an essential part of a romantic relationship or friendship. Ideally, it's based simply on love or fondness for who the other person is, not what the other person does for me (and vice versa). I've done several posts at another forum discussing the core drive INFJs (especially) seem to have to make "noble sacrifices" or otherwise engage in significant acts of service for the people they care most about. And in that context, and as an example of more of an opposite orientation toward love, I've quoted C.S. Lewis. In The Four Loves, he noted that, "to the Ancients, Friendship [— by which he meant the kind of kindred-spirit best-friendship that a person has with, at most, a select few —] seemed the happiest and most fully human of all loves," and Lewis concurred with that assessment, and went on to note that the idea of one person doing something for the benefit of another played no essential part in — and was in fact somewhat "alien" to — this highest form of human love.
Here's Lewis:
A Friend will, to be sure, prove himself to be also an ally when alliance becomes necessary; will lend or give when we are in need, nurse us in sickness, stand up for us among our enemies, do what he can for our widows and orphans. But such good offices are not the stuff of Friendship. The occasions for them are almost interruptions. They are in one way relevant to it, in another not. Relevant, because you would be a false friend if you would not do them when the need arose; irrelevant, because the role of benefactor always remains accidental, even a little alien, to that of Friend. It is almost embarrassing. For Friendship is utterly free from Affection's need to be needed. We are sorry that any gift or loan or night-watching should have been necessary — and now, for heaven's sake, let us forget all about it and go back to the things we really want to do or talk of together. Even gratitude is no enrichment to this love. The stereotyped "Don't mention it" here expresses what we really feel. The mark of perfect Friendship is not that help will be given when the pinch comes (of course it will) but that, having been given, it makes no difference at all. It was a distraction, an anomaly. It was a horrible waste of the time, always too short, that we had together.
That strongly resonates with me. INFJs are often said to have somewhat of a martyr streak, and to seek opportunities to play benefactor, in contrast to Lewis's experience of the benefactor role as "almost embarrassing," and an anomalous irrelevancy in the context of "the happiest and most fully human of all loves."
