[Jungian Cognitive Functions] What type do you think I am? Most likely IxFP.

[Skippy Munchkin]

I understand that which personality type people are depends on the cognitive functions, which is something I really enjoy learning about. I have a hard time typing myself, however, because I have traits of many different things. Before you judge me for not being perfect at MBTI, please let me explain why.

I highly suspect that I'm an Fi-Te user. I'm obsessed with my identity, beliefs, and the things that make me me. In fact, I get angry when others tell me I'm similar to a certain family member or don't see my actual identity. When I do cognitive function test rather than the "I vs E, S vs N, F vs T, P vs J" bullshit test, I score the highest on Fi. But I understand that cognitive function test aren't so great either.
But regardless of all my Fi traits, I have a few of the "stronger side" Fe ones as well. I can become very vulnerable to criticism, develop the urge to help people, and not know what I'm actually feeling at times. I think having Fe as a first shadow function could easily explain that. What would Fe in that placement be like?
I may not be an Fe user though since I never actually use the morality I was raised with to guide others through life. I also suck at actually acting on helping others and I'm really bad at using my forehead expression. Some descriptions of Fe kind of pissed me off as well, but I try not to judge.
At times I thought I could of been a Ti user; the more I learn about MBTI however, the more I realized that I actually lack subjective thinking for reasons I can't explain, even though I'm highly non-confrontational and enjoy coming up with stuff internally. I'm also HORRIBLE at being organized, which could be from having inferior Te. I tend to be highly goal oriented as well but have a difficult time putting that stuff into action. Also a sign of inferior Te.


As for Ne-Si vs Se-Ni, this ones a bit tricky but I'm leaning towards Fi-Ne-Si-Te. I "enjoy" seeing myself through several different lights ( could be aux Ne ), always worry saying the wrong thing on an accident ( could be aux Ne ), and highly scatterbrained ( could be aux Ne ). I also remember specific aspects of situations better than other family members ( could be tert Si ), I get nostalgic (NOT in the bad way) and develop the urge to revisit places from my childhood ( could be tert Si ). I also crave comfort like an Si user of some sort.
But at the same time, I take external life pretty seriously ( could be aux Se ), enjoy sniffing and touching things ( could be aux Se ), and Fi-Ni loop looks similar to be. But so does Fi-Si loop and Si-Fi loop so....
If I was Se aux however, wouldn't I of been more coordinated? I SUCK at sports and always hated them. I also don't feel like I "absorb" or "live in" the external senses.

The thing that would confuse me if I was an Fi dom however is that I feel like I have borderline thinking and feeling. But maybe I'm just used to the Fi.
Sometimes I'm super empty and at other times very emotional. But I think the emptiness happens even more.

------------------------------
If I got something wrong or accidentally said something stupid, please educate me. Don't judge.

 

[reckful]

The notion that if you're an "Fi type," you're also a "Te type" — and ditto for the Fe/Ti, Ni/Se and Ne/Si 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 indeed, should probably be considered all but disproven at this point, given that the correlational patterns associated with it have stubbornly failed to show up in over 50 years of MBTI data pools.

More generally, and beyond the specific issues with the Grant stack and its "axes," I'd urge you not to be misled by people who overemphasize the so-called "cognitive functions" at the expense of the dichotomies, and who might lead you to think that INFPs are more like ISFPs than they are like any of the other types — onnaccounta INFPs and ISFPs are both Fi-doms.

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 of the four dichotomies, S/N is the one that tends to make the biggest difference. Myers and Keirsey had different perspectives on a number of things, but they saw eye-to-eye on that, and I'm also inclined to agree. INFPs have more in common with INFJs, INTPs and ENFPs than they do with ISFPs.

If you're interested, you can find quite a lot of S/N input from me in this post. As you'll see if you look at the stats in the third spoiler in that post, the simple fact that you're at an MBTI-themed forum, starting a thread about your type, is arguably worth a point or two on the N side of the ledger.

That linked post is part of a 10-post series with sections on each MBTI dimension — and this post has profile roundups for all 16 types.

I don't know what dichotomy-based tests you've taken, but the official MBTI is really the only MBTI-related test that has a lot of psychometric support behind it, and if you've never taken it, here's an online copy. It doesn't score you automatically, but it shows which preference corresponds to each response, so you can calculate your result for each dimension. I'd be curious to see your scores.

And if you're up for taking it and are interested in some guidance with respect to the proper "frame of mind," here's what the MBTI Manual says:

Some people have trouble finding the correct frame of mind for answering the MBTI. When reporting the results to some people, they say they reported their "work self," "school self," "ideal self," or some other self they now consider atypical. The frame of reference desired in respondents is what has been termed the "shoes-off self." The "shoes-off self" fosters an attitude in which one functions naturally, smoothly, and effortlessly, and in which one is not going "against one's grain." The function of the MBTI is to provide the first step toward understanding one's natural preferences.​

And finally... moving back to the dichotomies-vs.-functions issue, and just 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.

 

[Skippy Munchkin]

The notion that if you're an "Fi type," you're also a "Te type" — and ditto for the Fe/Ti, Ni/Se and Ne/Si 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 indeed, should probably be considered all but disproven at this point, given that the correlational patterns associated with it have stubbornly failed to show up in over 50 years of MBTI data pools.

More generally, and beyond the specific issues with the Grant stack and its "axes," I'd urge you not to be misled by people who overemphasize the so-called "cognitive functions" at the expense of the dichotomies, and who might lead you to think that INFPs are more like ISFPs than they are like any of the other types — onnaccounta INFPs and ISFPs are both Fi-doms.

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 of the four dichotomies, S/N is the one that tends to make the biggest difference. Myers and Keirsey had different perspectives on a number of things, but they saw eye-to-eye on that, and I'm also inclined to agree. INFPs have more in common with INFJs, INTPs and ENFPs than they do with ISFPs.

If you're interested, you can find quite a lot of S/N input from me in this post. As you'll see if you look at the stats in the third spoiler in that post, the simple fact that you're at an MBTI-themed forum, starting a thread about your type, is arguably worth a point or two on the N side of the ledger.

That linked post is part of a 10-post series with sections on each MBTI dimension — and this post has profile roundups for all 16 types.

I don't know what dichotomy-based tests you've taken, but the official MBTI is really the only MBTI-related test that has a lot of psychometric support behind it, and if you've never taken it, here's an online copy. It doesn't score you automatically, but it shows which preference corresponds to each response, so you can calculate your result for each dimension. I'd be curious to see your scores.

And if you're up for taking it and are interested in some guidance with respect to the proper "frame of mind," here's what the MBTI Manual says:

Some people have trouble finding the correct frame of mind for answering the MBTI. When reporting the results to some people, they say they reported their "work self," "school self," "ideal self," or some other self they now consider atypical. The frame of reference desired in respondents is what has been termed the "shoes-off self." The "shoes-off self" fosters an attitude in which one functions naturally, smoothly, and effortlessly, and in which one is not going "against one's grain." The function of the MBTI is to provide the first step toward understanding one's natural preferences.​

And finally... moving back to the dichotomies-vs.-functions issue, and just 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.

Where's the copy? Isn't there supposed to be an online link? I rely on the functions because they're more complex than the dichotomy of each type. It also makes sense to me.

In case you're wondering btw, I normally score INFP or INTP when I take the one on 16personalities.com. At one point I used to score INFJ as well, but highly doubt that's my type. INFP would be closer to me than INFJ.

 

[reckful]

Where's the copy? Isn't there supposed to be an online link?

The words "here's an online copy" (in my previous post) are a link.

I rely on the functions because they're more complex than the dichotomy of each type.

Or so you've been led to believe. I think it would do you good to read the last post I linked to (at the end of my previous post). "Complexity" that doesn't line up with reality (e.g., the function axes) isn't a virtue.

In case you're wondering btw, I normally score INFP or INTP when I take the one on 16personalities.com. At one point I used to score INFJ as well, but highly doubt that's my type. INFP would be closer to me than INFJ.

Based on the little you've posted so far, INFP would be my first choice. And if you're interested, you can find a lot of T/F stuff in that 10-post series I already linked you to.

 

[Skippy Munchkin]

The words "here's an online copy" (in my previous post) are a link.



Or so you've been led to believe. I think it would do you good to read the last post I linked to (at the end of my previous post). "Complexity" that doesn't line up with reality (e.g., the function axes) isn't a virtue.



Based on the little you've posted so far, INFP would be my first choice. And if you're interested, you can find a lot of T/F stuff in that 10-post series I already linked you to.

Thanks! I'm reading the link right now.
I may explain more later.
......
Okay so I read the page and counted it up. Hopefully after writing down my answers I didn't accidentally skip any to count. I got this:
N= 19
S= 7

F= 12
T= 11

P= 13
J= 9

I got all I except maybe 1 or 2 Es.

 

[reckful]

There are 26 S/N items, 24 T/F items and 22 J/P items, so you tallied all the S/N and J/P items, but must have missed one T/F item. No worries, tho, because your T/F score will qualify as middlish regardless of whether the missed item was T or F.

As discussed in this post (the first of three T/F posts in that 10-post series), I've often noted that I think it's not uncommon for INFs to test as INTs, at least partly because many of the F choices on typical MBTI tests (including the official test) are choices that are more likely to appeal to SFs and EFs than INFs. So if I assume you're an IN (and I think it's very likely that you are), I think your middlish T/F score on the official MBTI is somewhat indicative (although certainly not definitive) that you have an F preference, albeit quite possibly a mild F preference. And FWIW, "I'm obsessed with my identity, beliefs, and the things that make me me" is what you might call a quintessentially INF thing to say.

I also suspect the official MBTI pegged you correctly as a P, so INFP remains my first choice for you. But in case you're ever in the mood to ponder that preference, and as you may have noticed, that 10-post series also includes three posts on J/P.

In any case, if you end up reading some or all of those three T/F posts and have any follow-up questions (on those or anything else), I'll be around — and you shouldn't feel like there's any need to reply sooner rather than later.

And in the meantime, maybe one or more of the functionistas will weigh in with some function-centric input.

 

[Skippy Munchkin]

There are 26 S/N items, 24 T/F items and 22 J/P items, so you tallied all the S/N and J/P items, but must have missed one T/F item. No worries, tho, because your T/F score will qualify as middlish regardless of whether the missed item was T or F.

As discussed in this post (the first of three T/F posts in that 10-post series), I've often noted that I think it's not uncommon for INFs to test as INTs, at least partly because many of the F choices on typical MBTI tests (including the official test) are choices that are more likely to appeal to SFs and EFs than INFs. So if I assume you're an IN (and I think it's very likely that you are), I think your middlish T/F score on the official MBTI is somewhat indicative (although certainly not definitive) that you have an F preference, albeit quite possibly a mild F preference. And FWIW, "I'm obsessed with my identity, beliefs, and the things that make me me" is what you might call a quintessentially INF thing to say.

I also suspect the official MBTI pegged you correctly as a P, so INFP remains my first choice for you. But in case you're ever in the mood to ponder that preference, and as you may have noticed, that 10-post series also includes three posts on J/P.

In any case, if you end up reading some or all of those three T/F posts and have any follow-up questions (on those or anything else), I'll be around — and you shouldn't feel like there's any need to reply sooner rather than later.

And in the meantime, maybe one or more of the functionistas will weigh in with some function-centric input.

Although learning about cognitive functions is fun and they make a lot of sense to me in some ways, I think the order of them could be flawed anyways. I use both Fi and Ti and they aren't extremely separated apart like the functions of INTP and INFP are suppose to be. Like a Ti user, I usually need further information and have a difficult time explaining myself. But like an Fi user, I have that sense of identity and belief. In case you wanted me to explain myself more, which I'm pretty sure you do, here are some quick traits of mine:
Me:Quiet, loner, enjoys daydreaming about people and forming imaginary connections with them, can be lazy, feels misunderstood a lot, is sometimes empty/cold/unemotional and at other times on the warm goofy side(or sometimes may even get trapped in a deep emotional mind-set), everyone thinks I'm nice even though I sometimes feel like im not, people often think im innocent, can become self-absorbed/into myself, finds criticism difficult if I don't get validated enough, likes weird things, can be socially awkward, either has really awesome ideas or no idea at all, enjoys learning about other peoples preferences, feels like returning to old hobbies at times, will sometimes hide from others if I'm crying or experiencing deep emotions (Embarrassed about my feelings).

What I'm interested in or do for a living: I'm a cartoonist/digital artist(I've been drawing toons since I was little). During my mid-teen years I used to learn about hamsters as well as owning several of them. I had other interest to but not sure if it's worth mentioning.

I will also check all the P/J traits that apply to me, as well as the T/F ones.
I may also add more info about myself if you would like me to. Sorry if I didn't explain enough.

 

[treetophideaway]

The notion that if you're an "Fi type," you're also a "Te type" — and ditto for the Fe/Ti, Ni/Se and Ne/Si 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 indeed, should probably be considered all but disproven at this point, given that the correlational patterns associated with it have stubbornly failed to show up in over 50 years of MBTI data pools. More generally, and beyond the specific issues with the Grant stack and its "axes," I'd urge you not to be misled by people who overemphasize the so-called "cognitive functions" at the expense of the dichotomies, and who might lead you to think that INFPs are more like ISFPs than they are like any of the other types — onnaccounta INFPs and ISFPs are both Fi-doms. 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 of the four dichotomies, S/N is the one that tends to make the biggest difference. Myers and Keirsey had different perspectives on a number of things, but they saw eye-to-eye on that, and I'm also inclined to agree. INFPs have more in common with INFJs, INTPs and ENFPs than they do with ISFPs. If you're interested, you can find quite a lot of S/N input from me in this post. As you'll see if you look at the stats in the third spoiler in that post, the simple fact that you're at an MBTI-themed forum, starting a thread about your type, is arguably worth a point or two on the N side of the ledger. That linked post is part of a 10-post series with sections on each MBTI dimension — and this post has profile roundups for all 16 types. I don't know what dichotomy-based tests you've taken, but the official MBTI is really the only MBTI-related test that has a lot of psychometric support behind it, and if you've never taken it, here's an online copy. It doesn't score you automatically, but it shows which preference corresponds to each response, so you can calculate your result for each dimension. I'd be curious to see your scores. And if you're up for taking it and are interested in some guidance with respect to the proper "frame of mind," here's what the MBTI Manual says:

Some people have trouble finding the correct frame of mind for answering the MBTI. When reporting the results to some people, they say they reported their "work self," "school self," "ideal self," or some other self they now consider atypical. The frame of reference desired in respondents is what has been termed the "shoes-off self." The "shoes-off self" fosters an attitude in which one functions naturally, smoothly, and effortlessly, and in which one is not going "against one's grain." The function of the MBTI is to provide the first step toward understanding one's natural preferences.​

And finally... moving back to the dichotomies-vs.-functions issue, and just 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.

@reckful The thing I don't like about the questionnaire you linked is that is makes all N options seem infinitely more interesting and fun than the S options. So I checked quite a few N options (more than S options by 2). But in real life I would much rather prefer to DO something fun, interesting, entertaining rather than think about different things I can do. I'd much rather have an actual experience than debate or talk about theory. I don't think the questionnaire portrays quality S options. All the N options seem interesting and mysterious or alluring and all the S options seem boring and dull and just average. For example who wouldn't prefer to be fascinating (N) as opposed to sensible (S)? Or doesn't imaginative (N) sound much more fun than realistic (S)? And when choosing between being an ingenious person (N) or a practical person (S), that just makes me feel like it's saying N=smart and S=meh. Based on the questionnaire I seem to value N qualities over S because of how the options are portrayed (like one is better or more fun than the other); but in real life I'm not like an N very much. I'm not in any way trying to say that anything you're saying is wrong; I just think the particular questionnaire you linked is a little biased in the N/S area.

 

[reckful]

@reckful The thing I don't like about the questionnaire you linked is that is makes all N options seem infinitely more interesting and fun than the S options. So I checked quite a few N options (more than S options by 2). But in real life I would much rather prefer to DO something fun, interesting, entertaining rather than think about different things I can do. I'd much rather have an actual experience than debate or talk about theory. I don't think the questionnaire portrays quality S options. All the N options seem interesting and mysterious or alluring and all the S options seem boring and dull and just average. For example who wouldn't prefer to be fascinating (N) as opposed to sensible (S)? Or doesn't imaginative (N) sound much more fun than realistic (S)? And when choosing between being an ingenious person (N) or a practical person (S), that just makes me feel like it's saying N=smart and S=meh. Based on the questionnaire I seem to value N qualities over S because of how the options are portrayed (like one is better or more fun than the other); but in real life I'm not like an N very much. I'm not in any way trying to say that anything you're saying is wrong; I just think the particular questionnaire you linked is a little biased in the N/S area.

That "questionnaire I linked" is the official (Step I) MBTI. And here's what I had to say about the tests-have-an-N-bias notion just last month:

S/N is actually the only MBTI dimension where the overall (male and female together) percentages aren't very close to 50/50, buuut — are you sitting down? — the skew is in the S direction. Less than 30% of Americans come out N on the official MBTI, according to the stats posted by the official MBTI folks.

And I don't buy the idea that there's a big N skew in online tests. I've been participating in type-me exercises for over seven years now — including seeing lots of people's results on the official MBTI — and it's pretty rare, in my experience, for an MBTI forum member to come out N on HumanMetrics or one of the other unofficial online tests and come out S on the official MBTI.

Here are five of the S/N items from the official MBTI — and as I said, the more well-known online tests use items with a similar flavor.

• If you were a teacher, would you rather teach (S) fact courses, or (N) courses involving theory?
• Would you rather be considered (S) a practical person, or (N) an ingenious person?
• Which word appeals to you most? (N) imaginative, or (S) matter-of-fact?
• Which word appeals to you most? (S) sensible, or (N) fascinating?
• Would you rather (S) support the established methods of doing good, or (N) analyze what is still wrong and attack unsolved problems?

N's have a tendency to look at those kinds of S/N items and say, ZOMG, they make S's sound sooooo boring! Who the fuck would choose the S responses to those items?!

But again... around 70% of the U.S. population prefers the S responses to those items. Because they're S's.

MBTI forum participation is way skewed toward INs — as dramatically illustrated by the PerC and Typology Central stats in the spoiler in this post. But that's for the same reason that Carl Jung, Katharine Briggs, Isabel Myers, David Keirsey, Naomi Quenk, Lenore Thomson, Linda Berens and Dario Nardi are all INs — because INs have a substantially greater tendency to be interested in personality types than other types.​

 

[treetophideaway]

That "questionnaire I linked" is the official (Step I) MBTI. And here's what I had to say about the tests-have-an-N-bias notion just last month:

S/N is actually the only MBTI dimension where the overall (male and female together) percentages aren't very close to 50/50, buuut — are you sitting down? — the skew is in the S direction. Less than 30% of Americans come out N on the official MBTI, according to the stats posted by the official MBTI folks. And I don't buy the idea that there's a big N skew in online tests. I've been participating in type-me exercises for over seven years now — including seeing lots of people's results on the official MBTI — and it's pretty rare, in my experience, for an MBTI forum member to come out N on HumanMetrics or one of the other unofficial online tests and come out S on the official MBTI. Here are five of the S/N items from the official MBTI — and as I said, the more well-known online tests use items with a similar flavor.

• If you were a teacher, would you rather teach (S) fact courses, or (N) courses involving theory?
• Would you rather be considered (S) a practical person, or (N) an ingenious person?
• Which word appeals to you most? (N) imaginative, or (S) matter-of-fact?
• Which word appeals to you most? (S) sensible, or (N) fascinating?
• Would you rather (S) support the established methods of doing good, or (N) analyze what is still wrong and attack unsolved problems?

N's have a tendency to look at those kinds of S/N items and say, ZOMG, they make S's sound sooooo boring! Who the fuck would choose the S responses to those items?! But again... around 70% of the U.S. population prefers the S responses to those items. Because they're S's. MBTI forum participation is way skewed toward INs — as dramatically illustrated by the PerC and Typology Central stats in the spoiler in this post. But that's for the same reason that Carl Jung, Katharine Briggs, Isabel Myers, David Keirsey, Naomi Quenk, Lenore Thomson, Linda Berens and Dario Nardi are all INs — because INs have a substantially greater tendency to be interested in personality types than other types.​

Okay, that's cool. I'm not interested in debating it. I've never taken the official test and I don't know much about typing people. I just expressed my personal opinion that it made S's sound very boring and every person I asked personally yesterday (in real life not on here) expressed a similar opinion. But you just said 70% should have preferred the S responses according to statistics (which they didn't). So either I ran into all N's and no S's or like I said it makes S's sound boring. And I myself think I'm in the S category according to descriptions I've read of N vs S.

 

[GavinElster]

Honestly, I can't really support the idea that Ss tend to see the N stuff as way better on nearly all counts. I think there is probably a little bit of a boring-tinge on the S, even accounting for the fact that I'm an N, but stuff like preferring theory/abstract over the down-to-earth/practical? I think there are boatloads of people who would pick the latter.

I understand that, even if the stats show otherwise, you might have hangups on something like having a brilliant mind vs common sense, in that I think that's the sort of question where even someone who is a clear S and knows of an N eccentric physics genius friend might reasonably say "gee, I'd like to be brilliant!!"
And especially when typing individual people, it's important to be wary of why someone might choose a given option, even if on average, stats show the question fares pretty well.

But just overall, there's too much abstract/concrete themed stuff that I legitimately think screens for N/S well.

On another note, it's important to be very careful with subtleties: N correlates with Big 5 Openness to Experience, which relates positively with a tendency to seek out sensations/use the 5 senses more rather than less....while ALSO relating positively with a tendency to be intellectual and not shy away from the abstract.
I say this in reference to your note that you prefer experiences to theorizing -- the Big 5 Openness dimension divides into two aspects called Openness and Intellect, and I'd say some artsy types especially are a bit more experience and less prone to intellectualizing, and some of these are very clear Ns, just Ns of a slightly different breed from me. Doing theater involves a lot of concrete detail compared to being a logician, and being in the moment/experience-oriented in theater certainly doesn't markedly fit with S themes like being pragmatic. There are definitely subcategories, all things considered.