Fe and Te balanced, is this possible?

[CuriousFeeling]

Just when I thought I had worked out what my type is, sometimes I feel like an INFJ, other days I think like an INTJ. From doing cognitive processes tests, both Orobas' self-assessment, and Keys To Cognition.com, I have found out that my use of Te is just slightly higher than Fe. I use Fi just a bit higher than Fe, and I use Fi at the same level as Ti. Despite this, I consider myself to be quite sentimental and romantic, and also scientific. I identify with both the INTJ and INFJ type descriptions on Best Fit Type as well.

So, in short, is it possible to be an INFJ with a tertiary Te? Or could I be an INTJ that is in touch with tertiary Fi?

I find solidarity with the INFJ crew here, but there's some things I notice about me that are a little different from the stereotypical INFJ. I'm much more evidence based, and a lot of my emotions tend to go through the brain filter whenever I am interacting with people. I tend to intellectualize my feelings, figure out an underlying causation to them, what they could mean. I am polite and considerate of others, giving off warmth. People tend to notice that I am warm, but even more so, people notice that I am competent.

So, what do you all think this evidence demonstrates? INFJ? INTJ? or INxJ?

 

[CuriousFeeling]

In hindsight to this post, I have realized the true determiner of my actual MBTI type is me.

The human personality is quite complex, I think.

 

[cascadeco]

I find solidarity with the INFJ crew here, but there's some things I notice about me that are a little different from the stereotypical INFJ. I'm much more evidence based, and a lot of my emotions tend to go through the brain filter whenever I am interacting with people. I tend to intellectualize my feelings, figure out an underlying causation to them, what they could mean. I am polite and considerate of others, giving off warmth. People tend to notice that I am warm, but even more so, people notice that I am competent.

So, what do you all think this evidence demonstrates? INFJ? INTJ? or INxJ?

I don't know, but in reference to your 2nd post, yes, personality is more complex than mbti can account for. As for you being the true determiner of your type, I both agree and disagree. I agree in the sense that you, and only you, are most suited for knowing who you are and what makes you tick. That said, I often tend to think mbti is more useful for everyone but yourself, as it gives everyone else some sort of framework/'guidebook' to grasp onto so that they know how better to connect or view you. It's a nice little 'summary', if you will. The other issue is that in the end everyone has their own notion of what constitutes what type, and what we should be focusing on to determine type, etc etc. In other words, some might consider me a bona fide INFJ, others might think I'm more INTJ, others the INxJ, and maybe others something else entirely. As for myself, I settled on INFJ because holistically it made sense; however, I sometimes muse it isn't really the best fit. But for me, at least, knowing my type has never really assisted me at all with regards to personal growth. It provides easy language to discuss the intangibles, which I think is really cool, but I'm still the same Me I've always been; having a word/label to affix to processes I've always utilized doesn't help me understand myself any better. It does provide for interesting discussion and awareness of differences with others, though.

To the quote above... I'm probably in the same boat as you with respect to all of this. But, I also tend to think that while there are those who are extreme in all of their preferences (whether we're talking dichotomies or cog. functions), many or most aren't extreme on one or more of them. Hence, variability. And since we're on a typology site, throw in enneagram for good measure, because I think it in conjunction with mbti can provide a fuller picture. And of course everything psychologically that's outside of these frameworks.

 

[Eric B]

I've in the past year been learning so much from Lenore Thomson (direct disscussions that is. I only recently got and finished the book).

Hence, the concept of the dominant as the "operating charter". So you seem to know that that is Ni. It's just the auxiliary you are not sure of, and the other so-called "arm" functions that hang on the aux. (Tertiary, and #6&7).

One thing she pointed out was

The products of undifferentiated functions are perfectly capable of reaching consciousness, but only in so far as they're linked to the "operating charter" of the network our differentiated function has set up. This diverts their potential energic investment to dominant goals.

If a functional product is not linked to the network of the differentiated
standpoint, it remains conflated with one of the archetypal complexes in the personality

So you can freely access Te or Fe regardless of your type. Those Nardi tests are not able to sort this out, so however much you "use" a function will be suggested as to how much you might prefer it or not.
What determines the true auxiliary is which function surfaces under the auxiliary archetype, which is the "parental" complex. This will appear, when you see something out of place [goes against your dominant perspective's goals], that needs some sort or rational [Je] ordering.

So what do you tend to support, help, teach, etc. in this fashion, with? Logical efficiency, or social harmony? That should determine your preference.

 

[CuriousFeeling]

I've in the past year been learning so much from Lenore Thomson (direct disscussions that is. I only recently got and finished the book).

Hence, the concept of the dominant as the "operating charter". So you seem to know that that is Ni. It's just the auxiliary you are not sure of, and the other so-called "arm" functions that hang on the aux. (Tertiary, and #6&7).

One thing she pointed out was


So you can freely access Te or Fe regardless of your type. Those Nardi tests are not able to sort this out, so however much you "use" a function will be suggested as to how much you might prefer it or not.
What determines the true auxiliary is which function surfaces under the auxiliary archetype, which is the "parental" complex. This will appear, when you see something out of place [goes against your dominant perspective's goals], that needs some sort or rational [Je] ordering.

So what do you tend to support, help, teach, etc. in this fashion, with? Logical efficiency, or social harmony? That should determine your preference.

In other words, auxiliary functions can be dynamic on a day to day basis.

I'm thinking of what perspective I end up using the most: logical efficiency or social harmony. I notice that my classroom management style is definitely in that vein. I like to have students cooperate with each other, play nice with each other. I have very low tolerance to students bullying each other.

When it comes to delivering scientific information, on the other hand, I end up supporting logical efficiency. When it comes to presenting information, objective data, evidence, I use Te. I like to present my findings, or what my plans are, in a stepwise fashion. When plans don't always work out the way they should, I take out the backup plans, and execute those. I firmly believe in having a plan B. Plus, whenever someone tells me to do something, I wonder what the main purpose is. I have to know why and how they want me to do something. Will this benefit me? Is this going to hurt me? I want them to make sense.

I like to have both logical efficiency and social harmony.

Will have to reflect more on what I have used in the past to see which one I have used more often. See which one is the default setting.

I find the MBTI and cognitive processes perspective fascinating. It's definitely one of the keys to self-discovery. Hopefully I'll have things sorted out soon.

 

[Eric B]

In other words, auxiliary functions can be dynamic on a day to day basis.

"dynamic" as in chaging back and forth? No; all I meant was that it might not be as obvious as the dominant. The dominant is the MO, basically, and the auxiliary only helps it out. So if you find yourself using both Je functions a lot, it might be hard to tell which one is really the type preference. Hence, I suggested detecting the parent archetype. (The other one would end up as the Trickster, which is unconscious, and is used under stress to double bind others, or get out of tight spots yourself, and sometimes to be silly).

I'm thinking of what perspective I end up using the most: logical efficiency or social harmony. I notice that my classroom management style is definitely in that vein. I like to have students cooperate with each other, play nice with each other. I have very low tolerance to students bullying each other.

When it comes to delivering scientific information, on the other hand, I end up supporting logical efficiency. When it comes to presenting information, objective data, evidence, I use Te. I like to present my findings, or what my plans are, in a stepwise fashion. When plans don't always work out the way they should, I take out the backup plans, and execute those. I firmly believe in having a plan B.

But this might not be a situation where the parent complex is engaged. Any teacher is going to want their kids to cooperate and play nice. That's one of the things they're supposed to be taught. And likewise, when teaching science, any teacher is going to have to present logical data.

This is precisely why I've been changing direction in my understanding of this stuff. Using that kind of stuff as evidence of type would make it impossible to select a best fit. Almost anybody could claim the same things at times (Forer effect).

Plus, whenever someone tells me to do something, I wonder what the main purpose is. I have to know why and how they want me to do something. Will this benefit me? Is this going to hurt me? I want them to make sense.

I like to have both logical efficiency and social harmony.

Now this actually sounds more like Ti. When I said "efficiency"; I meant external efficiency; which the term usually applies to. What you seem to be describing is internal logical efficiency (note, the "me" factor!). That would be Ti.
In coming to understand functions as "perspectives"; rather than things "used"; I realize that the need for things to make sense to me is my operating charter (Ti as dominant). And what you're describing is the same process. Except it's not your dominant goal; it is when someone tells you to do something.
Ti for an IxFJ is in the tertiary or "child" position, and that is what what you describe seems to be falling right into. You like to follow it.

According to Lenore; we often jump straight to the tertiary (maintains ego's dominant attitude), so you might be more aware of it than even the auxiliary. Hence, seeming to identify with logic as much or more than values.

Will have to reflect more on what I have used in the past to see which one I have used more often. See which one is the default setting.

It's not necessarily which is used more often! The complex/archetype is the best way to see which fits where. Anybody can "use" any function at any time.

I find the MBTI and cognitive processes perspective fascinating. It's definitely one of the keys to self-discovery. Hopefully I'll have things sorted out soon.

Yeah; it is!
And the way you say this sounds sort of like tertiary Ti as well. (INTJ's I don't think I have seen ever express such an enjoyment of the framework. To them, it seems to be more about its efficient use). And the "self-discovery" part sounds like NF.

 

[CuriousFeeling]

"dynamic" as in chaging back and forth? No; all I meant was that it might not be as obvious as the dominant. The dominant is the MO, basically, and the auxiliary only helps it out. So if you find yourself using both Je functions a lot, it might be hard to tell which one is really the type preference. Hence, I suggested detecting the parent archetype. (The other one would end up as the Trickster, which is unconscious, and is used under stress to double bind others, or get out of tight spots yourself, and sometimes to be silly).
But this might not be a situation where the parent complex is engaged. Any teacher is going to want their kids to cooperate and play nice. That's one of the things they're supposed to be taught. And likewise, when teaching science, any teacher is going to have to present logical data.

This is precisely why I've been changing direction in my understanding of this stuff. Using that kind of stuff as evidence of type would make it impossible to select a best fit. Almost anybody could claim the same things (Forer effect).
Now this actually sounds more like Ti. In coming to understand functions as "perspectives"; rather than things "used"; I realize that the need for things to make sense to me is my operating charter (Ti as dominant). And what you're describing is the same thing. Except it's not your dominant goal; it is when someone tells you to do something.
Ti for an IxFJ is in the tertiary or "child" position, and that is what what you describe seems to be falling right into.

According to Lenore; we often jump straight to the tertiary (maintains ego's dominant attitude), so you might be more aware of it than even the auxiliary. Hence, seeming to identify with logic as much or more than values.
It's not necessarily which is used more often! The complex/archetype is the best way to see which fits where. Anybody can "use" any function at any time.
Yeah; it is. And the way you say this sounds sort of like tertiary Ti as well. (INTJ's I don't think I have seen ever express such an enjoyment of the framework. To them, it seems to be more about its efficient use).

Hmmmm. Come to think of it, logic does act as a facilitator in making final decisions based on what I value. It also helps to make sense of what I am feeling too, and what I observe.

Perhaps I am an INFJ that's more in touch with the tertiary and shadow functions.