I'm 90 % sure I'm an INFJ, but I want someone's opinion.

[Wanonymous]

I could go with INFJ or ENFP. The "one more bit of info" thing is something I experience as well as an Ni dom. I collect lots of data points and then there is that moment in time that the insight hits me. It could be what you are explaining or it could be that it is Ne that is experiencing those perceptions which tend to be more of an emergent pattern. So from your description it's hard to tell. I understand ENFPs are the most introverted extraverts though I have known some who talk so much to make this observation ridiculous. I would think the attraction to passion, emotion, expressiveness is admiration of another who is like yourself. So there is that. I would lean towards ENFP based on functions but I think that dichotomies are a more accurate way of discerning type. Have you taken the MBTI Step 2?

It's hard to tell. I don't know anymore. Historically I've tested INFJ almost always, but these online tests are not reliable. I haven't taken the MBTI step 2 test, and upon checking I see that it is not free.
I tried to describe Ni and Ne better in a response to a someone's post, using a book I read as help:

Ni finds hidden meanings, insights, theories and patterns by using sensory information gathered by Se. Ni somehow connects all the Se data and gives the final result in the form of a sudden insight / image in the user. Ni is convergent in nature; the user of Ni prefers forming one single conclusion. The book mentions that Ni users resemble a "top-down" approach, meaning the first perception comes from the mind of the user not from the senses first. Example: You are looking at a painting, but the first thing you notice is what your mind associated with that painting. It's as if you have already made a conclusion on what the painting is depicting (top). After the associations are made, you then start looking objectively at the painting and start breaking it down to the individual components (down).
Ne looks for connections between ideas in the present. The associations are made using Si according to this book. Ne interprets broadly from greath depth of Si, while Ni interprets narrowly from greath breadth of Se. Ne resembles a bottom-up approach (perception starts directly with the stimulus / sensory data and is not affected by the users past knowledge / impressions). The author says Si knowledge of "what is" is used to come up with what could be. But I have trouble understanding how Si, being a perceiving function, cannot alter the perception.
To be honest I got a little confused because Ni likes to converge but at the same time it prefers a top-down approach? I think maybe the author means the Ni user uses Ni to automatically converge (sees the impression / big picture first) then diverges and tries to logically back up these impressions using a rational function? while an Ne user's first choice is to diverge, look at all the possibilities and then put them together in a way that is reasonable? It does not appear to me that he is suggesting both Ne and Ni are convergent and divergent.
Based on this I would lean more towards Ni, but there is still doubt. The book I read did include a test for the functions in the end where a short, stereotypical description of the functions were given (after going through the functions in detail). Here's my score:

a: 4/8 Te
b: 6/8 Ni
c: 5/8 Fi
d: 6/8 Fe
f: 3/8 Se
e: 4/8 Si
g: 3/8 Ti
h: 2/8 Ne
And I agree, I think I'm attracted to someone who is like myself. I like people who talk with passion, people like Neil deGrasse Tyson for an example. I think I'd be up for being typed by someone as it's hard to really observe which functions I use.

 

[highlander]

It's hard to tell. I don't know anymore. Historically I've tested INFJ almost always, but these online tests are not reliable. I haven't taken the MBTI step 2 test, and upon checking I see that it is not free.
I tried to describe Ni and Ne better in a response to a someone's post, using a book I read as help:

Ni finds hidden meanings, insights, theories and patterns by using sensory information gathered by Se. Ni somehow connects all the Se data and gives the final result in the form of a sudden insight / image in the user. Ni is convergent in nature; the user of Ni prefers forming one single conclusion. The book mentions that Ni users resemble a "top-down" approach, meaning the first perception comes from the mind of the user not from the senses first. Example: You are looking at a painting, but the first thing you notice is what your mind associated with that painting. It's as if you have already made a conclusion on what the painting is depicting (top). After the associations are made, you then start looking objectively at the painting and start breaking it down to the individual components (down).
Ne looks for connections between ideas in the present. The associations are made using Si according to this book. Ne interprets broadly from greath depth of Si, while Ni interprets narrowly from greath breadth of Se. Ne resembles a bottom-up approach (perception starts directly with the stimulus / sensory data and is not affected by the users past knowledge / impressions). The author says Si knowledge of "what is" is used to come up with what could be. But I have trouble understanding how Si, being a perceiving function, cannot alter the perception.
To be honest I got a little confused because Ni likes to converge but at the same time it prefers a top-down approach? I think maybe the author means the Ni user uses Ni to automatically converge (sees the impression / big picture first) then diverges and tries to logically back up these impressions using a rational function? while an Ne user's first choice is to diverge, look at all the possibilities and then put them together in a way that is reasonable? It does not appear to me that he is suggesting both Ne and Ni are convergent and divergent.
Based on this I would lean more towards Ni, but there is still doubt. The book I read did include a test for the functions in the end where a short, stereotypical description of the functions were given (after going through the functions in detail). Here's my score:

a: 4/8 Te
b: 6/8 Ni
c: 5/8 Fi
d: 6/8 Fe
f: 3/8 Se
e: 4/8 Si
g: 3/8 Ti
h: 2/8 Ne
And I agree, I think I'm attracted to someone who is like myself. I like people who talk with passion, people like Neil deGrasse Tyson for an example. I think I'd be up for being typed by someone as it's hard to really observe which functions I use.

That's a very good explanation of the differences between the functions from a conceptual standpoint. I created a test on the forum using function preferences and have studied this a fair bit. I tried to ascertain type based on function preferences and order of use. What I found is that at least from a testing perspective it does not work as well as you would think it would because testimg the order in which people use their functions seems unreliable. Understanding if you are an introvert or extavert is a critical to the analysis. So I think you are looking at this the exact right way. You could try to narrow it down by ascertaining which functions you prefer holistically - e.g. introverted thinking vs. extroverted thinking is a useful data point. Then combine that with whether or not you associate with introvert or extrovert. You can also take the kiersey jung teat in the home page and let me know the time you take it and I can give you the raw scores (Don't rely on the end result)

 

[typologyenthusiast]

Some statistician say that INFJ is one of the rarest type. So when you typed yourself as an INFJ, be ready that other may be suspicious you might have mistype yourself although it may not be the case. You should Try comparing yourself with other INFJ in this forum or a celebrity INFJ like Carl Jung.

 

[Jaguar]

I don't decide what's right and wrong based on how I feel. I look for an objective way of doing so, through religion, research, etc. In other words, I don't trust myself as I trust the opinions of others, because I know others can have more knowledge and I know I am prone to mistakes, so I believe decisions should be made using the best resources and not primarily how I feel / or what I think.

Wait, you're using 'objective' and 'religion' in the same sentence?