Typing Rouskyrie again.

[Rouskyrie]

New answers, new questionnaire. I'm looking forward to hopefully getting some more opinions on my type.

1. During your youth (7'ish to 18), What did you focus on the most? What activities did you like and why? What aspect of life was lax in attention?
- "What did you focus on the most?" -> I focused most on ideas that interested me and learning things in general. I would be more specific, but I can't remember much from my youth.
- "What activities did you like and why?" -> I liked to play video games because they provided me with an interesting break from paying attention to the outside world. I liked to introspect because it seemed fun to ponder my thoughts/feelings, especially considering that most of the time I felt like there was nothing to ponder, so I could almost make up who I was. Except that never logically made sense to do, so I never went with it.
- "What aspect of life was lax in attention?" -> The aspect of my life that was lax in attention was my attention to my surroundings. I never really cared much for seeing the sights because pondering ideas and internally debating viewpoints seemed much more interesting to do. More specifically, unless I'm paying attention to someone while they're speaking, I don't spend much time 'zoned in' per say.

2. You're in you senior year of high school (or whatever equivalent) and you are looking back over the last couple of years. What was your favorite aspect of the schooling experience and why? Favorite subject and why?
- "What was your favorite aspect of the schooling experience and why?" -> Getting to interact with other people and hear their viewpoints, because I love hearing other people's perspectives.
- "Favorite subject and why?" -> History, because I enjoy looking back on what happened in the past and using that information to avoid making the same mistakes. I found that I would often look at how an event transpired and think, "That's an odd way to have done that, when it would caused less problems if it had been handled like ___".

3. A couple of friends call and invite you out to a restaurant. While there, you all are pleasantly conversing and one of your friends makes a comment that irked you. What are you're thoughts and how do you respond?
- "What are you're thoughts and how do you respond?" -> My thoughts: "No sense in getting worked up about it. Besides, I'm more curious about the comment than I am upset. Plus, expressing the fact that I was irked by that comment might offset the atmosphere". I would respond by asking questions about the comment and simply continue the conversation.

4. Your schooling is done and it's time to strike out into the world!! What sort of career do you want to go into and why?
- "What sort of career do you want to go into and why?" -> Psychology, because learning more about the way people will always be among the things that most interest me.

5. A friend is getting married and they put you in charge of the cake. You narrowed it down to two places to make an order. The first is a bakery with whom you got a good relationship with. The other is a well-known cake maker to whom everyone goes to (your friend hints to it as well). Which one do you choose and why?
- "Which one do you choose and why?" -> Considering that my friend hinted towards the well known cake maker, I would have to say that would be my most likely choice. After all, if I was put in charge of the cake, it's my duty to make sure they're happy with the cake. Therefore, where can I go wrong with choosing the cake maker they recommend so long as my friend is satisfied with the result?

6. You get into an argument with a friend/family member/co-worker. They criticize one of your personality traits. What would most likely be the focus of their critique?
- "What would most likely be the focus of their critique?" -> My insistence on not dealing with conflict. I find it to be a waste of time, and don't have much of a problem telling someone that the fact that they're trying to cause/continue a conflict is unnecessary and unproductive, when calmly discussing the same subject is an option.

7. It's New Years! You and your friends are out and about after a party. Being drunk, one of your friends suggests to do something....'questionable' (Nothing serious. I.e, drugs, escort, etc.). What are your thoughts and how do you respond?
- "What are your thoughts and how do you respond?" -> "My thoughts: "This could be interesting, why not?" I would respond by saying that I'm up for it, for now.

8. A new art gallery opens up and your friend wants to go to the grand opening. Both of you analyze all the paintings and sculptures. What about these works warrants the most attention from you? Why?
- "What about these works warrants the most attention from you? Why?" -> The possible sources of inspiration warrant the most attention from me, because I find that knowing the inspiration allows me to fully appreciate the art.

9. You have been saving up and decide to buy a new car. At the dealership, you peruse the lots. What are the criteria and factors that influence your choice? Which one would initially be your main focus?
- "What are the criteria and factors that influence your choice? Which one would initially be your main focus?" -> The car's history and mpg, mostly.

10. Yep, you now have a kid (sex of your choosing)! Years pass and they are now 15 years old. You notice their personality traits are the complete opposite of how you were when at their age. Describe how they are. Describe the possible conflicts that would arise between both of you due to differing temperaments.

- "Describe how they are/Describe the possible conflicts that would arise between both of you due to differing temperaments." -> We would likely come into conflict due to our different way of doing/looking at things. They would think that openly expressing anger is okay, whereas I don't. They would be okay with indulging in conflict, whereas I think it's a waste of time. They would be passive-aggressive, whereas I'm more direct. They would be emotional, whereas I tend to not express much emotion. They would be fine with looking at things as they are, whereas I feel the need to look past what is towards what it could be. They would be melancholic and prefer to dwell on their emotions, whereas I prefer to simply deal with my emotions and move on. They would be pessimistic and have a negative view of life, whereas I tend to be more optimistic.

[MENTION=29903]Mayflower[/MENTION], [MENTION=30122]Brain in a Jar[/MENTION], [MENTION=22178]magpie[/MENTION] , [MENTION=32305]Secret Squirrel[/MENTION].

 

[Mayflower]

[MENTION=29179]Rouskyrie[/MENTION]. XNFJ for sure. The first half I leaned toward INFJ with decent Ti. I think your 9w1 makes you seem more Fe'ish. ENFJ is possible. I'll have to give it another look.

 

[VILLANELLE]

[MENTION=29179]Rouskyrie[/MENTION], not just to echo [MENTION=29903]Mayflower[/MENTION] here, but, you seem very INFJ to me. Perhaps with strong Fe, or maybe ENFJ is your shadow process/type as they say?

 

[magpie]

I'm not really sure how you've managed to come to the conclusion that you're an F. This questionnaire seems obvious T to me. I would say INTJ, with INTP as a potential second place type.

 

[Verona]

Based on this questionnaire I would guess INTP but I know you have previously typed as ENFJ so that seems like quite the leap.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I have to be honest: I do get an INTJ vibe from this. I'm sticking with INxJ, because of obvious Ni and likely inferior Se.

 

[Rouskyrie]

[MENTION=29179]Rouskyrie[/MENTION]. XNFJ for sure. The first half I leaned toward INFJ with decent Ti. I think your 9w1 makes you seem more Fe'ish. ENFJ is possible. I'll have to give it another look.

[MENTION=29179]Rouskyrie[/MENTION], not just to echo [MENTION=29903]Mayflower[/MENTION] here, but, you seem very INFJ to me. Perhaps with strong Fe, or maybe ENFJ is your shadow process/type as they say?

Thank you both for commenting your thoughts, I appreciate it. That's an interesting thought. However, if ENFJ were to be my shadow process/type, that would make me an ISTP. Which, unless my life experiences have caused me to develop my Ni more than my Se and I'm simply in the grip of Fe and have adapted to it, I can't see, considering my seemingly extremely weak sensing.

 

[Rouskyrie]

I'm not really sure how you've managed to come to the conclusion that you're an F. This questionnaire seems obvious T to me. I would say INTJ, with INTP as a potential second place type.

Thank you. I imagine that I came to that conclusion as a result of the fact that I always looked up to dominant Fe and Fi types when I was younger and strived to emulate that behavior in myself. However, if I had to attempt to become more "feeling" it would seem that naturally I was more oriented towards Te or Ti than Fe or Fi.

I would say that overall I can relate to INTJ more than INTP.

I tend to look outside of myself logically to find a starting point for what I'm trying to accomplish, then I tweak it to fit the purpose I want it to serve. As opposed to constructing my own system, of course.

Example: I'm playing Dark Souls. I want to make my character into a sorcerer. I look up examples on how more experienced Dark Souls players created sorcerer characters. A few hours after watching those videos, I start playing, and create a copy of the character. I take note of the pros and cons of the character's strategy and stats. It then comes down to molding that successful character into A.) What's going to be prepared for any situation + B.) What works, what allows me to maximize my damage output to an even greater extent than the character it's based off of + C.) What works for me personally, and that I enjoy. I also tend to look up what I'll be facing in advance, then throw myself into the situation so I can get a feel for what's it like, only to take note, return to my planning and repeat until I've achieved a solution I'm content with/that I can replicate.

 

[Mayflower]

^ I feel some Te (looking outside of yourself for accomplishable goals). Your Dark Souls example sounds more T'ish, but is this method how you generally think?

 

[Rouskyrie]

^ I feel some Te (looking outside of yourself for accomplishable goals). Your Dark Souls example sounds more T'ish, but is this method how you generally think?

Generally, yes.

 

[VILLANELLE]

Thank you both for commenting your thoughts, I appreciate it. That's an interesting thought. However, if ENFJ were to be my shadow process/type, that would make me an ISTP. Which, unless my life experiences have caused me to develop my Ni more than my Se and I'm simply in the grip of Fe and have adapted to it, I can't see, considering my seemingly extremely weak sensing.

You're welcome. And clearly I don't know that much about typing, with my "Oh, ENFJ is a shadow type" when.. clearly.. functions don't work like that. INTJ seems to fit you fine.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

[MENTION=29179]Rouskyrie[/MENTION]

Your OP does read rather strongly T, but it is somewhat unprecedented for a INTP or an INTJ to consider they have dominant Fe. It could be helpful for you to describe how you see Fe and how it is you use it.

On the INTJ forum and among various INTJs, I have found that they approach social dealings with some thought, strategy, and an attempt at efficiency, but what is different from a Fe-dom is that there isn't a desire for social acceptance, participation, immersion, or identity. INTJs are often very polite when there is a logical, efficient reason to be, and they can be effective socially. I had a former BIL who was INTJ and incredibly skilled on the phone. If anyone needed to get their money back, their account cancelled, or any type of business on the phone, he could get results. He would stay calm, be polite, intuitively say whatever needed to be said to get the job done. I could possibly see that being mistaken for Fe, but it wasn't Fe in the slightest because he operated outside of the process like an observer not a participant.

 

[Lord Lavender]

Hmmm going by questionare I see INFJ more than ENFJ as it seems you lead with Ni not Fe. Plus Ti is far too strong to be ENFJ.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

[MENTION=29179]Rouskyrie[/MENTION] What happened! lol. You seemed so ENFJ before, but now the questionnaire sounds so INFJ(at least in the beginning). I agree with [MENTION=14857]labyrinthine[/MENTION] in that you need to make sure that this is how you go about social situations too with the Dark Souls example. INTJs use a logical process when understanding social situations too. We do not typically look at emotions-not well for that matter- and Fe is something that we typically do not have strong ability in(parts of it may be learned but it is not innate). We 'strategize' even when interacting socially since that is the only way we really 'get it'.

The only thing that makes me see ENFJ as a possibility still is what you said at the end of the questionnaire about not dwelling too much on emotions and moving on ironically. I feel like ENFJs are more in control of their emotions and are more likely to do that than INFJs.

 

[Rouskyrie]

[MENTION=29179]Rouskyrie[/MENTION]

Your OP does read rather strongly T, but it is somewhat unprecedented for a INTP or an INTJ to consider they have dominant Fe. It could be helpful for you to describe how you see Fe and how it is you use it.

On the INTJ forum and among various INTJs, I have found that they approach social dealings with some thought, strategy, and an attempt at efficiency, but what is different from a Fe-dom is that there isn't a desire for social acceptance, participation, immersion, or identity. INTJs are often very polite when there is a logical, efficient reason to be, and they can be effective socially. I had a former BIL who was INTJ and incredibly skilled on the phone. If anyone needed to get their money back, their account cancelled, or any type of business on the phone, he could get results. He would stay calm, be polite, intuitively say whatever needed to be said to get the job done. I could possibly see that being mistaken for Fe, but it wasn't Fe in the slightest because he operated outside of the process like an observer not a participant.

I suppose you could say that the way I see Fe is that it's essentially concerned with values outside of oneself, and focused on connection through things like common courtesy and adaptability. As for how I use it: Whenever I find myself interacting with another person, I feel it's necessary to treat them with respect and respond/react in a way that will ensure the interaction stays positive.

Based on that, I would say I can't relate. I don't tend to approach social situations with any strategy other than remaining respectful. In that aspect, I tend to react and adjust myself to the situation as it's happening. People often say that I appear odd when I'm interacting with others because I present myself kindly, but seemingly don't adjust my facial expressions and overall body language. I have a bad habit of not paying attention to those kinds of things, and instead insisting that what I say I feel is more indicative than my body language. Likewise, I pay attention to the body language of other people, but tend to regard it as less important, for whatever reason.

 

[Rouskyrie]

[MENTION=29179]Rouskyrie[/MENTION] What happened! lol. You seemed so ENFJ before, but now the questionnaire sounds so INFJ(at least in the beginning). I agree with [MENTION=14857]labyrinthine[/MENTION] in that you need to make sure that this is how you go about social situations too with the Dark Souls example. INTJs use a logical process when understanding social situations too. We do not typically look at emotions-not well for that matter- and Fe is something that we typically do not have strong ability in(parts of it may be learned but it is not innate). We 'strategize' even when interacting socially since that is the only way we really 'get it'.

The only thing that makes me see ENFJ as a possibility still is what you said at the end of the questionnaire about not dwelling too much on emotions and moving on ironically. I feel like ENFJs are more in control of their emotions and are more likely to do that than INFJs.

I'm not sure, haha. That makes sense. I can't really say that I'd call myself a strategist, or even that I use strategies all that often. I would like to, but it doesn't seem as though it's among my strongest preferences.

I definitely haven't had much control over my emotions for most of my life, but as of lately, I've become much more in control of them.

 

[Pionart]

Clear Fe dominant from my methodology. Starts with a polite comment such as a thank you very often.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I suppose you could say that the way I see Fe is that it's essentially concerned with values outside of oneself, and focused on connection through things like common courtesy and adaptability. As for how I use it: Whenever I find myself interacting with another person, I feel it's necessary to treat them with respect and respond/react in a way that will ensure the interaction stays positive.

Based on that, I would say I can't relate. I don't tend to approach social situations with any strategy other than remaining respectful. In that aspect, I tend to react and adjust myself to the situation as it's happening. People often say that I appear odd when I'm interacting with others because I present myself kindly, but seemingly don't adjust my facial expressions and overall body language. I have a bad habit of not paying attention to those kinds of things, and instead insisting that what I say I feel is more indicative than my body language. Likewise, I pay attention to the body language of other people, but tend to regard it as less important, for whatever reason.

I spent years trying to figure out the Fe/Fi question and a person could make a case in either direction based on the above quote. Fe does seek external harmony, but Fi doesn't necessary love conflict (although some people with Fi engage in a lot of conflict, but that isn't the primary way it is defined.) The following quote is how Jung defines Fe, but I would venture to say it may not actually be a complete representation of it. In his mind it was geared towards women, but since then it has been clear that men use it plenty as well. FWIW, when I read the OP my impression was a bit more INTP than INTJ.

3. Feeling

Feeling in the extraverted attitude is orientated by objective data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind of feeling. It agrees with objective values. If one has always known feeling as a subjective fact, the nature of extraverted feeling will not immediately be understood, since it has freed itself as fully as possible from the subjective factor, and has, instead, become wholly subordinated to the influence of the object. Even where it seems to show a certain independence of the quality of the concrete object, it is none the less under the spell of. traditional or generally valid standards of some sort. I may feel constrained, for instance, to use the predicate 'beautiful' or 'good', not because I find the object 'beautiful' or 'good' from my own subjective feeling, but because it is fitting and politic so to do; and fitting it certainly is, inasmuch as a contrary opinion would disturb the general feeling situation. A feeling-judgment such as this is in no way a simulation or a lie -- it is merely an act of accommodation. A picture, for instance, may be termed beautiful, because a picture that is hung in a drawing-room and bearing a well-known signature is generally assumed to be beautiful, or because the predicate 'ugly' might offend the family of the fortunate possessor, or because there is a benevolent intention on the part of the visitor to create a pleasant feeling-atmosphere, to which end everything must be felt as agreeable. Such feelings are governed by the standard of the objective determinants. As such they are genuine, and represent the total visible feeling-function.

In precisely the same way as extraverted thinking strives to rid itself of subjective influences, extraverted feeling has also to undergo a certain process of differentiation, before it is finally denuded of every subjective [p. 447] trimming. The valuations resulting from the act of feeling either correspond directly with objective values or at least chime in with certain traditional and generally known standards of value. This kind of feeling is very largely responsible for the fact that so many people flock to the theatre, to concerts, or to Church, and what is more, with correctly adjusted positive feelings. Fashions, too, owe their existence to it, and, what is far more valuable, the whole positive and wide-spread support of social, philanthropic, and such like cultural enterprises. In such matters, extraverted feeling proves itself a creative factor. Without this feeling, for instance, a beautiful and harmonious sociability would be unthinkable. So far extraverted feeling is just as beneficent and rationally effective as extraverted thinking. But this salutary effect is lost as soon as the object gains an exaggerated influence. For, when this happens, extraverted feeling draws the personality too much into the object, i.e. the object assimilates the person, whereupon the personal character of the feeling, which constitutes its principal charm, is lost. Feeling then becomes cold, material, untrustworthy. It betrays a secret aim, or at least arouses the suspicion of it in an impartial observer. No longer does it make that welcome and refreshing impression the invariable accompaniment of genuine feeling; instead, one scents a pose or affectation, although the egocentric motive may be entirely unconscious.

Such overstressed, extraverted feeling certainly fulfils æsthetic expectations, but no longer does it speak to the heart; it merely appeals to the senses, or -- worse still -- to the reason. Doubtless it can provide æsthetic padding for a situation, but there it stops, and beyond that its effect is nil. It has become sterile. Should this process go further, a strangely contradictory dissociation of feeling develops; every object is seized upon with feeling- [p. 448] valuations, and numerous relationships are made which are inherently and mutually incompatible. Since such aberrations would be quite impossible if a sufficiently emphasized subject were present, the last vestige of a real personal standpoint also becomes suppressed. The subject becomes so swallowed up in individual feeling processes that to the observer it seems as though there were no longer a subject of feeling but merely a feeling process. In such a condition feeling has entirely forfeited its original human warmth, it gives an impression of pose, inconstancy, unreliability, and in the worst cases appears definitely hysterical.

4. The Extraverted Feeling-Type

n so far as feeling is, incontestably, a more obvious peculiarity of feminine psychology than thinking, the most pronounced feeling-types are also to be found among women. When extraverted feeling possesses the priority we speak of an extraverted feeling-type. Examples of this type that I can call to mind are, almost without exception, women. She is a woman who follows the guiding-line of her feeling. As the result of education her feeling has become developed into an adjusted function, subject to conscious control. Except in extreme cases, feeling has a personal character, in spite of the fact that the subjective factor may be already, to a large extent, repressed. The personality appears to be adjusted in relation to objective conditions. Her feelings correspond with objective situations and general values. Nowhere is this more clearly revealed than in the so-called 'love-choice'; the 'suitable' man is loved, not another one; he is suitable not so much because he fully accords with the fundamental character of the woman -- as a rule she is quite uninformed about this -- but because [p. 449] he meticulously corresponds in standing, age, capacity, height, and family respectability with every reasonable requirement. Such a formulation might, of course, be easily rejected as ironical or depreciatory, were I not fully convinced that the love-feeling of this type of woman completely corresponds with her choice. It is genuine, and not merely intelligently manufactured. Such 'reasonable' marriages exist without number, and they are by no means the worst. Such women are good comrades to their husbands and excellent mothers, so long as husbands or children possess the conventional psychic constitution. One can feel 'correctly', however, only when feeling is disturbed by nothing else. But nothing disturbs feeling so much as thinking. It is at once intelligible, therefore, that this type should repress thinking as much as possible. This does not mean to say that such a woman does not think at all; on the contrary, she may even think a great deal and very ably, but her thinking is never sui generis; it is, in fact, an Epimethean appendage to her feeling. What she cannot feel, she cannot consciously think. 'But I can't think what I don't feel', such a type said to me once in indignant tones. As far as feeling permits, she can think very well, but every conclusion, however logical, that might lead to a disturbance of feeling is rejected from the outset. It is simply not thought. And thus everything that corresponds with objective valuations is good: these things are loved or treasured; the rest seems merely to exist in a world apart.

But a change comes over the picture when the importance of the object reaches a still higher level. As already explained above, such an assimilation of subject to object then occurs as almost completely to engulf the subject of feeling. Feeling loses its personal character -- it becomes feeling per se; it almost seems as though the [p. 450] personality were wholly dissolved in the feeling of the moment. Now, since in actual life situations constantly and successively alternate, in which the feeling-tones released are not only different but are actually mutually contrasting, the personality inevitably becomes dissipated in just so many different feelings. Apparently, he is this one moment, and something completely different the next -- apparently, I repeat, for in reality such a manifold personality is altogether impossible. The basis of the ego always remains identical with itself, and, therefore, appears definitely opposed to the changing states of feeling. Accordingly the observer senses the display of feeling not so much as a personal expression of the feeling-subject as an alteration of his ego, a mood, in other words. Corresponding with the degree of dissociation between the ego and the momentary state of feeling, signs of disunion with the self will become more or less evident, i.e. the original compensatory attitude of the unconscious becomes a manifest opposition. This reveals itself, in the first instance, in extravagant demonstrations of feeling, in loud and obtrusive feeling predicates, which leave one, however, somewhat incredulous. They ring hollow; they are not convincing. On the contrary, they at once give one an inkling of a resistance that is being overcompensated, and one begins to wonder whether such a feeling-judgment might not just as well be entirely different. In fact, in a very short time it actually is different. Only a very slight alteration in the situation is needed to provoke forthwith an entirely contrary estimation of the selfsame object. The result of such an experience is that the observer is unable to take either judgment at all seriously. He begins to reserve his own opinion. But since, with this type, it is a matter of the greatest moment to establish an intensive feeling rapport with his environment, redoubled efforts are now required [p. 451] to overcome this reserve. Thus, in the manner of the circulus vitiosus, the situation goes from bad to worse. The more the feeling relation with the object becomes overstressed, the nearer the unconscious opposition approaches the surface.

We have already seen that the extraverted feeling type, as a rule, represses his thinking, just because thinking is the function most liable to disturb feeling. Similarly, when thinking seeks to arrive at pure results of any kind, its first act is to exclude feeling, since nothing is calculated to harass and falsify thinking so much as feeling-values. Thinking, therefore, in so far as it is an independent function, is repressed in the extraverted feeling type. Its repression, as I observed before, is complete only in so far as its inexorable logic forces it to conclusions that are incompatible with feeling. It is suffered to exist as the servant of feeling, or more accurately its slave. Its backbone is broken; it may not operate on its own account, in accordance with its own laws, Now, since a logic exists producing inexorably right conclusions, this must happen somewhere, although beyond the bounds of consciousness, i.e. in the unconscious. Pre-eminently, therefore, the unconscious content of this type is a particular kind of thinking. It is an infantile, archaic, and negative thinking.

So long as conscious feeling preserves the personal character, or, in other words, so long as the personality does not become swallowed up by successive states of feeling, this unconscious thinking remains compensatory. But as soon as the personality is dissociated, becoming dispersed in mutually contradictory states of feeling, the identity of the ego is lost, and the subject becomes unconscious. But, because of the subject's lapse into the unconscious, it becomes associated with the unconscious thinking -- function, therewith assisting the unconscious [p. 452] thought to occasional consciousness. The stronger the conscious feeling relation, and therefore, the more 'depersonalized,' it becomes, the stronger grows the unconscious opposition. This reveals itself in the fact that unconscious ideas centre round just the most valued objects, which are thus pitilessly stripped of their value. That thinking which always thinks in the 'nothing but' style is in its right place here, since it destroys the ascendancy of the feeling that is chained to the object.

Unconscious thought reaches the surface in the form of irruptions, often of an obsessing nature, the general character of which is always negative and depreciatory. Women of this type have moments when the most hideous thoughts fasten upon the very objects most valued by their feelings. This negative thinking avails itself of every infantile prejudice or parallel that is calculated to breed doubt in the feeling-value, and it tows every primitive instinct along with it, in the effort to make 'a nothing but' interpretation of the feeling. At this point, it is perhaps in the nature of a side-remark to observe that the collective unconscious, i.e. the totality of the primordial images, also becomes enlisted in the same manner, and from the elaboration and development of these images there dawns the possibility of a regeneration of the attitude upon another basis.

 

[Tilt]

I'm not sure, haha. That makes sense. I can't really say that I'd call myself a strategist, or even that I use strategies all that often. I would like to, but it doesn't seem as though it's among my strongest preferences.

I definitely haven't had much control over my emotions for most of my life, but as of lately, I've become much more in control of them.

Oddly enough, people describe me all the time as "strategic", "tactical", "calculated" but my defining weakness seems to be that I care way too much about what others think of me. The main difference that I have noticed between me and TJs is that I am much more inclined to factor in how other people may or may not impact my plans (in terms of the real-world application).

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I suppose you could say that the way I see Fe is that it's essentially concerned with values outside of oneself, and focused on connection through things like common courtesy and adaptability. As for how I use it: Whenever I find myself interacting with another person, I feel it's necessary to treat them with respect and respond/react in a way that will ensure the interaction stays positive.

Based on that, I would say I can't relate. I don't tend to approach social situations with any strategy other than remaining respectful. In that aspect, I tend to react and adjust myself to the situation as it's happening. People often say that I appear odd when I'm interacting with others because I present myself kindly, but seemingly don't adjust my facial expressions and overall body language. I have a bad habit of not paying attention to those kinds of things, and instead insisting that what I say I feel is more indicative than my body language. Likewise, I pay attention to the body language of other people, but tend to regard it as less important, for whatever reason.

It's very possible that I mis-typed you before. You seem INFJ to me now haha. I don't know, but you are definitely some xNFJ. Maybe that's why you weren't sure of ENFJ before. Besides, you do seem like you have a pretty strong Ti.