[Jungian Cognitive Functions] We should use Socionics' dichotomies

[Clegane]

Like many here, I'm not a MBTI or a Socionics follower. I follow JCFs. But it's just too obvious that the P/J used in MBTI doesn't work.
Just think at some of those very sensorish ISTPs. People are often like "this is a good example of an ISTP leading with Se". No, it's wrong. It's just a sensing dominated introvert, also known as Si-dom. Si-dom is not just about the past, but people fail to aknowledge this. ISTPs are Si-Te. Let's stop this madness, and let's start using the correct letters. MBTI ISTJs are often described in a way that's ridiculous to consider them perceivers. Of course, there are some exceptions, but the J letter for them just doesn't make sense. You lead with a perceiving function, you are a perceiver. It has nothing to do with the direction of the function.

 

[Dashy CVII]

Another way to word your post is, the descriptions of J/P in MBTI are misaligned to the actual extroverted function you use. You are correct. The MBTI test cannot accurately pinpoint which cognitive functions you use. That is because Myers-Briggs didn't think through what Pi and Pe really were and how they by definition tell J vs P.

Lenore Thomson fixed this by defining J/P accurately, in a way that I think is obvious:

When we refer to J/P, we temporarily in this discussion refer to the extroverted function. Ps (extroverted perceiving types) are those who live in-the-moment, processing outside information. Extroversion is about the outside, and extroverted perception is attuned to the outside information coming in. Introverted perception is mental perception, it is not outwardly attuned, and so Si for instance is not outward sensing, but inward concrete perception. The definition of Ne is seeing possibilities and predictions in the moment, being invested in what's really going on behind the curtain, what's going on over the hill or on an important problem we're solving: what we could try, and what people are really thinking. Ni is not about this or perceiving the outside, it neglects the moment and goes inward to focus on ideas, new perspectives for thinking, imagination, and deep possibilities. You're right in that these correlate to the Socionics types. ILI are not always Ps in MBTI. However ILIs are always Js in Lenore Thomson theory because she defines Js differently: as someone much more attuned to inward perceiving, incoming information in thought, than they are on the moment. She wrote a whole book on the logical clarifications to these dichotomies and what they really mean.

Next, Fe and Te are outward functions, but not on perception. Fe and Te are about the world's judgement systems and beliefs, such as personal values vs truth/untruth beliefs. You cannot perceive with Fe and Te, you use them as say, resources, authorities, or inspiration. This means, the final functions Fi and Ti are not based on outside information, they are instinctual judgment attitudes stemming from within, but because they are primary in Pe types, Fi and Ti are always used in direct tandem with the moment, in momentary perception and interaction. Fi and Ti are always looking at things or working with things as they happen (Pe,) and that is how you identify the INxP. That is why the TiSe is often described as the "craftsman" and not the SiTe. A real SiTe can get the ISTP result on the MBTI, but thus be mistyped due to Myers's wrong J/P testing. That is why you also see INFJs relating to Fi, INFPs relating to Ni. We simply need to know the obvious, correct, "inherent" definition of J vs P, someone who has strong inward perception vs someone who has strong outward perception, and if you use it, you will inherently always be correct at typing.

I agree with you that we should call J vs P something else: Je vs Pe. Because Pi types are not Judgers, and the Judging description in MBTI is not really correlated to Fe and Te. Personality seems to be a lot deeper than the attributing of "open" vs "planned" to individuals, when that really has nothing to do with Pe/Je. Especially for a lot of Ni dominants, "plans" are too concrete to fit N, and this is why numerous INxJs are mistyped into INxP. Being planned and organized will not ensure that you have a primary judgment function, as judgment is about a lot deeper things than structure.

The mainstream may not understand the real type system, because it is for people who want to go deeper into the fundamental difference in types. Lenore Thomson wrote very in-depth profiles of each type. Very clear/obvious definitions. People should study them, and if you want me to post more, let me know.

 

[Clegane]

Another way to word your post is, the descriptions of J/P in MBTI are misaligned to the actual extroverted function you use. You are correct. The MBTI test cannot accurately pinpoint which cognitive functions you use. That is because Myers-Briggs didn't think through what Pi and Pe really were and how they by definition tell J vs P.

Lenore Thomson fixed this by defining J/P accurately, in a way that I think is obvious:

When we refer to J/P, we temporarily in this discussion refer to the extroverted function. Ps (extroverted perceiving types) are those who live in-the-moment, processing outside information. Extroversion is about the outside, and extroverted perception is attuned to the outside information coming in. Introverted perception is mental perception, it is not outwardly attuned, and so Si for instance is not outward sensing, but inward concrete perception. The definition of Ne is seeing possibilities and predictions in the moment, being invested in what's really going on behind the curtain, what's going on over the hill or on an important problem we're solving: what we could try, and what people are really thinking. Ni is not about this or perceiving the outside, it neglects the moment and goes inward to focus on ideas, new perspectives for thinking, imagination, and deep possibilities. You're right in that these correlate to the Socionics types. ILI are not always Ps in MBTI. However ILIs are always Js in Lenore Thomson theory because she defines Js differently: as someone much more attuned to inward perceiving, incoming information in thought, than they are on the moment. She wrote a whole book on the logical clarifications to these dichotomies and what they really mean.

Next, Fe and Te are outward functions, but not on perception. Fe and Te are about the world's judgement systems and beliefs, such as personal values vs truth/untruth beliefs. You cannot perceive with Fe and Te, you use them as say, resources, authorities, or inspiration. This means, the final functions Fi and Ti are not based on outside information, they are instinctual judgment attitudes stemming from within, but because they are primary in Pe types, Fi and Ti are always used in direct tandem with the moment, in momentary perception and interaction. Fi and Ti are always looking at things or working with things as they happen (Pe,) and that is how you identify the INxP. That is why the TiSe is often described as the "craftsman" and not the SiTe. A real SiTe can get the ISTP result on the MBTI, but thus be mistyped due to Myers's wrong J/P testing. That is why you also see INFJs relating to Fi, INFPs relating to Ni. We simply need to know the obvious, correct, "inherent" definition of J vs P, someone who has strong inward perception vs someone who has strong outward perception, and if you use it, you will inherently always be correct at typing.

I agree with you that we should call J vs P something else: Je vs Pe. Because Pi types are not Judgers, and the Judging description in MBTI is not really correlated to Fe and Te. Personality seems to be a lot deeper than the attributing of "open" vs "planned" to individuals, when that really has nothing to do with Pe/Je. Being planned and organized will not ensure that you have a primary judgment function. Judgment is about a lot deeper things.

The mainstream may not understand the real type system, because it is for people who want to go deeper into the fundamental difference in types. Lenore Thomson wrote very in-depth profiles of each type. Very clear/obvious definitions. People should study them, and if you want me to post more, let me know.

I've never read such an useful post in this forum. I'm looking forward to more of them.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

I couldn't agree more [MENTION=28497]Clegane[/MENTION] . Only after getting deeper into socionics I realized why INFP has never been a good fit for me and why I can't ever type myself as an INFJ. Function wise, I'm an INFJ, but by no means I'm a J type, typing myself a J sounds like a big fat lie. I'm sure there're more people like me out there.

Introverted perception is a p function mostly, I'm sure a lot of Ni and Si lead types score high on "P" in MBTI dichotomies, irrationality as how Jung described it, connects with P in MBTI far more than MBTI enthusiasts are willing to admit.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Identify with ILI/INTp in socionics, but with INTP in MBTI. MBTI describes J vs P differences as the difference between "type A" and "type B" personalities, with little nuance on what that really says about how we process incoming information. It's the most shallow/superficial and useless of the dichotomies in MBTI.

Anyway, later.

 

[Dashy CVII]

Does "Se extroverted perception (Immersion)" vs "Si introverted perception (Memory)" have anything to do with P vs J? I do believe that the real functions are misportrayed by MBTI preference stereotypes, which is why I think you need to come to a choice about which one to study: you can't have both preference theory and function theory because they tend to be incompatible, and I can easily explain why: I will take my primary function, Introverted Intuition, and I mean by Ni very simply "the N dichotomy as it occurs as a primary function in an introvert (N defined in tests as processing information through patterns, impressions and possibilities, abstract thinking, reading between the lines.)" The Ni function is typically not met in an INxx with making predictions, having visions or plans of the future, and I say typically because, Ni is most common in INxPs. But it has little to do with P: the INxP just happen to be more common, and thus more Ni types are INxP. Instead, Ni seems to be usually compatible with a very open-ended, inwardly explorative lifestyle that may have nothing to do with planning (J) and certainly doesn't have anything to do with extroversion (Ne.)

The difference between Ni and Ne therein is in the definition of the Introvert vs Extrovert: the Introverted Intuitive is someone dominantly focused on gaining inward abstract perceptions by reading into their mental state, ideas and manifestations, while the Extroverted Intuitive is someone focused on gaining abstract perceptions/intuitions in the external moment as it happens and as they read into it: about people, dynamics, changes, and what's really going on underlying an event--Just like, the Introverted Sensor is someone focused on gaining inward concrete perception by reading into internal memories, while the Extroverted Sensor is someone focused on gaining external concrete perceptions by immersing in the moment. It is all very clear, this is how Ni and Ne actually exist in individuals (the natural state of what Ni and Ne are), and they seem unbounded by T/F just like they're unbounded by J/P: these dichotomies only muddle what natural Ni/Ne are as they occur in individuals, all those primarily with a tendency of N > T/F >> S. In the same fashion, you see External Intuition in a lot of other NPs, who are very intuitive and concerned with perceiving the background meaning of the moment and its dynamics. That is basically that.

Ni or Ne has everything to do with I vs E. If you're an ambiverted perceiver (such as an INxPs: Ne secondary/Si tertiary) you have have much more equal reign on perception. While everyone uses both Ni and Ne, one is typically stronger. For myself, my Ni is much stronger than Ne. As Lenore Thomson put it succinctly: "With Pi vs Pe, are you perceiving something in your mind, or something specifically underlying the external moment?" Thomson went on to define the J/P dichotomy accurately to Carl Jung, as I wrote out in my above post.

 

[Luigi]

I do believe that the real functions are misportrayed by MBTI preference stereotypes, which is why I think you need to come to a choice about which one to study: you can't have both preference theory and function theory because they tend to be incompatible, and I can easily explain why: In the case of Introverted Intuition, my primary function, I mean by Ni very simply, "the N dichotomy as it occurs as a primary function in an introvert (N defined in tests as processing information through patterns, impressions and possibilities, abstract thinking, reading between the lines)," it is typically not met in an INxx with making predictions, having visions or plans of the future, and I say typically because, Ni is most common in INxPs, but it has little to do with P: INxPs just happen to be more common. Instead, Ni is usually compatible with a very open-ended, inwardly explorative lifestyle that might have nothing to do with planning (J) and certainly has nothing to do with extroversion (Ne.) The difference between Ni and Ne therein is in the definition of the Introvert vs Extrovert: the Introverted Intuitive is someone dominantly focused on gaining inward abstract perceptions by reading into their internal ideas/manifestations, while the Extroverted Intuitive is someone focused on gaining abstract perceptions/intuitions about the external moment as it happens and as they read into it: about people, dynamics, changes, and what's really happening underlying something--Just like, the Introverted Sensor is someone focused on gaining inward concrete perception by reading into internal memories, while the Extroverted Sensor is someone focused on gaining external concrete perceptions by immersing in the moment. It is all very clear, this is how Ni and Ne actually exist in individuals (the natural state of what Ni and Ne are), and they seem unbounded by T/F just like they're unbounded by J/P: these dichotomies only muddle what natural Ni/Ne are as they occur in individuals, all those primarily with a tendency of N > T/F >> S. In the same fashion, you see External Intuition in a lot of other NPs, who are very intuitive and concerned with perceiving the background meaning of the moment and its dynamics. That is basically that. Ni or Ne has everything to do with I vs E, and if you're an ambivert focused on both the mind and the moment, you have one Nx function, and one Jx function, and while everyone uses both Ni and Ne, one is typically stronger. For myself, my Ni is much stronger than Ne. As Lenore Thomson put it succinctly: "With Pi vs Pe, are you perceiving something general in your mind, or something specifically underlying the external moment?" Thomson went on to define the J/P dichotomy accurately to Carl Jung, as I wrote out in my above post.

If you perceive something specific underlying the external moment, by perceiving something general in your mind, is that Pe then Pi, close together?

 

[Dashy CVII]

[MENTION=26104]The Penguin[/MENTION] Let's look at ISxP and ISxJs as examples: Se vs Si (outward perception (Immersion) vs inward perception (Memory.) (a) First ask, do those definitions sound like they have anything to do with P vs J? But more importantly ask (b) Does an Si type use Se?

In my experience, an ISxJ uses Se to access perception of the external world almost as much as they use Ne-inferior, but really, they're rather weak. A mix of Ne/Se is typically what their Si is made from, however, as a dominant Si type, they're so primarily focused on inward concrete perception that Pe tends to go underused.

Next, for your example, we can compare ISxJ to an ISxP, who uses Se and Ni much more equally. Perception won't be their dominant focus, but they will fit your above example quite well, because their perception is very even: they don't have any inferior perception.

As INTJs do we use Ni, Se, Ne? Yes. But Ni is so predominant that EP functions go vastly ignored. This would be way different for say, an INTP, who seeks immersion in intuiting their environment through Ne, and usage of memory (Si), both fairly equally. It might sound different from a textbook TiNe, but it is the natural TiNe as he/she exists in reality, in real people all around (and it actually is in a textbook.)

 

[Luigi]

[MENTION=36287]Dashy CVII[/MENTION]

Thank you for rephrasing that. I didn't understand the first time.
Now you answered my question in a way that I understand.

 

[Dashy CVII]

Upon realizing many patterns in the types, it seems that the Extroverted functions quite literally take on the nature of immersion, and the Introverted functions quite literally take on the nature of reflection, and they do so by existing in a duality as two sides of the same process: Fi-Te, Ti-Fe, Ni-Se, Si-Ne.

We'll make a contrast first between the literally opposite perspectives, Ne/Si vs Ni/Se. Ni/Se types handle reality in a way that may seem stranger to Ne/Si, but it's all in perspective. Se takes a quite literal account of what's happening without any reading into a situation, so the Ni/Se type could find themselves often saying to the Ne type, "you know, that might be what's happening, I didn't see that, you're probably right" or "I'm skeptical of jumping to that conclusion." Ni's aim has always been different from seeing patterns externally and in dynamics, as it receives raw data from Se without anything added, then retreats inwardly to reflect in an abstract unapplied way, sometimes for days, but it never acts like Ne/Si by making frequent hunches/assumptions of externals (Ne) and reading into things sometimes as an ingenious talent of External Intuition, then Si accessing memory to see if it really has been so, or what other external possibilities there could be extrapolated from experience (Si.) This exact latter process, in a nutshell, seems like it should be the default process of a human, to realize the explicit truth and workings of things happening, but it is actually the opposite process of an Ni/Se type, whose daily obsession is not about matching up abstract external hunches with a sea of inner concrete data/experience, but about finding implicit deeper truth and meaning from a reflection of raw sensation of reality.

Instead, Ni takes an enlongated, philosophical and impilcit approach to understanding reality, and Se sees and immerses fully into raw data as it is, so comfortably in-the-moment without wandering or putting much together but an appreciation of rawness (Se.) But once it latches firmly onto a big-picture concept that shocks oneself, it doesn't apply it specifically and say "see, here is the concrete proof of what's going on now (Ne/Si.) I solved it!" It instead solves a situation by interpreting it within its larger web of perception, "I solved what this means to me" or "what it could imply in a subject" (Ni out of context due to being anti-external) as it retreats deeper into its ideations of what a certain reality might entail as a bigger idea or truth, and over what personal lesson it takes away into the rest of their day's reflection (Ni.) It isn't explicitly applied to solve or conceive of what's really happening, like an Ne/Si does through seeing external patterns and imagery: The Ne/Si type goes into reflection by accessing all concrete data and information they know to be true (Si) so precisely without muddling it with abstract leaps unrelated to the moment, like Ni does, and where they shine is through seeing what really is behind a moment (Ne), reading dynamics and minds, seeing so easily the underlying patterns, something Ni is disinterested/shied away from, as, for Ni, these ideas are not internal and general enough to be applied to a slow pace of reflection upon a bigger-picture conceptual philosophy, or lessons and generalities about subjects and life (Ni.) We use all the functions to a degree.

The definitions of the processes Ne, Ni, Se, Si are precisely, Intuition of Immersion, Intuition of Reflection, Sensing of Immersion, and Sensing of Reflection. We know the latter two as accurately defined in MBTI: Immersion (Se) and Memory (Si,) but they got it wrong on the first two, and neither of these four in total have anything to do with J vs P lifestyles.

Fi-Te and Ti-Fe work in this same pattern of duality, of internal reflection to external immersion, back-and-forth, as one function makes up the internal life, and the other makes up the external application. And we know, we also less frequently use the process opposite to ours, when we need to learn more, but it's not our default pose.

 

[Poki]

Upon realizing many patterns in the types, it seems that the Extroverted functions quite literally take on the nature of immersion, and the Introverted functions quite literally take on the nature of reflection, and they do so by existing in a duality as two sides of the same process: Fi-Te, Ti-Fe, Ni-Se, Si-Ne.

We'll make a contrast first between the literally opposite perspectives, Ne/Si vs Ni/Se. Ni/Se types handle reality in a way that may seem stranger to Ne/Si, but it's all in perspective. Se takes a quite literal account of what's happening without any reading into a situation, so the Ni/Se type could find themselves often saying to the Ne type, "you know, that might be what's happening, I didn't see that, you're probably right" or "I'm skeptical of jumping to that conclusion." Ni's aim has always been different from seeing patterns externally and in dynamics, as it receives raw data from Se without anything added, then retreats inwardly to reflect in an abstract unapplied way, sometimes for days, but it never acts like Ne/Si by making frequent hunches/assumptions of externals (Ne) and reading into things sometimes as an ingenious talent of External Intuition, then Si accessing memory to see if it really has been so, or what other external possibilities there could be extrapolated from experience (Si.) This exact latter process, in a nutshell, seems like it should be the default process of a human, to realize the explicit truth and workings of things happening, but it is actually the opposite process of an Ni/Se type, whose daily obsession is not about matching up abstract external hunches with a sea of inner concrete data/experience, but about finding implicit deeper truth and meaning from a reflection of raw sensation of reality.

Instead, Ni takes an enlongated, philosophical and impilcit approach to understanding reality, and Se sees and immerses fully into raw data as it is, so comfortably in-the-moment without wandering or putting much together but an appreciation of rawness (Se.) But once it latches firmly onto a big-picture concept that shocks oneself, it doesn't apply it specifically and say "see, here is the concrete proof of what's going on now (Ne/Si.) I solved it!" It instead solves a situation by interpreting it within its larger web of perception, "I solved what this means to me" or "what it could imply in a subject" (Ni out of context due to being anti-external) as it retreats deeper into its ideations of what a certain reality might entail as a bigger idea or truth, and over what personal lesson it takes away into the rest of their day's reflection (Ni.) It isn't explicitly applied to solve or conceive of what's really happening, like an Ne/Si does through seeing external patterns and imagery: The Ne/Si type goes into reflection by accessing all concrete data and information they know to be true (Si) so precisely without muddling it with abstract leaps unrelated to the moment, like Ni does, and where they shine is through seeing what really is behind a moment (Ne), reading dynamics and minds, seeing so easily the underlying patterns, something Ni is disinterested/shied away from, as, for Ni, these ideas are not internal and general enough to be applied to a slow pace of reflection upon a bigger-picture conceptual philosophy, or lessons and generalities about subjects and life (Ni.) We use all the functions to a degree.

The definitions of the processes Ne, Ni, Se, Si are precisely, Intuition of Immersion, Intuition of Reflection, Sensing of Immersion, and Sensing of Reflection. We know the latter two as accurately defined in MBTI: Immersion (Se) and Memory (Si,) but they got it wrong on the first two, and neither of these four in total have anything to do with J vs P lifestyles.

Fi-Te and Ti-Fe work in this same pattern of duality, of internal reflection to external immersion, back-and-forth, as one function makes up the internal life, and the other makes up the external application. And we know, we also less frequently use the process opposite to ours, when we need to learn more, but it's not our default pose.

Reminds me of a story. I was heading to a training class with ISTJ and we saw a car wrapped around a pole. Convo went like this.

ISTJ - wonder what happened
ISTP - i bet the car hit the pole(sarcasm)
ISTJ - no shit smart ass

He played possibility game in a serious manner while i played sarcasm game.

ISTP - maybe he was getting head and exploded and swerved
ISTJ - whats make you think that
ISTP - would be funny to try and tell people what happened not to mention it really is hard to stay outta ditches at that moment.

 

[Eric B]

You have to remember, Myers started out trying to create another affective (as opposed to cognitive) system, dealing in our interpersonal interactions moreso than our own functional motivations. What many probably don't know, is that she even originally started out with four types similar to Adler and Fromm's theories (Spontaneous, Sociable, Executive, and Meditative), but then decided to integrate Jung's concepts, and it then eventually fanned out to the 16 types.

So J/P was specifically designated for the preferred extraverted function, for that will figure more in interaction. This is why J/P were so instrumental in both the Keirsey temperaments, and the Interaction Styles. Using function stacks, we can see whether the dominant is judging or perceiving or not, so there's no reason to change the J/P factor (And I think whoever adopted Socionics to the MBTI dichotomies should have just used Jung's "rational/irrational" for the last factor).

 

[Dashy CVII]

Yeah it's starting to make sense. I read this off of Quora the other day and it made a lot of sense:

Eh, if your primary way of life is about coming to decisions and answers instead of staying open and pondering, you’re not a primary perceiver. MBTI pop psychology messed up on that one.

INTPs and INFPs often mix each other up, that is because they both have the same primary function and both types are fairly equal at T/F. As Ps, their primary function is (N) imagination and abstract perception.

Also notice how the MBTI clearly tests for empathy (F) VS reasoning (T) and then INFJs are the ones who get ‘Fe’ which is empathy, while INFPs get “individual values.” No, what this clearly demonstrates is that INFJs are simply stronger at F, because the MBTI tests only for F (empathy.) INFJs = Fi primary, more empathy-centered.

This lead me to post some stuff. Especially about the last paragraph there: INFPs and ENFPs don't get the function "people values - Fe" but "self values - Fi" mainly because they're not F (empathy dominant) and F becomes a slave of the first function. The MBTI tests mainly for empathy vs logic, so both Fi and Fe are about the values of others.

So this would indicate INFJ and ENFJ are Fi and Fe respectively, like in Socionics, but instead of saying INFJ is guaranteed Fi, instead you would say, one needs to test carefully for which one they are. Fi is about the same thing Feeling (F) is about:

Feeling (F)
I believe I can make the best decisions by weighing what people care about and the points-of-view of persons involved in a situation. I am concerned with values and what is the best for the people involved. I like to do whatever will establish or maintain harmony. In my relationships, I appear caring, warm, and tactful.

The following statements generally apply to me:

I have a people or communications orientation.
I am concerned with harmony and nervous when it is missing.
I look for what is important to others and express concern for others.
I make decisions with my heart and want to be compassionate.
I believe being tactful is more important than telling the "cold" truth.
Sometimes I miss seeing or communicating the "hard truth" of situations.
I am sometimes experienced by others as too idealistic, mushy, or indirect.

And then about the second paragraph. INTPs and INFPs getting mistaken, this is just about the most common thing I've seen. I often come to the conclusion and type these individuals mistyped INxJs, Ni primaries, but now I'm thinking that INxP is more likely to be N > T/F > S.

This also explains the INTJ death glare which I see in occasional INTPs (Feeling inferior.) There are a majority of INTJs who seem more Feeling inferior rather than Sensing inferior, because IxFPs Feeling is so readable, that it doesn't make sense that INTJ's is not readable. Instead, inferior is a decent theory.

 

[Eric B]

[empathy]/"people values - Fe" but "self values - Fi" is a common assumption, but it isn't really right. Both Fe and Fe deal in people, and the difference is that one simply takes on the "values" (determination of good/bad) of the environment of people, and the other infers them from within. In other words, their values they use to gauge the universal values that will be shared by others, and then put themselves in their place, saying "if that were me, I would feel this way [good/bad], and so this is what should be done to meet their needs". In fact, since "empathy" means "suffer IN", Fi is actually more about "empathy" (where Fe would be more "sympathy"; "suffer WITH").

 

[Dashy CVII]

[empathy]/"people values - Fe" but "self values - Fi" is a common assumption, but it isn't really right. Both Fe and Fe deal in people, and the difference is that one simply takes on the "values" (determination of good/bad) of the environment of people, and the other infers them from within. In other words, their values they use to gauge the universal values that will be shared by others, and then put themselves in their place, saying "if that were me, I would feel this way [good/bad], and so this is what should be done to meet their needs". In fact, since "empathy" means "suffer IN", Fi is actually more about "empathy" (where Fe would be more "sympathy"; "suffer WITH").

Well, this seems fully accurate, because I know of no MBTI test that tests for "self values = IxFP" except the self values that every type uniquely has. We all favor self values.

The MBTI tests for Fi/Fe strength, which = Empathy / Concern for others.

But we can also take a guess at where the Fi = self values stereotype came from (a negative social stereotype as far as I've seen). It might have come from the majority of INFPs not being F primary after all, but like INTPs, they're Intuitive Perceiving primary.

 

[Eric B]

Yeah, and for that reason, saying "Fi='self values'" made it very hard to determine whether Fi was preferred, and thus leads to serious T/F confusion for INP's (and I imagine ISP's too), where on the T side, Fe is inferior, and so if you don't seem to "have" Fe, yet you have values, wants, etc., then it may seem like you prefer Fi. But general "values", are undifferentiated Fi, and when we say it's preferred (and especially if dominant), we mean differentiated, and taking a special place in the ego.
(And notice, these IP's are dominant judgers, but it's easy for them to be confused as to their dominant judging functions. This is because it's introverted, and hard to even notice, because it's so "second nature". This is another reason why extraverted function is deemed more worthy of carrying the J/P tag, because it's more obvious, including to other people).

 

[Polaris]

Tweaking the MBTI in that way redeems the theory for some and ruins it for the rest. (I'm one of the people whose 4 dichotomies and cognitive function preferences line up with each other.) I will add that I think the idea behind positing a contrast between a person's extroverted and introverted aspects is a sound one. A motion of one kind always coincides with a motion of the equal and opposite kind. This is as true of the human psyche as it is of anything else.

 

[Dashy CVII]

Polaris, don't mind me asking your personal opinion, if your type lines up well, what do you think Fe has to do with J on the MBTI test? (Even apparently as Eric and I mentioned above, we don't think Fe assumes sole responsibility for empathy and others' values (because Fi is equally focused on empathy.) But what even would the accurate definition of Fe have anything to do with a J lifestyle? I see J questions on the MBTI, don't see any Fe there, and tested many INFxs and get different functions from all of them.

Ime, I don't think the MBTI test can decipher the correct functions as they manifest in people.

 

[Polaris]

I don't think that J as normally understood by practitioners of the MBTI has a whole lot to do with Fe.

 

[Eric B]

Fe is very "J"-like, and is heavily into organizing the environment (which is what sets the standard for their sense of order). They also desire [external] "closure", which is one of the common J features. In some ways, they "think like" TJ's, though are much "softer", since they are not impersonal like that.