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.
Ok so I'm an INFP new to mbti. based on Jungian Cognitive Function Test my functions are as followed :
Ni Ne Te Fi Fe Si Ti Se. which resemble an INTJ with developed Ne. And I can't possibly be T or J... because I just don't match the descriptions. I'm also 4w5 5w4 1w2 (The Researcher) on the enneagram (not sure about the instinctual variant). Can someone please shed some light on this self-conflicting soul ?
Ok so I'm an INFP new to mbti. based on Jungian Cognitive Function Test my functions are as followed :
Ni Ne Te Fi Fe Si Ti Se. which resemble an INTJ with developed Ne. And I can't possibly be T or J... because I just don't match the descriptions. I'm also 4w5 5w4 1w2 (The Researcher) on the enneagram (not sure about the instinctual variant). Can someone please shed some light on this self-conflicting soul ?
Well I'm imaginative, idealistic and emotionally expressive. But I'm also in search of truth most of the time.
Not truth that suits my emotional dispositions or the truth conceived by logic. but the truth that transcends both. You could say I look for meaning... Specially for patterns. I love interconnected patterns of behavior.
and most of the time I can see it. Really deep impersonal meaning... I'm in love with analytic psychology, fantasy/sci-fi movies and deep music. I also live an undisciplined life with usually no schedule or plans...
Well I'm imaginative, idealistic and emotionally expressive. But I'm also in search of truth most of the time. Not truth that suits my emotional dispositions or the truth conceived by logic. but the truth that transcends both. You could say I look for meaning... Specially for patterns. I love interconnected patterns of behavior.
and most of the time I can see it. Really deep impersonal meaning... I'm in love with analytic psychology, fantasy/sci-fi movies and deep music. I also live an undisciplined life with usually no schedule or plans...
Which is more likely? being an INTJ with a highly developed Ne and least developed Se. being an INTP with Ti being my seventh function or INFP with a really developed Ni?
Well I'm imaginative, idealistic and emotionally expressive. But I'm also in search of truth most of the time.
Not truth that suits my emotional dispositions or the truth conceived by logic. but the truth that transcends both. You could say I look for meaning... Specially for patterns. I love interconnected patterns of behavior.
and most of the time I can see it. Really deep impersonal meaning... I'm in love with analytic psychology, fantasy/sci-fi movies and deep music. I also live an undisciplined life with usually no schedule or plans...
80% of what you said above also describes how I am, except the imaginative and the deep impersonal meaning part (even if they're seen patterns of behavior). It's difficult for me to put the word deep and impersonal in the same sentence. However, that doesn't necessarily point you to being an INFP. The most important issue, is if you use Fi to make your decisions.
In my opinion, I do not believe this is possible. There's been discussions and debate on this forum as to why there are no borderline types. You might want to check this thread out to clarify things: Borderline Type's are a Myth
One other thing - tests such as Jungian Cognitive Function Test might confuse you even more. It's only a test until you put it to actual real-life application.
Well I'm imaginative, idealistic and emotionally expressive. But I'm also in search of truth most of the time.
Not truth that suits my emotional dispositions or the truth conceived by logic. but the truth that transcends both. You could say I look for meaning... Specially for patterns. I love interconnected patterns of behavior.
and most of the time I can see it. Really deep impersonal meaning... I'm in love with analytic psychology, fantasy/sci-fi movies and deep music. I also live an undisciplined life with usually no schedule or plans...
If I had to go with a type from this description, it would be INFP, especially the part about searching for meaning, being idealistic/emotionally expressive, perceiving outward interconnected patterns, and living a very externally unstructured lifestyle.
Well it just happens that I have a very developed tertiary function (Fi) which is probably because of my dad being an ESFP (Nurture). When I look at my self closely, I never seek consensus, harmony doesn't matter that much to me and I enjoy intellectual pursuits as long as they involve the bigger picture and take into account all the aspects of being human. But yes I also have high ideals for both myself and society in general, I imagine how it would be like to live in worlds with more advanced culture (or the absence of it). I can also express my emotions whenever I want to and never had a sarcastic conversation with anyone in my whole life. I can settle with INTJ overall.
Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive functions guys (as you probably know), and his keys2cognition test (which you may well have taken) is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test but, as further discussed in the next spoiler, INTJs typically get high Ni scores and high Ne scores (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores and high Ti scores (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test — and INFJs often get Fi scores that are as high or higher than their Fe scores.
I spent some time reviewing the keys2cognition test results in this long (350-post) INTJforum thread for posters who type themselves (based on their profile info) as INTJ. Since I'm more of a "dichotomies" guy than a "functions" guy, it didn't exactly shock me to discover that the posted test results were a long way from what you'd expect if you subscribe to the most common cognitive functions model for INTJs — i.e., Ni-Te-Fi-Se. Instead, to the extent that there's any kind of typical pattern for an INTJ's cognitive functions — as reflected by Nardi's test — it's more like this:
1. The totals for the two N functions and the two T functions (i.e., Ni + Ne and Ti + Te) tend to be higher than the S and F totals — which is what you'd expect if Ni and Te are an INTJ's top two functions. But Ni is not substantially favored over Ne (sometimes Ne is higher, and often the scores are very close); and, similarly, Te is not substantially favored over Ti (sometimes Ti is higher, and often the scores are very close).
2. Where there's a significant difference, the T totals tend to be higher than the N totals (rather than vice versa), which is not what you'd expect for a person with Ni as their "dominant" function — the one on which Jung focused almost exclusively in Psychological Types — and Te as their "auxiliary" function. (I suspect that part of the explanation for this may be that, as is often the case with MBTI-related tests, a number of the N items on Nardi's test have a somewhat mystical/flaky flavor that make them more likely to appeal to NFs and/or NPs than NTJs.)
3. Where there's a significant difference, the S totals tend to be higher than the F totals (rather than vice versa), which is arguably not what you'd expect given the way the tertiary and inferior functions are typically characterized.
4. Se is not significantly favored over Si, which is arguably not what you'd expect from the standpoint of Se being one of an INTJ's "top four" functions and Si being one of the "shadow" functions. On the other hand, the inferior function (Se) is called "inferior" at least partly because it's viewed as the one of the top four most likely to be a weak spot that remains undeveloped or underdeveloped until (at best) later in life, so, especially with young INTJs, maybe there's no reason to expect Se scores to be significantly higher than Si scores. But you would expect Si scores to be low in absolute terms — both because Si is one of the bottom four ("shadow") functions and because S is disfavored as between N and S. But, unlike Fe (discussed next), the Si scores for INTJs in that thread tend to be moderately high.
5. It seems to me that it's only the F scores on the keys2cognition test that tend to be strikingly consistent with most cognitive functions theorists (including Nardi). The results for the majority of INTJs in that thread show reasonably good use of Fi (their tertiary function) and little or no use of Fe (one of the shadow functions).
As I understand it, there isn't a single function-based test on or off the internet on which INTJs reliably get high Ni and Te scores and low Ti and Ne scores and INTPs reliably get high Ti and Ne scores and low Ni and Te scores — never mind scoring the third and fourth functions in a way that matches the model. I'm theoretically an "Ni-dom," but Te and Ti were my two highest scores on Nardi's test.
And what functions model should a good test be matching, anyway? Myers acknowledged that the majority of Jung scholars believed (rightly, IMHO) that Jung's model for a Ti-dom with an N auxiliary was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe. Myers' model was Ti-Ne-Se-Fe — although, as explained in my last linked post (below), Myers, despite some lip service to the contrary, essentially (and to her credit) abandoned the functions for the dichotomies. Harold Grant's model — followed by Berens and Nardi and most of the other modern functions theorists — was Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.
That last model is the one most often subscribed to by internet forumites, which is why you'll often read posts that say that INTJs and INTPs (or INFJs and INFPs) may share three letters but, pfffft, they've got almost nothing in common because, when you go from J to P, it flips all your functions! Buuut... I'm here to tell you that "Am I INTJ or INTP?" is by far the most common torn-between-types dilemma encountered in type-me threads at INTJforum. And I often point that out to the function-flipping aficonados, and I say to them, "Listen! If INTJs and INTPs are so freaking different, why is there this endless parade of INTJforum posters who've read up on the MBTI (including the functions), read INTJ and INTP profiles, and ended up concluding (1) that they relate better to INTJ and INTP descriptions than any other types, and (2) that they relate pretty much equally well to INTJ and INTP?"
And nobody ever has a good answer. And sometimes I ask them, "Hey, if INTJs and INTPs have no shared functions and their functions are as different as you say, how about doing what Nardi somehow failed to do and give me some Ni, Ne, Ti and Te descriptions that I can offer those poor type-me-please INTx's as a solution to their confusion. If they relate to your Ni and Te descriptions and don't relate to your Ti and Ne descriptions, we'll know they're INTJs, and if it's the other way around, we'll know they're INTPs."
And guess what? Not one cognitive functions aficionado has even tried to rise to my challenge, although sometimes they stroke their chins and say something like, well, you know, the cognitive functions are incredibly deep and subtle and it's unrealistic to expect somebody to be able to describe them using something as crude as words.
Meanwhile, in the land of real people and words and science and stuff...
The four MBTI dichotomies, which substantially line up with four of the Big Five dimensions, now have decades of studies in support of their validity and reliability, while the cognitive functions — which James Reynierse (in a 2009 article linked to below) refers to as a "category mistake" — have barely been studied. And the reason they've barely been studied is that, unlike the dichotomies, they've never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists. Going all the way back to 1985, the MBTI Manual described or referred to somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,500 MBTI studies and, as I understand it, not one of the many study-based correlations reported in the manual were framed in terms of the functions. And many more dichotomy-based studies have been done in the years since. The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, as Reynierse notes in that same article, it cited a grand total of eight studies involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — which Reynierse summarizes as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support."
Assuming you have reasonably well-defined preferences, I think you're more likely to correctly type yourself using dichotomy-based tests than tests (or analysis) based on the functions. And if you've got one or more preferences that are in or near the middle, I think dichotomy-based tests are more likely to correctly indicate that situation as well.
If you've never been typed with the official "Step I" MBTI, it's here.
Just in case you're interested — and only if you're interested — in more from me on 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, you'll find it in this long INTJforum post.
Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for two of the links in that post:
Well I'm imaginative, idealistic and emotionally expressive. But I'm also in search of truth most of the time.
Not truth that suits my emotional dispositions or the truth conceived by logic. but the truth that transcends both. You could say I look for meaning... Specially for patterns. I love interconnected patterns of behavior.
and most of the time I can see it. Really deep impersonal meaning... I'm in love with analytic psychology, fantasy/sci-fi movies and deep music. I also live an undisciplined life with usually no schedule or plans...
The search for meaning is generally an NF thing, if you're talking about meaning/purpose in life. Although, if by "deep impersonal meaning" you mean searching for patterns (which you did mention) and the underlying principles that explain how things work, NTs certainly focus a lot of their attention on that. 4w5 is more likely for an INFP than an INTJ, though, and I'd say 4w5 Sx/So is an especially unlikely INTJ type. Some more reading material that might help you: NF - Catalyst/Idealists NT - Theorist/Rationals
"Listen! If INTJs and INTPs are so freaking different, why is there this endless parade of INTJforum posters who've read up on the MBTI (including the functions), read INTJ and INTP profiles, and ended up concluding (1) that they relate better to INTJ and INTP descriptions than any other types, and (2) that they relate pretty much equally well to INTJ and INTP?"
That makes sense. I also think Jung's original model of eight types based on the dominant function was a much more feasible system of personality analysis. It was after all the basis of Myers-Briggs whole system.
Without reading the whole discourse, something to note is Ni doms have strong Ne, but prefer Ni (as with all other functions--Ti and Te, Fi and Fe, Si and Se--the pairs develop together). Also, from my experience cognitive functions tests may be better indicators of valuation than utilization. Studying each function extensively and closely examining yourself through those lenses should eventually lead to one of the sixteen types.
I've noticed most MBTI discussions here revolve around interpreting usually-ambiguous symptoms of cognitive processes. There are plenty of explanations for our idiosyncrasies that muddy this method of typing, so I would suggest asking a few of the veterans for the reading materials they found most helpful and letting that information digest for a while. Video chatting with someone well-versed in the system could bypass the learning process, if that appeals to you and you find someone willing to help.
Which is more likely? being an INTJ with a highly developed Ne and least developed Se. being an INTP with Ti being my seventh function or INFP with a really developed Ni?
I'm not sure this is a fair question, or even a useful one. I agree with those who recommend focusing on the dichotomies rather than the functions. I also score much higher on Ne and Ti than one would think an INTJ would, though with Fi>>Fe and Se>>Si, so not inconsistent with INTJ, but not as clear to see as on dichotomy-based surveys. What impression do you get when you read type descriptions?
Which is more likely? being an INTJ with a highly developed Ne and least developed Se. being an INTP with Ti being my seventh function or INFP with a really developed Ni?
The most likely would be the INTJ with highly developed Ne, due to the relative strength of intuition in the type, and then INFP for favored engagement with the demonstrative/senex function of Ni that impacts the Fi worldview in a conscious-unconscious mechanism (Fi-Ni). Fi provides the moral framework, Ni provides the unconscious commentary on the framework as well as a differing perspective from the usual Ne.
INTP with Ti second to last though seems rather implausible, though probable on some, though microscopic, scale. (Assuming that the 1-8 scale is level of strength on say, a keys2cognition report)
For my own amusement, does formal logic bore you in such a way that it could almost be described as a personal weakness due to a lack of care or experience in formal logic?
I too, like [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION], score relatively high on Ne and especially Ti, though I do not value them.
For my own amusement, does formal logic bore you in such a way that it could almost be described as a personal weakness due to a lack of care or experience in formal logic?
Logic for me is powerful inspiring tool if it is used by the right intention and an unbiased frame of mind. However like any other tool it can be misused for "shadow" purposes like winning an argument just for the sake of ego.
Ok so I'm an INFP new to mbti. based on Jungian Cognitive Function Test my functions are as followed :
Ni Ne Te Fi Fe Si Ti Se. which resemble an INTJ with developed Ne. And I can't possibly be T or J... because I just don't match the descriptions. I'm also 4w5 5w4 1w2 (The Researcher) on the enneagram (not sure about the instinctual variant). Can someone please shed some light on this self-conflicting soul ?
Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive functions guys (as you probably know), and his keys2cognition test (which you may well have taken) is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test but, as further discussed in the next spoiler, INTJs typically get high Ni scores and high Ne scores (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores and high Ti scores (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test — and INFJs often get Fi scores that are as high or higher than their Fe scores.
I spent some time reviewing the keys2cognition test results in this long (350-post) INTJforum thread for posters who type themselves (based on their profile info) as INTJ. Since I'm more of a "dichotomies" guy than a "functions" guy, it didn't exactly shock me to discover that the posted test results were a long way from what you'd expect if you subscribe to the most common cognitive functions model for INTJs — i.e., Ni-Te-Fi-Se. Instead, to the extent that there's any kind of typical pattern for an INTJ's cognitive functions — as reflected by Nardi's test — it's more like this:
1. The totals for the two N functions and the two T functions (i.e., Ni + Ne and Ti + Te) tend to be higher than the S and F totals — which is what you'd expect if Ni and Te are an INTJ's top two functions. But Ni is not substantially favored over Ne (sometimes Ne is higher, and often the scores are very close); and, similarly, Te is not substantially favored over Ti (sometimes Ti is higher, and often the scores are very close).
2. Where there's a significant difference, the T totals tend to be higher than the N totals (rather than vice versa), which is not what you'd expect for a person with Ni as their "dominant" function — the one on which Jung focused almost exclusively in Psychological Types — and Te as their "auxiliary" function. (I suspect that part of the explanation for this may be that, as is often the case with MBTI-related tests, a number of the N items on Nardi's test have a somewhat mystical/flaky flavor that make them more likely to appeal to NFs and/or NPs than NTJs.)
3. Where there's a significant difference, the S totals tend to be higher than the F totals (rather than vice versa), which is arguably not what you'd expect given the way the tertiary and inferior functions are typically characterized.
4. Se is not significantly favored over Si, which is arguably not what you'd expect from the standpoint of Se being one of an INTJ's "top four" functions and Si being one of the "shadow" functions. On the other hand, the inferior function (Se) is called "inferior" at least partly because it's viewed as the one of the top four most likely to be a weak spot that remains undeveloped or underdeveloped until (at best) later in life, so, especially with young INTJs, maybe there's no reason to expect Se scores to be significantly higher than Si scores. But you would expect Si scores to be low in absolute terms — both because Si is one of the bottom four ("shadow") functions and because S is disfavored as between N and S. But, unlike Fe (discussed next), the Si scores for INTJs in that thread tend to be moderately high.
5. It seems to me that it's only the F scores on the keys2cognition test that tend to be strikingly consistent with most cognitive functions theorists (including Nardi). The results for the majority of INTJs in that thread show reasonably good use of Fi (their tertiary function) and little or no use of Fe (one of the shadow functions).
As I understand it, there isn't a single function-based test on or off the internet on which INTJs reliably get high Ni and Te scores and low Ti and Ne scores and INTPs reliably get high Ti and Ne scores and low Ni and Te scores — never mind scoring the third and fourth functions in a way that matches the model. I'm theoretically an "Ni-dom," but Te and Ti were my two highest scores on Nardi's test.
And what functions model should a good test be matching, anyway? Myers acknowledged that the majority of Jung scholars believed (rightly, IMHO) that Jung's model for a Ti-dom with an N auxiliary was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe. Myers' model was Ti-Ne-Se-Fe — although, as explained in my last linked post (below), Myers, despite some lip service to the contrary, essentially (and to her credit) abandoned the functions for the dichotomies. Harold Grant's model — followed by Berens and Nardi and most of the other modern functions theorists — was Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.
That last model is the one most often subscribed to by internet forumites, which is why you'll often read posts that say that INTJs and INTPs (or INFJs and INFPs) may share three letters but, pfffft, they've got almost nothing in common because, when you go from J to P, it flips all your functions! Buuut... I'm here to tell you that "Am I INTJ or INTP?" is by far the most common torn-between-types dilemma encountered in type-me threads at INTJforum. And I often point that out to the function-flipping aficonados, and I say to them, "Listen! If INTJs and INTPs are so freaking different, why is there this endless parade of INTJforum posters who've read up on the MBTI (including the functions), read INTJ and INTP profiles, and ended up concluding (1) that they relate better to INTJ and INTP descriptions than any other types, and (2) that they relate pretty much equally well to INTJ and INTP?"
And nobody ever has a good answer. And sometimes I ask them, "Hey, if INTJs and INTPs have no shared functions and their functions are as different as you say, how about doing what Nardi somehow failed to do and give me some Ni, Ne, Ti and Te descriptions that I can offer those poor type-me-please INTx's as a solution to their confusion. If they relate to your Ni and Te descriptions and don't relate to your Ti and Ne descriptions, we'll know they're INTJs, and if it's the other way around, we'll know they're INTPs."
And guess what? Not one cognitive functions aficionado has even tried to rise to my challenge, although sometimes they stroke their chins and say something like, well, you know, the cognitive functions are incredibly deep and subtle and it's unrealistic to expect somebody to be able to describe them using something as crude as words.
About the above: I am very much on your same frequency. What you wrote is also very to the point for me. You are trying to tackle an important issue. And I agree that its about time that someone should find out.
Most people do indeed accept that there is a E-I, S-N, T-F spectrum in each MBTI dichotomy.
The J-P switch is a more difficult one indeed, and you have rightly pointed out so. Because if it's supposed to flip the functions all around, then how can it be a spectrum (independent of E-I)?
And why indeed are people so confused about it (like between INTP/INTJ)? Does that increase the probability that there would actually be a J-P spectrum (independent of E-I)? That the good question!
I don't know the answer, to that. But I can imagine & explore ways in which it could be an independant spectrum...
Would you consider this a possibility?:
What if there is a spectrum between Ni and Ne? Lets say there is a spectrum and we define a virtual "NiNe"-function, being a function in the middle of that spectrum. People with this virtual "NiNe"-function would be hard to type, as they would be on the borderline, falling in both boxes at each side. The more Ne-like the NiNe-type would be, the higher the P. The more Ni-like the NiNe-type would be, the higher the J.
In such a model the J-P spectrum might actually be possible, and thus make sense.
Still the problem of what happens to the E-I at the same time is still there...
There would then also be a virtual "TiTe" middle function in this spectrum model. But would Ne necessarily dictate Ti, and Ni necessarily dictate Te inclination? (as MBTI originally/officially dictates)
if we want to keep J-P as a spectrum, independently from the E-I spectrum then we need to define (in this new model) that the choice of the Te/Ti-direction would be independent from the Ne/Ni direction. Thus indeed it requires the possibility of NiNe going to Ni, while TiTe also going to Ti... Thus a NiTi type is possible here, but not allowed by normal MBTI.
So good question, does the occurrence of the INTJ/INTP confusion show that NiTi types exist? Is this the source of the confusion, or something else?
I guess this is the problem you are showing us, am I right?
No. If you read the long INTJforum post I link to at the end of post 10, you'll see that I'm not really a believer in the "cognitive functions." I think James Reynierse (as discussed in the linked post) was right to characterize them as a "category mistake."
