INFP, ISFP, ENFP. differences? similarities? (4w5)

[brainheart]

[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION],

I am not turning this into a what's Bob Dylan's type thread, especially since there is evidently no point in discussing this with someone who is so clearly plagued by the dichotomous thinking he so loves to mention.

Seriously. Bob Dylan is about as Fi Se Ni Te as they come. Guess what that spells?

And would you please throw that stupid ass career list away? It means absolutely nothing. Mine would be stay at home mom- does that make me an ISFJ?

 

[reckful]

And would you please throw that stupid ass career list away? It means absolutely nothing. Mine would be stay at home mom- does that make me an ISFJ?

Well, it's certainly possible that a "career list" put together by some theorist, based entirely on their theoretical expectations, might mean "absolutely nothing" as far as reality was concerned.

But the career lists you're objecting to simply show the correlations in the CAPT database between people's tested type (on the official MBTI) and their actual chosen careers. They're a substantial helping of factual data, in other words — for those who care about that sort of thing.

If you prefer to base your ideas on what the various types are like on something other than the facts, you're certainly free to "throw that stupid ass career list away."

 

[brainheart]

Well, it's certainly possible that a "career list" put together by some theorist, based entirely on their theoretical expectations, might mean "absolutely nothing" as far as reality was concerned.

But the career lists you're objecting to simply show the correlations in the CAPT database between people's tested type (on the official MBTI) and their actual chosen careers. They're a substantial helping of factual data, in other words — for those who care about that sort of thing.

If you prefer to base your ideas on what the various types are like on something other than the facts, you're certainly free to "throw that stupid ass career list away."

Yes, data collected based on taking people's test results as fact. Have you noticed how one person can test differently depending on the week with that thing? People are not objective data whose personalities can be precisely measured using the MBTI instrument. The test isn't infallible.

My point with objecting to the career data is that many people take careers that aren't ideal to their personality. They take them due to a myriad of external factors- need, poverty, lack of education and experience, parental/community influence, etc. Also, many people do not see a job as something which defines them but as a way to make a living instead. So a person could be a dental assistant by day and a brilliant visual artist by night. But that person also might be content with doing the art vs sharing it with the world, so the people analyzing career data and personality data would not know this about this person.

Dichotomy is a tricky thing, because most people are not either/or. For example, about some things I'm quite practical and down to earth, while about some other things my head is way in the clouds and I am super idealistic. How do I pick between these two? Which is more me?

 

[reckful]

Yes, data collected based on taking people's test results as fact. Have you noticed how one person can test differently depending on the week with that thing? People are not objective data whose personalities can be precisely measured using the MBTI instrument. The test isn't infallible.

My point with objecting to the career data is that many people take careers that aren't ideal to their personality. They take them due to a myriad of external factors- need, poverty, lack of education and experience, etc. Also, many people do not see a job as something which defines them but as a way to make a living instead. So a person could be a dental assistant by day and a brilliant visual artist by night. But that person also might be content with doing the art vs sharing it with the world, so the people analyzing career data and personality data would not know this about this person.

Of course some people test as the wrong type, and of course some people make bad career choices.

But if what you're looking at is overall statistical correlations from, e.g., the CAPT database (rather than one individual), are you really meaning to suggest that those considerations make that kind of data meaningless?

If that was true, you'd expect the type/career correlations to look more or less random — and instead, as the data shows, there are in fact dramatic differences among the types in terms of typical career choices.

Try harder.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

MBTI and Keirsey should be regarded as separate things. Bob Dylan could be described as an MBTI ISFP (Fi + Se) and a Keirsey INFP.

[MENTION=20005]Noll[/MENTION]: Sensing is basically perceiving information by focusing on your five senses. Intuition is focusing on the implications or connections between information.

For example, in this scenario you are out for a walk in the woods. Both Se and Ne are orientated towards the immediate environment.

Se focuses directly upon what the senses tell you. You notice all the different aromas from the plants, the vivid purple of a flower to your right, how the air feels around you, etc. The present physical form of things.

Ne focuses on implications gained from the information. You come to a clearing in the woods, at which point there are several paths that fork out and lead out of said clearing. You would think of all the possible paths you could go down, and where they'd lead. You don't think about just one path, but every possible path. So as you can see, Ne-users don't look at the exists per se, but all the implications gained from them.

Which do you relate to more?

 

[Stansmith]

ISFPs are often aesthetes rather than actual creative artists. Most are characterized by an appreciation for beauty that arguably surpasses that of other sensors (Se-doms looking for breadth in their sensory experience, and ISTPs not attaching as much sentimental value to it).

 

[brainheart]

Try harder.

I'll pass, thanks.

 

[reckful]

MBTI and Keirsey should be regarded as separate things. Bob Dylan could be described as an MBTI ISFP (Fi + Se) and a Keirsey INFP.

[MENTION=20005]Noll[/MENTION] —

I'm back again in my cleanup capacity...

I strongly disagree with the perspective that says that the Keirsey ideas that most people are familiar with (from Please Understand Me and Please Understand Me II) are a different personality theory that only tangentially corresponds to the MBTI. In PUM and PUM II, Keirsey's basically just an MBTI guy who adds the idea that NTs, NFs, SJs and SPs are particularly significant subgroups in terms of what they have in common.

He certainly isn't a believer in the cognitive functions (aka "type dynamics") but, as further explained here, Myers wasn't much of a believer in the functions either, and official MBTI sources — not to mention the vast majority of the thousands of MBTI-related studies that have been conducted over the past 50 years — have always been centered around the dichotomies rather than the functions.

Just as Keirsey thought of NT/NF/SJ/SP as the most fundamental way to carve the 16 types into four groups, Myers thought of NT/NF/ST/SF as the most fundamental way to subdivide the 16 types — and Myers' sub-groups are even less function-related than Keirsey's.

As the back cover blurb for Please Understand Me (1984) explained:

Keirsey adopted the theory of Psychological Types of Carl Jung and the pioneering (and best selling) method of measuring type of Isabel Myers in 1955 and ever since has adapted his clinical practice to the perspective of Jung-Myers typology. PLEASE UNDERSTAND ME provides a useful vocabulary and phraseology for applying the Jung-Myers concepts of type.

In the first chapter of Please Understand Me II (1998), Keirsey describes "The Debt to Isabel Myers," and here's part of what he says:

I must comment about the way the work of Isabel Myers struck me when I first encountered it in 1956. I remember vividly, even after forty or so years, when a visiting psychologist from Educational Testing Service handed me my psychological type portrait upon my completion of the Myers-Briggs questionnaire. ...

Wow! Here I was, only five years out of graduate school, working as a corrective interventionist for schools and trying very hard to figure out how to apply what I had learned about people in making myself useful to school children and their parents and teachers and administrators, these people having all sorts of difficulties getting along with each other. And along comes a little old lady from Princeton, New Jersey, Isabel Myers, to tell me about myself, about who I was and what I was good for. Oh, I already knew some of that stuff about myself, but I didn't know that I was a kind of type of person, and that there had to be others just like me. Indeed, looking back on my graduate studies I realized that my two best friends in the psychology department were just like me, and the one professor I admired was just like me. ...

I also understood for the first time why I felt so different from everybody else. ...

Myers must have accomplished her feat of developing Jung's distinctions into sixteen type portraits by dint of considerable observation of people in action, as well as a great deal of imaginative speculation. Salvaging the useful parts of Jung's cumbersome and self-contradictory theory of psychological types and making it available to scientist and layman alike was quite a feat. So the debt owed Isabel Myers by students of human conduct is truly enormous.

Had she not devised her personality inventory and its accompanying portraits of personality, I for one ... would not have been able to connect her portraits to earlier ones. For I was later to find that the four groups of personality types described by Myers corresponded nicely with the four personality types of several predecessors.

The "Keirsey Temperament Sorter" at the front of PUM II types you based on 70 items. Ten of them are I/E items, and 20 each are S/N, T/F and J/P items, and they're very similar to the items on the official MBTI. The official MBTI S/N items include...

• Which word appeals to you most — (N) possibilities or (S) certainties?
• Do you usually get along better with (N) imaginative people or (S) realistic people?
• In reading for pleasure, do you (N) enjoy odd or original ways of saying things or (S) like writers to say exactly what they mean?
• Would you rather be considered (S) a practical person or (N) an ingenious person?

... and Keirsey's S/N items include...

• Are you more interested in (S) what is actual or (N) what is possible?
• Do you tend to be more (S) factual than speculative or (N) speculative than factual?
• Do you like writers who (S) say what they mean or (N) use metaphors and symbolism?
• Do you prize in yourself (S) a strong hold on reality or (N) a vivid imagination?

The idea that, as Infinite Bubble put it, "Bob Dylan could be described as an MBTI ISFP (Fi + Se) and a Keirsey INFP" is, not to put too fine a point on it, just silly — assuming that, by "MBTI ISFP," you're referring to somebody who's likely to come out "S" on the official MBTI.

And both PUM and PUM II include separate portraits of each of the 16 types, in addition to descriptions of the things that (as Keirsey sees it) NTs, NFs, SJs and SPs tend to have in common, and, not surprisingly, Keirsey's INFP portrait basically matches MBTI INFP portraits and Keirsey's ISFP portrait basically matches MBTI ISFP portraits — as you already know if you've looked at the Keirsey and MBTI portraits in those link roundups I gave you.

As a side note, and because it's another misunderstanding about Keirsey I sometimes encounter in internet forum posts: The idea that Keirsey's focus is somehow more behavioral than Myers or other MBTI sources also doesn't have much truth to it. In the introduction to Please Understand Me II, as part of his explanation for why he steers clear of the cognitive functions, Keirsey himself states (more misleadingly than accurately) that his work is somehow more solidly based on observation of what people actually say and do — rather than on "speculation" about "people's mental make-up." But if you actually read Please Understand Me II and compare Keirsey's descriptions with the descriptions in Myers, Thomson or any other popular MBTI source (or Jung, for that matter), you'll find that the mix of internal and external really isn't all that different. Here's a passage from Keirsey's INTJ description, for example:

Their point of view is pragmatic, skeptical, relativistic, focused on spatial intersections and intervals of time. They base their self-image on being ingenious, autonomous, and resolute. They would if possible be calm, they trust reason, are hungry for achievement, seek knowledge, prize deference, and aspire to be wizards of science and technology. Intellectually, they are prone to practice strategy far more than diplomacy, tactics and especially logistics.

Their "point of view," their "self-image," their "trust" in reason and "hunger" for achievement, their "aspiration" to be wizards: this is pretty much all about an INTJ's internal values/motivations/etc., no? And this is pulled from his introductory summary. Keirsey goes on to discuss each of those internal aspects in greater detail, and has similar discussions of the "self-image" and "aspirations" and etc. of each of the 16 MBTI types.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION], by "MBTI", I am referring to the method of using the four letter code as designators for the cognitive functions one uses, rather than the MBTI theory per se. I am aware that Myers-Briggs has more to it than the mere functions, but it is the most common term that people on forums such as these use to mean "the cognitive functions". Perhaps I should have said JCF, CFs, or function theory. But it doesn't matter.

So, function-based typology vs purely dichotomy-based typology. For instance, one may gather information from the environment by primarily focusing on the five senses (Se), yet still be, in Keirsian terms, rather speculative at times, or prize themselves in having a vivid imagination, because these are not mutually exclusive. Thus they may test as an N on such tests. Both are correct in their own terms, but one result doesn't always necessitate that the other will be the same. Of course, there will be a fairly strong correlation between the two.

 

[Stansmith]

I'm definitely an 'N' in Keirsey. Lol at me being practical and concerned with immediate action.

 

[reckful]

[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION], by "MBTI", I am referring to the method of using the four letter code as designators for the cognitive functions one uses, rather than the MBTI theory per se. I am aware that Myers-Briggs has more to it than the mere functions, but it is the most common term that people on forums such as these use to mean "the cognitive functions". Perhaps I should have said JCF, CFs, or function theory. But it doesn't matter.

So, function-based typology vs purely dichotomy-based typology. For instance, one may gather information from the environment by primarily focusing on the five senses (Se), yet still be, in Keirsian terms, rather speculative at times, or prize themselves in having a vivid imagination, because these are not mutually exclusive. Thus they may test as an N on such tests. Both are correct in their own terms, but one result doesn't always necessitate the other will be the same. Of course, there will be a fairly strong correlation between the two.

If, by "function-based typology," you're talking about the functions descriptions and model used by, e.g., Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk — i.e., the functions as most often described and discussed on internet forums — then my issue with your post wasn't a functions-vs.-dichotomies issue. You said "Bob Dylan could be described as an MBTI ISFP (Fi + Se) and a Keirsey INFP," and that's no less incorrect under the Thomson/Berens/Nardi/Quenk functions model than it is under a more dichotomy-centric MBTI perspective — because Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk all (for better or worse) agree with Myers that the people who come out ISFP based on the MBTI dichotomies have Fi as their dominant function and Se as their auxiliary function. And, in fact, Berens specifically makes use of Keirsey's temperaments and, not surprisingly, matches Fi-Se types to Keirsey's SPs and Fi-Ne types to Keirsey's NFs.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

I was summoned.

I'm an ISFP 4w5. How can I help?

 

[Noll]

I was summoned.

I'm an ISFP 4w5. How can I help?

uhmm well.... i dunno, tell me about yourself? sorry i'm really bad at coming up with questions.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION]: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3321340/results.PNG and https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3321340/results2.PNG

i'm very much an amateur when it comes to MBTI, i've always prefered Enneagram. INFP just confuses me cause i'm not that good at abstract thinking, which i guess is common for INFP's, to be good at abstract thinking? i mean i'm not very rational, i'm a feeler, i have a tendency to express myself abstractly (and be really imaginative), but when it comes to understanding others, i'd prefer if they could stay concrete, and i have a pretty hard time learning in school because of it, and i have noticed it, i take a lot of things very literally compared to others. i learn differently but i can't really grasp it. i have been diagnosed with Asperger's, i guess INFP and Asperger's can mix even though it's not that common. i'm not good at symbolism or finding "hidden meanings" unless i'm really into it, like a poem i really like. i have a tendency to just like some things, while not being able to explain why at all. too abstract.

it's always confused me too cause, i'm not THAT introverted, when answering for these kind of tests i choose "reserved", "quiet"-options etc cause i'm shy. when i get to know people i can be overly talkative and not at all introverted. dominant Fi though, definitely. at the end of the day i guess i'm an introvert. another close friend told me i'm probably more Si than Se.

I'm not all that quiet either, to be honest. I used to be. But as I've gotten older, I've become a lot more outgoing and talkative. I have a preference to stay in my own bubble at home, but when I am out and about, I easily go up to others and start conversation. I think it's my SO instinct.

INFP/ISFP differences:

They can definitely be hard to distinguish. I would say that ISFP's are much more action oriented than INFP's. And much more spontaneous. Being 4w5, both are reflective and idealistic. But the ISFP has more of a tendency to try and live out an ideal, rather than to talk about it. There are differences even between ISFP's. For example, my roommate is also an ISFP. She felt such a strong urge to follow her heart, that she took off in the middle of the night, leaving her job without notice and her apartment and family all behind. She hopped on a train, and traveled the US Jack Kerouac style. She made money playing music for pocket change. Now, I'm not that bold and tend to prefer my comforts, but I can easily understand where she is coming from and have had similar urges. However, I used to date an INFP, and one of the things we fought about quite often, was his lack of spontaneity and my abundance of it. His tertiary Si made him want to plan out all trips and adventures. It was cute when he decided to plan to have a spontaneous day with me. ha. I don't think he caught the irony.
Other differences: I think ISFP's tend to speak more from experience than INFP's. Also: Ne often bothers me. My INFP ex often spoke of synchronicity and connections. I like to play around with those types of ideas, but I like more concrete, empirical data. I like symbolism, especially when speaking on dreams, or poetry, art and stories. But not when it comes to daily activities.

The Se/Ni vs Ne/Si differences seems to be that of convergent thinking vs. divergent thinking. Se/Ni is convergent: Se gathers data, here, there and everywhere in a random way, then brings it together to form meaning. Divergent thinking uses Si to have a data set, then uses Ne to randomly shoot off in different directions to create meaning/understanding.

I never had that moment of questioning whether or not I was INFP or ISFP. From a very young age, I've always been very attuned to aesthetics and art. Se was always very obvious for me. I would hyper focus on sensory details that most others would pass by. I was a hands on learner. Ni didn't really begin to develop until I was a little bit older.

 

[Stansmith]

[MENTION=10131]IndyAnnaJoan[/MENTION]

I like symbolism, especially when speaking on dreams, or poetry, art and stories. But not when it comes to daily activities.

Can you give an example of how he did this?

 

[Galena]

But the ISFP has more of a tendency to try and live out an ideal, rather than to talk about it.

Agree now, but I didn't used to be like this much. Still is a challenge to get into action on many parts of life that most people I know take for granted.

There are differences even between ISFP's. For example, my roommate is also an ISFP. She felt such a strong urge to follow her heart, that she took off in the middle of the night, leaving her job without notice and her apartment and family all behind. She hopped on a train, and traveled the US Jack Kerouac style. She made money playing music for pocket change.

I'd have left a notice.

However, I used to date an INFP, and one of the things we fought about quite often, was his lack of spontaneity and my abundance of it. His tertiary Si made him want to plan out all trips and adventures. It was cute when he decided to plan to have a spontaneous day with me. ha. I don't think he caught the irony.

I'm in between. In my spare time, I am apt to rigidly plan to go to [location] at [time] to do [thing], but rarely pencil in any more advance detail than that because I enjoy figuring out how to accomplish a mission when it's too late to turn back. I'm always on some "mission" or another that might sound odd to a partner if I took them out with me, but I have been alone for a while now and it has bothered me minimally. Sometimes my objective is just to explore/experience an environment as an aesthetic end in itself. I have also been known to plan "spontaneous days" with a spiritual or mental health intention in mind.

Other differences: I think ISFP's tend to speak more from experience than INFP's. Also: Ne often bothers me. My INFP ex often spoke of synchronicity and connections. I like to play around with those types of ideas, but I like more concrete, empirical data. I like symbolism, especially when speaking on dreams, or poetry, art and stories. But not when it comes to daily activities.

Within, I am symbolic over the small things, but that's not the face I confront the world with. It's just a given that it's not as coherent outside as it is inside my mind. Empirical data is essential for me. To draw conclusions without it seems like a waste of time, although I hold some irrational tenants anyway.

I never had that moment of questioning whether or not I was INFP or ISFP. From a very young age, I've always been very attuned to aesthetics and art. Se was always very obvious for me. I would hyper focus on sensory details that most others would pass by. I was a hands on learner. Ni didn't really begin to develop until I was a little bit older.

Lucky. I have typed as N-dominant before to explain Fi and Ni as my clearest functions, and I have been in touch with Ni for longer, before even Se. The neurotic dom-tert temptation has always been strong with me.

 

[brainheart]

However, I used to date an INFP, and one of the things we fought about quite often, was his lack of spontaneity and my abundance of it. His tertiary Si made him want to plan out all trips and adventures. It was cute when he decided to plan to have a spontaneous day with me. ha. I don't think he caught the irony.

I am so not a planner. But I would agree that in comparison to an ISFP an INFP will seem so. I think ISFPs are more adaptable to other people's plans than INFPs are. I think we're more likely to have an idea in our head as to how we would like the day to be (although we might not make any real concrete plans) so if someone out of the blue suggests something we might drag our feet a bit.

The Se/Ni vs Ne/Si differences seems to be that of convergent thinking vs. divergent thinking. Se/Ni is convergent: Se gathers data, here, there and everywhere in a random way, then brings it together to form meaning. Divergent thinking uses Si to have a data set, then uses Ne to randomly shoot off in different directions to create meaning/understanding.

Sort of. However, INFPs auxiliary function is also an extroverted perceiving one. I think we're more likely to gather present information via Ne, think about our Si data, then bounce back to Ne to see if the pattern fits. It's more of a ping pong action than a direct line. Kind of "it's like this, it was like this, it could be like this, what if it was like this?"

I never had that moment of questioning whether or not I was INFP or ISFP. From a very young age, I've always been very attuned to aesthetics and art. Se was always very obvious for me. I would hyper focus on sensory details that most others would pass by. I was a hands on learner. Ni didn't really begin to develop until I was a little bit older.

INFPs are also very attuned to aesthetics and art. We can also hyper focus on sensory details. We can also be hands on learners. Se and Ne are both extroverted perceiving functions. In this way we are both empiricists. Ne just takes that sensory info and then imbues it with meaning/notices connections that aren't concretely there. For the INFP, extroverted perception operates as more of a springboard than a destination.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

INFPs are also very attuned to aesthetics and art. We can also hyper focus on sensory details. We can also be hands on learners. Se and Ne are both extroverted perceiving functions. In this way we are both empiricists. Ne just takes that sensory info and then imbues it with meaning/notices connections that aren't concretely there. For the INFP, extroverted perception operates as more of a springboard than a destination.

As an explanatory difference, I mean I hyper focus on sensory detail and take pleasure in shapes and texture and color, without requiring thinking any deeper on it. Merely appreciating the fluidity of an object/art.