• 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.

I'm an INFP who apparently uses no Si. What does this mean?

Joined
May 29, 2019
Messages
11
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Hi guys. So, I'm an INFP. There's no doubt in my mind about that. However, pretty much every functions test I've taken has rated my Si as low or unused. When I try to think about how that function "looks", and see if I identify with it, I genuinely can't tell. Is it possible for it to just be underdeveloped, or does it suggest something else?
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Could you share a list of all your results for all of your functions for the sake of discussion? I don't think it's the same for everyone of each type, so it's hard to say, but seeing more specifics about your function results would provide more to discuss.
 

Yuurei

Noncompliant
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
4,509
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
MBTI is not absolute, it's a grey-scale. Which of these generalized types are you most like? You may use Si less than most INFP but you do not fit the profile of any other "Si type" as well as you do INFP.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
Advice: type yourself by 4 letters not functions, they are too abstract and symmetric to explain reality with precision.
 

AGameOfChance

New member
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
23
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Tests are flawed. Take a look at your results and use process of elimination to eliminate/necessitate certain function pairs until you arrive at a type.

e.g if you use Ne you must have Si in your stack, etc.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Doesnt surprise me to be honest as I think its hard to say that typology is an exact science and that personality types are fixed, I actually saw a good depiction of how people may alternate between the cognitive biases or functions which had a mobius loop/infinity symbol in it on this actual forum at a time which I found interesting, although I'm unsure about the ways in which people may alternate between cognitive functions and what would be the trigger or drive involved, maybe awareness and a conscious course correction? Or if its unawares it could be environmental, cultural or social factors, I definitely think that those things play a greater part than people give them credit for, at the level of the unconscious or preconscious and think Erich Fromm's social character theories never got the credit they deserved, or development beyond the original theorizing.
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
It probably means brain damage. Or that MBTI is not a scientific tool or to be taken super seriously (and that you probably lose your keys a lot).
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
The notion that if you're an "Ne type," you're also a "Si type" — and ditto for the Ni/Se, Fi/Te and Fe/Ti pairs (the so-called "function axes," or "tandems") — is a by-product of the Harold Grant function stack, which is the forum-famous model that says that INFPs are Fi-Ne-Si-Te, and INFJs are Ni-Fe-Ti-Se, and ZOMG, INFPs and INFJs have no functions in common!

And just so you know, that model is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. More importantly, and unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, the Grant function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and should probably be considered all but disproven at this point.

Here on Planet Reality, the fact is that the four dichotomies, not the functions, are the real, underlying (and substantially genetic) components of your MBTI type — and despite some Jungian lip service, Myers understood that, based on her years of data-gathering and psychometric analysis. And she also understood that dichotomy combinations were associated with many noteworthy aspects of personality, but that there was nothing particularly special about the combinations that are purportedly associated with the "cognitive functions." In fact, Myers thought of NF/NT/SF/ST as the most significant dichotomy combinations — and it's worth noting that that's a carve-up of the types where each group is a type foursome with (assuming you believe in the functions at all) four different dominant functions.

And you will search in vain for any passage in Myers where she says that, if you start with a type foursome that shares two preferences (e.g., the SJs), and you flip both preferences, you'll end up with a foursome (in this example, the NPs) that has more in common with the original group — when it comes to some or all of the stuff affected by those preferences — than if you'd only flipped one preference. And the reason you won't find any such passage is that Myers didn't subscribe to that notion at all. Myers understood that if there's an aspect of personality where the SJs are the types with the most of it, you should expect the NPs to be the types with the least of it.

And Myers was right. The HaroldGrantian double-flip — the goofball geometry underlying the so-called "function axes" — has no basis in reality, and that's why it's found no respectable validation in over 50 years of MBTI data pools, correlating the types with everything under the sun. The notion that an INFP has "tertiary Si," and will therefore tend (probabilistically speaking) to have "Si" aspects of personality in common with a typical ISTJ that ISTPs tend not to exhibit, is a typological assertion that — like all assertions that crosscut the dichotomies in that counterintuitive way — has no more validity than the notion that two people born at around the same time will tend to have aspects of personality in common because they're both Capricorns.

In case you're in the mood for a hefty helping of input on the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability — not to mention the unbearable bogosity of the Grant function stack — you can find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this post and the posts it links to.

The final link at the end of that linked post is no longer functional (since the owner has taken INTJforum private), but you can find a long replacement excerpt from the INTJforum post — describing the dichotomy-centric history of the MBTI — in the spoiler in this post.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Hi guys. So, I'm an INFP. There's no doubt in my mind about that. However, pretty much every functions test I've taken has rated my Si as low or unused. When I try to think about how that function "looks", and see if I identify with it, I genuinely can't tell. Is it possible for it to just be underdeveloped, or does it suggest something else?

It's fine. Functions are a convoluted theory that don't necessarily apply in a straightforward manner; people like to think they do, but they don't. They describe theoretical cognitive processes that are probably relevant in terms of describing people and having conversations about differences in people, but specific lineups and certain types only using such and such function and if not, gasp, omg, you're unhealthy or stunted, is balderdash imo. I agree with other posters saying to stick with dichotomies and temperaments. Also, there is still a lot of variety and strength of various preferences within any given type.
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
It's fine. Functions are a convoluted theory that don't necessarily apply in a straightforward manner; people like to think they do, but they don't. They describe theoretical cognitive processes that are probably relevant in terms of describing people and having conversations about differences in people, but specific lineups and certain types only using such and such function and if not, gasp, omg, you're unhealthy or stunted, is balderdash imo. I agree with other posters saying to stick with dichotomies and temperaments. Also, there is still a lot of variety and strength of various preferences within any given type.

HERESY!!!
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
775
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
-
Introverted sensing in INFP is unconscious, since the Ne is conscious, by nature. You may realize that you may seldom experience the Si consciousness with Extroverted thinking.
The clue is If you want to try making the function conscious, try studying statistics. It was the subject that Myers (INFP also) study in with Hay consulting. You need to think using the extroverted thinker, so that the Si can be conscious. But remember when you think, The introverted feeling - with extroverted intuition won't be conscious.
I would like to discuss this that when Si-Te conscious, INFP should be like an ISTJ. They are able to research from raw facts and present their findings statistically.
When you study statistics, the output of Si-Te can be like the percentage of populatioon of the MBTI types that has been found.
MBTI stats.jpg
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
If you want to try making the function conscious, try studying statistics. It was the subject that Myers (INFP also) study in with Hay consulting.

You're right that Myers made a lot of use of statistics (and modern psychometrics) in developing the MBTI.

Buuut just so you know, Myers didn't think INFPs had tertiary Si.

That evidence-free notion comes from the Harold Grant function stack, and besides being inconsistent with Myers, it's also inconsistent with Jung, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks — which is perfectly understandable since, unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, that model has no meaningful empirical support.

For more, see post #9.

If you can point us to any "statistics" that respectably indicate that there's a single blessed "Si" aspect of personality that is not only more characteristic of SJs than other types, but is also (here's the impossible part, amigo) more characteristic (on average) of NPs than of NJs or SPs, I'll be very surprised.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
775
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
-
[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION]
Do you imply that Si may not even exist in INFP?
Telling that INFP doesn't have Si entails that INFP can never think in their life. Since Si-Te, works in pairs, when Si doesn't even exist in INFP, Te cannot be conscious, then the type can never think at all. Myers must have gotten conscious of her thinking when studying statistics. I just can never imagine how statistics could be learnt by feeling with intuition. Feeler will have hard time studying statistics, a subject with a lot of formulas, graph, testing instrument.
How could you tell that Myers don't even know that INFP has unconscious Si?
She followed Jung guidance in psychological types in combining the 8 psychological functions. It was her who found the the 16 types, INFP, ISTJ, etc. Jung only explained the pairing, but he never found the 16 types. Myers wrote that MBTI is an extension of Jung Psychological types in Gifts Differing chapter 2.
I copied and pasted Psychological Type, p 435.
For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function . From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation , the speculative intellect breaking through with intuition, the artistic intuition which selects and presents its images by means of feeling judgment, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.
A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive-feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect , whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition.
It was Jung theory, after explaining the 8 psychological functions, and combination between Principal and Auxiliary. He continues further the sentences underlined.
Jung says, unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with conscious practical intellect. So Se-Ti/Ti-Se in their consciousness, which will make the person a practical thinker, has unsconscious side of intuitive feeling (Fe-Ni/Ni-Fe). In MBTI: ESTP have function Se-Ti conscious and Fe-Ni unconscious, ISTP have functions Ti-Se conscious and Ni-Fe unconscious.
It is analogous with INFP. INFP has Fi-Ne as their conscious functions, and Si-Te as their unsconscious functions.

You can read psychological types chapter 10, if you are interested. Free e-book is available on the net.
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION]
Do you imply that Si may not even exist in INFP?...

INFP has Fi-Ne as their conscious functions, and Si-Te as their unsconscious functions.

You can read psychological types chapter 10, if you are interested. Free e-book is available on the net.

When HaroldGrantians say that INFPs have "tertiary Si", what they're saying is that, when it comes to the S aspects of their cognition, they (along with their fellow NPs) favor introverted sensation over extraverted sensation, making them like SJs (and unlike NJs and SPs) in that respect.

But that grouping of the types has no validity. INFPs and ESTJs have no aspects of personality in common. Those HaroldGrantian "function axes" patterns have stubbornly failed to show up in 50 years of MBTI data, correlating the types with countless aspects of personality.

As for Jung, I've read Psychological Types — in its entirety — more than once, and doubt I'll be learning anything about Jung's perspective from you. In any case, the Grant function stack — on top of being inconsistent with the official MBTI (and reality) — is certainly inconsistent with Jung, whose stack for an Fi-dom with an N-aux (for example) was Fi-Ni-Se-Te.

For a long discussion of that issue (with Jung quotes), see the two-part post starting here.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
775
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
-
[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION]
When somebody say that INFP, when Si conscious, they'll be like SJ, I'll say I think so; but probably not an ESTJ.


Does it matter so much to you when it turns out their cognitive functions (composition, combination, stack, whatsoever)are inconsistent with each other?

Personally, I am not interested with consistency between the theorists : Jung, Grant, Myers, whoever; you can always add the name of the theorists: Kiersey, Nardi, etc, and may be Yourself.
What matters most to me is that:is their theory consistent with what they have theorized, Can their theory explain what they intend to explain?
Anyway, If you found inconsistency, You should explain what inconsistency that you found instead of only claiming that you found them. If you think that you discover inconsistency from Grant and Myers and Jung, you should show which one is consistent with another. But since I am not interested, I am not joining the discussion.

Testing a validity of psychological functions is another question. I was wondering how come cognitive function could be put into empirical validity testing. Will the scientific evidence collected validate or invalidate the cognitive functions? The "so called scientist" should have argued that they would, before actually performed the data collection, and further interpretation.

One comment About your another posting link: it would be better if I commented on the thread.
 
Top