ENFP/INFP

[arcticangel02]

In the temperament analysis I use, I fall into a fifth temperament who "expresses" as an introvert, and "responds" as an extrovert. (It is the one in the upper left of my avatar). Expression is what we "say" we want (so he looks like an introvert aho avoids people) yet responsiveness is what we "really" want, so his wants are the same as an extrovert. That would partially explain this, and it can apparently fall into any NP (informing) type. (ENTP is also said to be an introverted extrovert).

That's me as well. Tends to be confusing when trying to type myself on the E/I scale. ^^

Although in general, I have to say that you're not coming across as either ENFP or ENTP. Have you thought about ENTJ? Your Te is very strong, moreso that I would have thought a (even a developed) shadow/tertiary function to be...

Dom (adressing dom): does it bother you that xander would write this kind of pompous, patronizing crap about you. You also sound a lot smarter than xander, and you're much more on target, and ironically, despite what xander claims, your posts are much better thought-out than his.

Woah! Chill out there, Gabe. Those two are friends IRL, and have been for a long time, so you don't have any right to stick your nose in there and judge them.

I've noticed friendships between ENFPs and INTPs (at least mine, anyway) tend to look funny from the outside. If someone observed half the conversations I have with my INTP, they'd swear we hated each other.

 

[Xander]

Woah! Chill out there, Gabe. Those two are friends IRL, and have been for a long time, so you don't have any right to stick your nose in there and judge them.

Thanks kitty
All opinions are welcome though. I can stand a little heat now and then... you must admit I did stick my chin out just a little

I've noticed friendships between ENFPs and INTPs (at least mine, anyway) tend to look funny from the outside. If someone observed half the conversations I have with my INTP, they'd swear we hated each other.

Ooo I had a pinball analogy for one ENFP. I said he was like a really rapid ball hurtling along hitting everything in it's path. I on the other hand am laughing at him as I roll steadily forward chosing meticulously which pins to hit and when, watching him careen off of one hard surface after another. Of course he's laughing at me going to damn slow and taking so long ruining all the fun of the game as he bounces off another brick wall almost unperturbed by the collision.

See it occurs to me that between ENFPs and INTPs the gift from the INTP is focus, that ability to really knuckle down and go through the logic (not that ENFPs don't have logic.. just that INTPs seem more focused on making things congruent and workable). The ENFPs gift is summed up in that haunting phrase "I'd rather live life than just observe it"... that still gives me shivers now!

 

[Eric B]

if they were all based on temperment (or whatever you think the 'fundamental particle' is), then the theories would fit much nicer. However, they don't. Just because models look similar-ish (ish-ish-ish) doesn't mean they're going to be relevant to each other, or fit in such a predictably symmetric way. That's almost new age thinking. I mean, your body is made up of 75% water right? So shouldn't water respond to written messages and music? Y'know, water and the human body are *related*.

Of course they don't fit perfectly, but there are good parallels, at least. The fact that both Keirsey and Berens linked their models (conation and interaction style) to the temperaments (as well as to Social Styles, DiSC and others) shows there are some strong commonalities there. You yourself used as the example NF supposedly being Choleric, though I blieve that was was matched wrongly.
(And it's not really symmetrical either. Between T/F and J/P, the temperaments and Interaction Styles are reckoned differently according to S and N. That is very asymmetrical, and other people I know prefer to use an all new model, such as SP, SJ, NP, NJ or TP, TJ, FP, FJ, or Myer's original ST, SF, NT, NF. Those are symmetrical, and do not match to the previous temperament theory.

You are also seriously oversimplifying stuff. There are directing and informing types in each temperment.

That's the conative (Keirseyan) temperaments. The Interaction Styles are also, technically "temperaments" (and make easier matches with the ancient ones), and they are drawn strictly along directing and informing (along with E/I).

Temperments correlating with the 5-factor model? Well 1, there's 4 temperments and 5 factors, two, the 5 factors are on a scale of good to bad, and the temperments aren't (that's a huge mess right there. I'll take that alone as a sign that the theories won't fit)

The five factors are Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness and Neuroticism. None are measured as "good" or "bad". The closest to that would be Neuroticism, which is generally seen as being less emotionally healthy, if high.
We of course know extraversion. Agreeableness would correspond to directing/informing. Conscientiousness would correspond to Cooperative/Pragmatic. Openness would be S/N.
In the statistical correlations, Agreeableness is matched with T/F and Conscientiousness is matched with J/P. In the Interaction Styles model, this is true for Sensors. For iNtuitors, it reverses. Based on Eysenck's original definition of Neuroticism (ability to experience negative emotions), I would say it to some extent is like the inverse of Agreeableness. Eysenck used the Galenic temperaments, and the "directives" (Melancholic and Choleric) were high N, while the more agreeable ones (Sanguine and Phlegmatic) were low N. I would say the split at the fifth temperament, which is agreeable, yet also high N, because of its need for acceptance. But then that's the FIRO-based temperament theory. For MBTI, another updated version, called TDI, is adding a new scale called "Comfort-Discomfort", which aims to match Neuroticism. Keirsey or Berens do not seem to be attempting to add this to their theories.

And the number of factors has nothing to do with the number of temperaments. The four Keirsey temperaments use only two of the factors (S/N, and C/Prag), not all four, so it's not like "one factor for each temperament".

Also 'mastery and competence' doesn't mean controlling a situation or even leadership. That doesn't logically extrapolate itself in any way

What I'm trying to say is that you are engaging in quite a bit of conceptual stretching.

I don't think that I exactly said that about "mastery and competence". I had linked it to "Choleric". Yet, the NF's do not seem like power hungry dictators. In fact, in some statistical correlations done between FIRO and MBTI, the NT's and most SP's did have the highest correlations with "expressed Control" (which would indicate a tendency to assuming leadership, or controlling). It seems the focus of the different type and temperament profiles is different, so they may not directly describe those traits. Yet the inclinations may still be there. Again, with the NTJ's it is more evident.

And don't start falsifying type profiles to fit your theory. Psychological type stands well by itself. All INFPs have very quick tempers as kids, and they still do as adults no matter how emotionally contained they try to be (which is really just an unfortunate adaption to society).

As kids, it seems many types are a bit more expressive than when they are fully developed. Even the most introverted of all, the Melancholies. And what do you mean by "quick temper". With the INFP, from what I see, both in profiles and dealing with one online, their "temper" may flare up quickly, but it will be after a long period of building up. That's not what I meant by "quick temper", but actually fits the opposite Supine or possibly Phlegmatic temperament better. The Choleric's "quick temper" refers to the fact that they vent so much, nearly constantly, and this is the reputation for the temperament. Though this is more the Interaction area, and NF/NT is conation. So it is not necessarily a quick temper that defines the Choleric, but rather the leadership style. The appearance of 'arrogance', like you are complaining about regarding Xander, and is often leveled at NT's, is one sign of it. In an NTP type with an informing (friendly) Interaction Style (which temppers the more "critical" traits), it will not come out as much as quick temper or controlling.

"and the Supine has a need for appreciation of his worth, like the NF's core needs of meaning and significance"

This is the kind of stretch (way past the breaking point) I am talking about. I just read the definition of that. It's not a temperment. It's a one dimensional caricature. Temperment definitions have been changed to relate to psychological type, and if I were to describe the 4 temperments, I'd describe them in terms of psychological type. 'supine' has now relation to psychological type the way the new temperment descriptions do, and I can't even start on how little relation it has to reality. Heart of a servant? What is that? Some rediculous image that exists only in the minds of some old rich white guys.

Uh, I did not make that name up, I only relayed the basis of it being given to that previously unrecognized additional temperament. Actually, I would have named it something else, myself. But just like the names "Guardian", "Artisan", Idealist",and "Rational" (or Stabilizer, Improviser, Catalyst and Theorist), the names are based on a specific trait of the pattern, used as general descriptors of the temperament. Of course, there is much more to the temperament than just that one description. The behavior patterns were there all along, but did not fit into the other four, so it was probably confused with the others. (Like, it is very reserved like a Melancholy, yet likes people like a Sanguine, and appears amiable like a Phlegmatic). It is also very similar to the Enneagram type 6.

And, if you are not already pissed off by my tone try to consider that you are still using tons of Te.

Yet, again, I never said I wasn't using it. But I explained possibly why.

If I'm supposedly the same type as you, and thus have this Te in the same "puer" position as you (unlike others elsewhere who claimed it brought out their 'witch'), then why is your tone such that you think I would be pissed? Why do you seem to be annoyed?
I see Xander has rubbed you the wrong way as well. Yet I have not clashed with him like that. To me, the stuff he said that annoyed you just came across as being humorous. (According to his somewhat moderate FIRO scores, which are on his blog, you would expect him to have a bit of a dry, wry humor, like a Phlegmatic, in which some people might not know how it is to be taken).

Are you sure that it is not Ti you are reacting to, which once again, can appear to be "extraverted" when projected by Ne? People who thought I was ENFP expected me to be similarly miffed by Ti, but I do not seem to have that problem at all (hence a big part of my now questioning the whole idea of being ENFP). And don't try to say "trickster" Ti, again. I do not fit the description of that use of it (remember, that archetype is more about "stress"). I seem to like or at least get along with it, and it is more like Te that has always annoyed me, though I may try to emulate it a lot (in response).

Also, is the way I use Te really the same way an ENFP uses it? Is this how you use it? I don't think it's accurate to see a person using one function, however much, and just take that and build up his whole type from it. There are many causes of a person's behavior. And even then, cognitive dynamics is only one of several ways to detemine type, and a person can easily mistake what he sees in others.

 

[Eric B]

That's me as well. Tends to be confusing when trying to type myself on the E/I scale. ^^

Although in general, I have to say that you're not coming across as either ENFP or ENTP. Have you thought about ENTJ? Your Te is very strong, moreso that I would have thought a (even a developed) shadow/tertiary function to be...

At least one or two other people have suggested TJ types, based on all this "Te" they say they see.
But no, those types are definitely not me. For one thing, the one function that is the most definite with me is strong Ne.
(which is why others are insisting on an NFP, and yes, I too don't think I'm using it in quite the same way as they do, which is nonpreferred and usually less developed).
Again, I just think I learned it from my surroundings (which were strongly TJ), and began emulating it. It doesn't even seem really natural to me, but just a strong acquired habit.

 

[Eric B]

Eric,
Oh and I think your type becomes more clear, INFP does fit well.

Is your assessment based on Te as well? Or just the results I posted.
When I was first told EFP, I had thought INFP would be closer. That is probably what I look like in person. But people said I was too "enthusiastic" like an extravert. So I'm not even arguing for an introverted type, now.

Plus understanding NTs and "getting on with them" is more about honesty and being able to not take things personally more so than any other trait.

Anyhow...much waffling = NF doesn't necessarily oppose NT. (Esp ENFJ and ENTJ!!!)

But I was thinking based on the functions, with the premise that people with primary functions in another person's shadow will clash. So while an NF may try to get along with an NT, apparently at some point, some of the functions of the NT will get on his nerves (like Gabe and you, now).

Also you have a certainty I'd associate with the INFP shadow (though that could be more background than personality wise).

I don't get that. What "certainty" in the INFP's shadow?

 

[arcticangel02]

When I was first told EFP, I had thought INFP would be closer. That is probably what I look like in person. But people said I was too "enthusiastic" like an extravert. So I'm not even arguing for an introverted type, now.

Again, that's exactly how I am. I've eventually decided that I'm borderline - slightly on the extraverted side, but really not one of the other. I still get confused sometimes.

But I was thinking based on the functions, with the premise that people with primary functions in another person's shadow will clash. So while an NF may try to get along with an NT, apparently at some point, some of the functions of the NT will get on his nerves (like Gabe and you, now).

Curiously, I get along better with NTPs than I do NFPs, actually. Of course we clash, everyone clashes, but from my experience, NFPs get on my nerves moreso than NTPs. So I'm not really sure if you can use that to suggest your type? Just an idea, though.

At least one or two other people have suggested TJ types, based on all this "Te" they say they see.
But no, those types are definitely not me. For one thing, the one function that is the most definite with me is strong Ne.
(which is why others are insisting on an NFP, and yes, I too don't think I'm using it in quite the same way as they do, which is nonpreferred and usually less developed).
Again, I just think I learned it from my surroundings (which were strongly TJ), and began emulating it. It doesn't even seem really natural to me, but just a strong acquired habit.

Alright, fair enough. You know yourself better than we do! How about this then: How to you act around people? Describe yourself in a social situation. How are you at your 'best'? At your 'worst'? People have a tendency to look very T when all they're doing on here is arguing points and debating topics - we tend not to see the F side of people as much. So maybe this will help clear up things a bit?

If I'm supposedly the same type as you, and thus have this Te in the same "puer" position as you (unlike others elsewhere who claimed it brought out their 'witch'), then why is your tone such that you think I would be pissed? Why do you seem to be annoyed?

I see Xander has rubbed you the wrong way as well. Yet I have not clashed with him like that. To me, the stuff he said that annoyed you just came across as being humorous.

See, it struck me as more humorous than anything else, too. So you get two ENFPs with very different reactions, which means nothing, really. Again, I wouldn't use someone else's reaction to a certain type as evidence of your type. There is always more going on than just type and functions.

Are you sure that it is not Ti you are reacting to, which once again, can appear to be "extraverted" when projected by Ne? People who thought I was ENFP expected me to be similarly miffed by Ti, but I do not seem to have that problem at all (hence a big part of my now questioning the whole idea of being ENFP).

Well, I know in an ENFP, Ne and Fi often combine to give the appearance of Fe. As an ENFP myself, I am very aware that I don't use Fe much at all, but to others it may indeed appear to be the case in the moment. One could assume that an ENTP would exhibit the same behaviour with Ti and Te, but I don't know that it works like that, considering the differences between the nature of F and T (i.e. F can be misinterpreted, since it has to do with people and relating to them, which is complicated and often multi-layered, wheras T is more to do with facts and logic, and thus less easily confused?) I don't know for sure, I'm just ruminating.

Also, is the way I use Te really the same way an ENFP uses it? Is this how you use it? I don't think it's accurate to see a person using one function, however much, and just take that and build up his whole type from it. There are many causes of a person's behavior. And even then, cognitive dynamics is only one of several ways to detemine type, and a person can easily mistake what he sees in others.

Is the way you use Te really the way an ENTP uses it? It's impossible to say for either type, since in your case you've clearly developed the function beyond your natural use of it. So I don't think comparing to other ENFPs/ENTPs who haven't developed Te will be useful.

Anyway, yeah. Tell me how you relate to people!

 

[Xander]

Is your assessment based on Te as well? Or just the results I posted.

It's kind of your results making me look for different things within your mannerisms so far and also as an explanaition of your differences from the INTP type which I was previously looking for.

When I was first told EFP, I had thought INFP would be closer. That is probably what I look like in person. But people said I was too "enthusiastic" like an extravert. So I'm not even arguing for an introverted type, now.

Too enthusiastic, my left arm. Extroverts have as much right to be recalcitrant and cautious twits as introverts and vice versa. Hell in some situations you stick me and my ENFJ mate in a room, he's the quiet reserved one who won't say boo whilst I'm the loud, abrupt and opinionated one!

But I was thinking based on the functions, with the premise that people with primary functions in another person's shadow will clash. So while an NF may try to get along with an NT, apparently at some point, some of the functions of the NT will get on his nerves (like Gabe and you, now).

I have no idea what you mean

(Actually that's half the interest I find with ENFPs (half being a large large overstatement).. somehow the more I try to be extroverted and transparent [thereby trying to head off the paranoid "I wonder if he really meant that" response] the more toes I tread on. I never cease to wonder at what will be picked up and argued over... often things I didn't even consider. In a way my "interations" with ENFPs have taught me a lot about how other's emotions work... Sounds mean said like that but it's a side thing really. I subconciously learn and try to compensate if I think they may get upset... Also I should mention that this applies to all individuals to some degree and not just ENFPs whom I patronise endlessly. I patronise them as a conplete side quest [kidding])

I don't get that. What "certainty" in the INFP's shadow?

ESTJ. You bear the mark of someone who does question their core thinking but with a proviso that the core thinking is correct unless proven to be non-functional. That's more INFP to my eyes. I've had arguments with INFPs before (no surprise there) and have finished having not made one jot of difference to their thinking except to have annoyed them.. A stubborn species to be sure.

So anyhow, yeah INFP does fit quite well. Thinking about it you email like an INFP. It would also go some way into reasoning your other type system scores.

Would I be correct in thinking that you've had long term exposure to a T like environment where a detached point of view is preferable to a personal one?

 

[Eric B]

ESTJ. You bear the mark of someone who does question their core thinking but with a proviso that the core thinking is correct unless proven to be non-functional. That's more INFP to my eyes. I've had arguments with INFPs before (no surprise there) and have finished having not made one jot of difference to their thinking except to have annoyed them.. A stubborn species to be sure.

I can be like that sometimes, depending on what it is, but not always.
In an idea like this, I like to test it, and put it out there to see what others think. I do take into consideration the feedback.

I had even tried on these NFP types at the suggestion of others (which would mess up my theory of how the systems correspond, and in Ti fashion, I did look at revising the model). It's just that learning more about the functions made me reconsider that. I had always had questions, as I see myself as pragmatic and structure focused like an NT, so I'm just trying to get that to match.

So anyhow, yeah INFP does fit quite well. Thinking about it you email like an INFP. It would also go some way into reasoning your other type system scores.

Would I be correct in thinking that you've had long term exposure to a T like environment where a detached point of view is preferable to a personal one?

Yes, as I've been saying, I think I've been very influenced by a heavily Te background. And Fi seems to go with that. Perhaps that's what you sense in the e-mails, though I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to.

Still, I think that devilish/destructive Ti all the way down on the bottom does not describe me. Of course, you could always say that is the "active shadow" that rose up out of its place, but I really don't think so. Ti activities seem to have always been more natural. Te is what has a more negative, shadowy connotation, and is more associated with stress.
So it's Fi (which I still did score higher on, though Ti was above Te) that I will look into, to continue to understand better, and see how much I've really used it naturally.

 

[Eric B]

Alright, fair enough. You know yourself better than we do! How about this then: How to you act around people? Describe yourself in a social situation. How are you at your 'best'? At your 'worst'? People have a tendency to look very T when all they're doing on here is arguing points and debating topics - we tend not to see the F side of people as much. So maybe this will help clear up things a bit?

I'm basically quiet and withdrawn. I'll join in if I hear someone discussing something I'm interested in, or have a lot of knowledge on. When I'm being quiet (like at work), I'm usually pursuing interests, either online in the mobile, or some literature or something.
People around me would say I was more introverted, and more thinking. People closer would say the same, but be aware of my sensitive side. I do like people and social gatherings. Larger ones, I'll be more quiet and stick around with the froup I know better. Groups of friends, then I am more expressive and wanting attention.

The reason I like the [FIRO-based] five-temperament system (the first one I learned about), and want it to be more know about so much, is because it explained me perfectly.
This is the fifth temperament I have been mentioning, in the social area (Inclusion). It is withdrawn, yet likes people and wants to be included. That is why it was associated with a "servant", which Gabe did not understand. They do like to "serve" people (being nice, doing kind things, etc), because their basic need is to gain acceptance, and they lack the confidence to express to others like the outgoing Sanguine, who uses their expressive charm and readily approaches people. So I can attest to the "servant's heart", though, yes, it is basically a "Christianeze" term.

However, in the area of leadership and responsibilities (Control), I'm the familiar old "Choleric", which is the diametric opposite of my social temperament. I want things my own way, will want to bear influence and control, and don't want to be controlled by others. So I have this angry, aggressive streak at times. Yet, the social area does modify this tendency, because I realize if I push people too much, I will not get the acceptance of that need area. And the Control area keeps me from being a total doormat, or waiting to be invited to things and too afraid to ask. Hence, my shutting people out to focus on interests (including these discussions), and then jumping in with them when I hear them bring up something of interest.

It is often a confusing weighing of options. And I think that it is this combination that is giving me both I/E and T/F ambiguity. The temperament + Interaction Styles = 16 types approach is a four × four temperament system. The fifth one does not fit in as well. The closest thing on the Interaction level is Behind the Scenes, but that is correlated with Phlegmatic. Phlegmatic was regarded as "introverted" and "agreeable" (or people-focused), but in the five temperament system, its behavior is actually measured as moderate in both scales, and the new temperament takes its place. So this new temperament is even more shy, yet at the same time, more wanting of people. This "want" is called "responding as an extrovert". And someone has said that the "extraversion" scale in MBTI includes wants and not just expression. So that, plus my more aggressive "Control", would explain why I might come out as an E type. Also, it seems the greater "want" increases "Feeling" traits as well. You are so focused on what people think of you, being accepted, etc. That, however, clashes with the Control, which is described as both intuitive, and UNfeeling.
Yes, Keirsey linked the iNtuitive Feeler to Choleric, but he used a different criterion, and it does not match the sense in which I'm Choleric, though it would appear to justify my being an NFP type. But the "Choleric" aspect of my personality is the opposite of the NF with its need for connection with others. It does seem to match the NT better, though, and some people do say that I'm like an INTP, and I would probably look like one if you saw me. But it's the cognitive dynamics that don't seem to match.
So what it looks like to me, is that I may have started out more Ti-ish, but then because of my circumstances, I overdeveloped Te and with it, Fi. My "Inclusion" was already more susceptible to increasing a "feeling" focus, in that environment than a normal "Behind the Scenes" would have been. A Phlegmatic/Choleric would have been less likely to be that affected, because the Phlegmatic is not fazed by things like that as much. From what I've seen, "pure" INTP's like Xander seem to fit that combination better (His FIRO scores are close enough to that).

I go into this stuff so much, again, because I have found it to explain behavior so much, but the MBTI and cognitive functions do as well, and I like how they can possibly fit together. (Just like all the people trying to harmonize MBTI with Enneagram).

Curiously, I get along better with NTPs than I do NFPs, actually. Of course we clash, everyone clashes, but from my experience, NFPs get on my nerves moreso than NTPs. So I'm not really sure if you can use that to suggest your type? Just an idea, though.

See, it struck me as more humorous than anything else, too. So you get two ENFPs with very different reactions, which means nothing, really. Again, I wouldn't use someone else's reaction to a certain type as evidence of your type. There is always more going on than just type and functions.

OK.
Maybe I allowed myself to become too influenced by a supposed 'expert', who does use the archetypes (and shadows) to explain practically all behavior and personality clashes.

Well, I know in an ENFP, Ne and Fi often combine to give the appearance of Fe. As an ENFP myself, I am very aware that I don't use Fe much at all, but to others it may indeed appear to be the case in the moment. One could assume that an ENTP would exhibit the same behaviour with Ti and Te, but I don't know that it works like that, considering the differences between the nature of F and T (i.e. F can be misinterpreted, since it has to do with people and relating to them, which is complicated and often multi-layered, wheras T is more to do with facts and logic, and thus less easily confused?) I don't know for sure, I'm just ruminating.

I was wondering if Ne did the same thing with Fi. The Ne+Ti effect I had seen someone else mention on the Spam Pudding board (I PM'ed elfinchilde who was over there, asking her to join this discussion, but she hasn't answered. She breaks those cognitive process test answers down so thoroughly). That might partially explain what you all are seeing in me. You may see "thinking" being 'extraverted" towards you, but the internal use of it is there as well, and I had my models and frameworls of this stuff all worked out before I began trying to share it.

 

[Gabe]

Of course they don't fit perfectly, but there are good parallels, at least. The fact that both Keirsey and Berens linked their models (conation and interaction style) to the temperaments (as well as to Social Styles, DiSC and others) shows there are some strong commonalities there. You yourself used as the example NF supposedly being Choleric, though I blieve that was was matched wrongly.
(And it's not really symmetrical either. Between T/F and J/P, the temperaments and Interaction Styles are reckoned differently according to S and N. That is very asymmetrical, and other people I know prefer to use an all new model, such as SP, SJ, NP, NJ or TP, TJ, FP, FJ, or Myer's original ST, SF, NT, NF. Those are symmetrical, and do not match to the previous temperament theory.
That's the conative (Keirseyan) temperaments. The Interaction Styles are also, technically "temperaments" (and make easier matches with the ancient ones), and they are drawn strictly along directing and informing (along with E/I).
The five factors are Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness and Neuroticism. None are measured as "good" or "bad". The closest to that would be Neuroticism, which is generally seen as being less emotionally healthy, if high.
We of course know extraversion. Agreeableness would correspond to directing/informing. Conscientiousness would correspond to Cooperative/Pragmatic. Openness would be S/N.
In the statistical correlations, Agreeableness is matched with T/F and Conscientiousness is matched with J/P. In the Interaction Styles model, this is true for Sensors. For iNtuitors, it reverses. Based on Eysenck's original definition of Neuroticism (ability to experience negative emotions), I would say it to some extent is like the inverse of Agreeableness. Eysenck used the Galenic temperaments, and the "directives" (Melancholic and Choleric) were high N, while the more agreeable ones (Sanguine and Phlegmatic) were low N. I would say the split at the fifth temperament, which is agreeable, yet also high N, because of its need for acceptance. But then that's the FIRO-based temperament theory. For MBTI, another updated version, called TDI, is adding a new scale called "Comfort-Discomfort", which aims to match Neuroticism. Keirsey or Berens do not seem to be attempting to add this to their theories.

And the number of factors has nothing to do with the number of temperaments. The four Keirsey temperaments use only two of the factors (S/N, and C/Prag), not all four, so it's not like "one factor for each temperament".

I don't think that I exactly said that about "mastery and competence". I had linked it to "Choleric". Yet, the NF's do not seem like power hungry dictators. In fact, in some statistical correlations done between FIRO and MBTI, the NT's and most SP's did have the highest correlations with "expressed Control" (which would indicate a tendency to assuming leadership, or controlling). It seems the focus of the different type and temperament profiles is different, so they may not directly describe those traits. Yet the inclinations may still be there. Again, with the NTJ's it is more evident.
As kids, it seems many types are a bit more expressive than when they are fully developed. Even the most introverted of all, the Melancholies. And what do you mean by "quick temper". With the INFP, from what I see, both in profiles and dealing with one online, their "temper" may flare up quickly, but it will be after a long period of building up. That's not what I meant by "quick temper", but actually fits the opposite Supine or possibly Phlegmatic temperament better. The Choleric's "quick temper" refers to the fact that they vent so much, nearly constantly, and this is the reputation for the temperament. Though this is more the Interaction area, and NF/NT is conation. So it is not necessarily a quick temper that defines the Choleric, but rather the leadership style. The appearance of 'arrogance', like you are complaining about regarding Xander, and is often leveled at NT's, is one sign of it. In an NTP type with an informing (friendly) Interaction Style (which temppers the more "critical" traits), it will not come out as much as quick temper or controlling.
Uh, I did not make that name up, I only relayed the basis of it being given to that previously unrecognized additional temperament. Actually, I would have named it something else, myself. But just like the names "Guardian", "Artisan", Idealist",and "Rational" (or Stabilizer, Improviser, Catalyst and Theorist), the names are based on a specific trait of the pattern, used as general descriptors of the temperament. Of course, there is much more to the temperament than just that one description. The behavior patterns were there all along, but did not fit into the other four, so it was probably confused with the others. (Like, it is very reserved like a Melancholy, yet likes people like a Sanguine, and appears amiable like a Phlegmatic). It is also very similar to the Enneagram type 6.
Yet, again, I never said I wasn't using it. But I explained possibly why.

If I'm supposedly the same type as you, and thus have this Te in the same "puer" position as you (unlike others elsewhere who claimed it brought out their 'witch'), then why is your tone such that you think I would be pissed? Why do you seem to be annoyed?
I see Xander has rubbed you the wrong way as well. Yet I have not clashed with him like that. To me, the stuff he said that annoyed you just came across as being humorous. (According to his somewhat moderate FIRO scores, which are on his blog, you would expect him to have a bit of a dry, wry humor, like a Phlegmatic, in which some people might not know how it is to be taken).

Are you sure that it is not Ti you are reacting to, which once again, can appear to be "extraverted" when projected by Ne? People who thought I was ENFP expected me to be similarly miffed by Ti, but I do not seem to have that problem at all (hence a big part of my now questioning the whole idea of being ENFP). And don't try to say "trickster" Ti, again. I do not fit the description of that use of it (remember, that archetype is more about "stress"). I seem to like or at least get along with it, and it is more like Te that has always annoyed me, though I may try to emulate it a lot (in response).

Also, is the way I use Te really the same way an ENFP uses it? Is this how you use it? I don't think it's accurate to see a person using one function, however much, and just take that and build up his whole type from it. There are many causes of a person's behavior. And even then, cognitive dynamics is only one of several ways to detemine type, and a person can easily mistake what he sees in others.

uh, it's just as easy to be dissagreeable with informing communication. In fact, I don't agree with any of those. so please don't state it as if it's fact (how in the world would openness correspond with S/N? Why. I can think of a few fake reasons but no real ones) I admit that I have no idea what the 'affiliative vs. pragmatic' role stuff is about (I'll look it up). Yeah, I'm not even sure about the leadership thing. The majority of U.S presidents have probably been stabalizers, and other countries have had catylist leaders, so I bet it has much more to do with the culture of the institutions. Besides, theorissts (IRL) can seem arrogant whether or not they actually have any power or influence. Also, as much as I would not like to admit it, democracy was thought up by theorists. And in countries that are not 'ready' for democracy, that culture is inforced by all of the types, including the catylists. I also think that Mao Zedong was an ENFJ.

I won't acknowledge the existence of a supine temperment, AND it occurs to me that NTJs don't actually have particularily quick tempers.

Xander didn't annoy me because of my type, and he didn't annoy me because of some supposedly 'phlegmatic' humor. He annoyed me because I now have an extremely short fuse for type bias. This forum should be for learning, and contriving a fake 'battle of the types' out of boredom serves no purpuse. I am still dissapointed that some people are so obviously bored with the material, and just try to make a game out of it. Have some respect for the ideas! Jung came up with his stuff through years of study, not through five minutes of armchair thinking.

 

[Eric B]

uh, it's just as easy to be dissagreeable with informing communication. In fact, I don't agree with any of those. so please don't state it as if it's fact (how in the world would openness correspond with S/N?

Those correlations are supported through the statistical studies done between MBTI and FFM, as well as the basic concepts. You're taking some of those factor names too literally. (Such as "informing" or "agreeable"). There is much more to the definition of the factor than what you seem to be reading into them.

Xander didn't annoy me because of my type, and he didn't annoy me because of some supposedly 'phlegmatic' humor. He annoyed me because I now have an extremely short fuse for type bias. This forum should be for learning, and contriving a fake 'battle of the types' out of boredom serves no purpuse. I am still dissapointed that some people are so obviously bored with the material, and just try to make a game out of it. Have some respect for the ideas! Jung came up with his stuff through years of study, not through five minutes of armchair thinking.

But your annoyance at him could be apart of type or cognitive dynamics. That was my point there. Or of course, it might not be. Again, he was only joking, and that's the way he jokes.

 

[arcticangel02]

...

Alright, after reading your post, I think I might be siding with Xander and think that INFP may indeed be your type. INFPs can be quite 'cool' to the outside world, and appear to have a thinking preference if you don't know them well.

I'll admit that I'm not as familiar with the theories outside of MBTI, but the 'fifth temperament' you mention does strike me as an IF sort of thing. Just because somebody is an introvert does not mean they don't desire contact with people.

The 'Control' area you mention may well be where your ESTJ shadow comes out - the heavy influence of Te around you has brought out that side of you when you need to be in charge, so you come across 'angry and aggressive', which sounds like completely opposite to the normal you?

And ENFP would have a more chilled shadow - like I think Xander mentioned earlier, they're more like the ISTJ, which is serious and defensive as opposed to active and aggressive.

I also found this quote, which although it's talking about ENFP, may also apply to the INFP as far as 'overcompensating' goes:

Gender differences can be significant for males because the qualities most associated with ENFPs are more traditionally attributed to females: sociability, desire/need to please, intuition, spontaneity, and concern for other people. As a result, when an ENFP male "plays" into those natural preferences of his personality, he can find himself outside the male "establishment." Ironically, this may set him up to overcompensate and behave in ways atypical for ENFPs -- to be, for example, competitive or overly argumentative. Seeking group approval, he may get involved with contact sports or other "tough" activities, though he would really prefer to be elsewhere.

Maybe, coming from a heavily T environment, you may have had to adapt in that manner, too?

Another thought, you might also possibly be mistaking Fi for Ti - both are very internal systems of processing information, and can be quite difficult to tell apart, especially if you're borderline T/F. Quite a few people classify themselves as INxP. But you definitely do seem concerned with people and how they're feeling, etc, which would indicate your being an F. I don't know if that applies at all, but maybe something to think about.

The Ne+Ti = Appearance of Te may well be the case, but from what I can tell, you just don't seem like an NTP at all. Again, that may have something to do with how you present yourself on the forum, but still.

Does that help at all? Again, I'm just sort of going through ideas - some of them may apply, some not.

But from what I can tell, INFP does seem like it fits you as well as MBTI can.

 

[Eric B]

Alright, after reading your post, I think I might be siding with Xander and think that INFP may indeed be your type. INFPs can be quite 'cool' to the outside world, and appear to have a thinking preference if you don't know them well.

I'll admit that I'm not as familiar with the theories outside of MBTI, but the 'fifth temperament' you mention does strike me as an IF sort of thing.

Normally it is. It basically follows the Behind the Scenes Interaction Style, which is IF for all types exept for the NT. But since it is much more "feely" than the Phlegmatic that also follows BtS; and with me, since it's a bit more mixed with Choleric, that is obviously where the T/F issues are coming from.

The 'Control' area you mention may well be where your ESTJ shadow comes out - the heavy influence of Te around you has brought out that side of you when you need to be in charge, so you come across 'angry and aggressive', which sounds like completely opposite to the normal you?

I would say that there is a very "critical" and somewhat controlling edge to me naturally (which comes out in Ti things such as questioning and skepticism). So when you take that to begin with, and then add the outside Te influence, plus a more sensitive fifth temperament; I think that is what affected me like that.

As for shadows; I meant to mention before, there are two different versions of "shadow" type. The one you're using (which I see on Team Technology) is simply the primary functions in reverse. That would yield ESTJ. However, "shadow" is also frequently used for the remaining, unused non-primary functions, which are the primary functions in the same order, but with the attitudes (i/e) reversed. So for an INTP, the shadow is TeNiSeFi, or ENTJ. For an ENTP, it is NiTeFiSe, or INTJ. Those would make more sense for me, and I could admit to. Te is more an "oppositional" or "witch" thing for me, and Fi is more "destructive" or possibly deceiving.

And ENFP would have a more chilled shadow - like I think Xander mentioned earlier, they're more like the ISTJ, which is serious and defensive as opposed to active and aggressive.

I also found this quote, which although it's talking about ENFP, may also apply to the INFP as far as 'overcompensating' goes:

I think that further goes to show that the NFP's are not these normally angry Cholerics, as it was assumed; though like anybody, they do have angry reactions and a shadow that will come out eventually.

Maybe, coming from a heavily T environment, you may have had to adapt in that manner, too?

Another thought, you might also possibly be mistaking Fi for Ti - both are very internal systems of processing information, and can be quite difficult to tell apart, especially if you're borderline T/F.

I considered that, but then when at first accepting an NFP type; I may have done the opposite and mistaken other things for Fi, or at least assumed whatever Fi I was using was primary rather than shadow. Now again, It really does seem Fi is more negative, and not the "hero" or "good parent" of a preferred position.

Quite a few people classify themselves as INxP. But you definitely do seem concerned with people and how they're feeling, etc, which would indicate your being an F. I don't know if that applies at all, but maybe something to think about.

Yeah; I do. And that was one thing that made me think Fi, but upon reading more; I see that the "F" you describe there (regarding other people) which I thought was Fi, is actually more associated with Fe-- which is in a nonpreferred (yet, nevertheless primary) position for NTP's (and in the shadow of NFP's). That would also seem to make more sense.

The Ne+Ti = Appearance of Te may well be the case, but from what I can tell, you just don't seem like an NTP at all. Again, that may have something to do with how you present yourself on the forum, but still.

Does that help at all? Again, I'm just sort of going through ideas - some of them may apply, some not.

But from what I can tell, INFP does seem like it fits you as well as MBTI can.

Yeah, thanks; I think it is just a matter of the way I've learned to express myself. The internal process is probably more Ti, but Te seemed the strongest way to get a point across and make your voice heard, (it's supposed to be either "backup" or "discovery", it it more often comes out negatively).

 

[Xander]

Eric,
One thing which may help you (and perhaps trip you up) is the use of the words 'thinking' and 'logic'.

My father has always told me that if you ask an F (this is a bit of stereotyping but serves me well as an initial guideline) if they are logical and they'll tell you they are but they're not. Now I don't completely agree with that but I do note that with an F their logic is tied much closer to their initial emotional response than a T. Not that Ts are immune to their ID, it's just not as visceral IME.

As for the use of the word "thinking", every INFP I know is a deep thinker. On par with most INTPs (I'm leaving out the reclusive INTP as they appear to be nothing more than thought half the time) for sheer just sitting on their ass and thinking of stuff. The one I meet with regularly is more a kin to a hole in a dam when he visits as the ideas and concepts flood out like a fire hydrant! So it's not really a good word to think of in terms of people, similarly with feeling as it's often quite obvious to me the emotional bias of the multiple ESTJs I appear to be working with.

As for your behaviour versus your cognative wiring, the two aren't always going to match as we've discussed. That's why I asked about your background because if you've had to deal with people who expect objective reasoning then that is what you will develop. I grew up with 3 Js in the house and though I'm no neat freak I do tend to present plans fully formed with contingecies and such... not that these things come naturally but that's what I expect people to want and do because that's what I had to do as a child. Also thing like the military will drum plenty of STJ into you. Apparently an INFP who has served in the military is likely to be quite alike to an ESTJ as they've had to use their shadow so much to "survive" in such an NF hostile environment.

 

[Eric B]

Eric,
One thing which may help you (and perhaps trip you up) is the use of the words 'thinking' and 'logic'.

My father has always told me that if you ask an F (this is a bit of stereotyping but serves me well as an initial guideline) if they are logical and they'll tell you they are but they're not. Now I don't completely agree with that but I do note that with an F their logic is tied much closer to their initial emotional response than a T. Not that Ts are immune to their ID, it's just not as visceral IME.

I'm aware of the difference between "thinking" and "logic". I know that T is about logic, while F is about "values" (or "ethics").
Still, what I have been assessing is which is the driving force in my life, and it has always seemed to be logic. Whatever "Strong feelings" or "emotional response" has some logical basis to them. Then, Fi, once again, seems to come up in very negative internal reactions to something being violated.

Otherwise, I am often neutral and indifferent about "feelings" about things. My wife has to try to pry something out of me, but I'm just "whatever", unless it ties to some longstanding issue or some intellectual interest.

As for the use of the word "thinking", every INFP I know is a deep thinker. On par with most INTPs (I'm leaving out the reclusive INTP as they appear to be nothing more than thought half the time) for sheer just sitting on their ass and thinking of stuff. The one I meet with regularly is more a kin to a hole in a dam when he visits as the ideas and concepts flood out like a fire hydrant! So it's not really a good word to think of in terms of people, similarly with feeling as it's often quite obvious to me the emotional bias of the multiple ESTJs I appear to be working with.

As for your behaviour versus your cognative wiring, the two aren't always going to match as we've discussed. That's why I asked about your background because if you've had to deal with people who expect objective reasoning then that is what you will develop. I grew up with 3 Js in the house and though I'm no neat freak I do tend to present plans fully formed with contingecies and such... not that these things come naturally but that's what I expect people to want and do because that's what I had to do as a child. Also thing like the military will drum plenty of STJ into you. Apparently an INFP who has served in the military is likely to be quite alike to an ESTJ as they've had to use their shadow so much to "survive" in such an NF hostile environment.

Yeah, it's a matter of sorting out what is what. In Beebe and Berens' theory, we all use all eight functions. Some are preferred, some nonpreferred, and the rest, shadow. Then, between thinking and feeling, there are the extraverted and introverted attitudes of them. So a "thinker" will turn that process primarily in one direction, yet he will have the opposite function (feeling) turned in the opposite direction. Then, he will have both reversed in the shadow range. The primary functions are generally positive in connotation, with negative sides, and the shadows are negative with positive sides.

The "T" in my background was almost completely extraverted (with doses of it's tandem opposite, Fi). That is what rubbed off of me, in my "debate mode" when reasoning my opinions. Otherwise, I see my own T was always more inward.

I have seen others here point out that a person haviung T/F uncertainties is usually an F. Plus your examples of Feelers mistaking their function for Thinking. It seems many Feelers want to be thinkers.
I wonder if that might be because of the T dominance of an ESTJ society.

 

[Eric B]

OK, you are considering your type bases upon yoru evaluation of how you think about problems. If you are prepared to, let look at something which should demonstrate the ENFP/ENTP difference. Could you talk to us about the last very difficult personal decision that you had to make about your personal life, and how/why you chose to do what you did?

I hadn't forgotten this. It's just so difficult to think of anything "very difficult", because I'm very indifferent about a lot of things.
The best thing I can think of is moving, 3 months ago. We had to get out of an old, vermin infested apartment, we had just moved into a little over a year earlier to get out of another vermin infested place. I did not feel like moving again. So my wife suggested hiring movers this time. My parents helped with the money.

We looked for the first decent thing we could find. We went to look at two places not too far from where we were. One was cheaper and brand new brick/concrete constructed house, with a balcony. It looked a bit small, though. The other was a few years old prefab construction house, but the rent was higher. So we weighed the price, and location. The second one was in an area being rebuilt after decades of decay, yet it is closer to the transportation hub. So that's good for me. With the price, plus the familiarity of that side of the neighborhood, I guess it was "difficult".
We were interviewed by both, but only the second called back, and that's what we ended up taking. My wife loves it. I think it's nice. Good that the vermin are gone, and it's all new, and even has a little yard. (My wife is a definite "feeling" type).

I was basically indifferent, because I had my own ideas of what and where I wanted to live, but it was a matter of the price, and then spending time looking for more places, and if it's far, she would be away from her friends and have to travel further to get to church (where she works as a counselor). But we had to take something now, and with me, it was pretty much "whatever" (the only thing I am strictly against is a wood frame building, because they burn down too easily). So what we got was nice, so we're happy.

 

[arcticangel02]

Eric, have you done this cognitive processes test? I'd be curious to see what your results are.

Also, I find it interesting that moving house was the thing you picked as a difficult personal decision. I would have thought it would be a fairly impersonal process for everyone. Of course you might like the feel of one house over another, but when it comes down to it, it's impersonal, quantitative things that would almost certainly make the decision, wouldn't it?

I don't want to pry or anything, but can you maybe think back to a time when maybe you had a major disagreement with a family member, or some relationship went through a rocky period. Something like that?

You are an unusual one, Mr. B! But that's okay, we like a challenge.

I have seen others here point out that a person haviung T/F uncertainties is usually an F. Plus your examples of Feelers mistaking their function for Thinking. It seems many Feelers want to be thinkers.
I wonder if that might be because of the T dominance of an ESTJ society.

That's definitely true. Thinking is often seen as clear-headed, sensible and logical, wheras Feeling tends to be seen more as 'wimpy' and letting 'emotion cloud reasonable, logical judgement'. It's just like Introverts being seen as 'shy' and 'antisocial' and Percievers as 'messy' and 'disorganised'. And even Intuitives as 'head in the clouds' and 'impractical'.

Western society is an ESTJ society, for sure, so naturally any differences are going to have a little stigma as being 'less' than the 'ideal'. We all know that's not the case, and I can easily make that exact same list the opposite way around, but we can't deny that there's a bit of pressure to conform to the ESTJ way of things.

So it's easy to unconsciously nudge your own preferences slightly in that direction, and for those of us on the borderline, it makes accurate typing difficult. That's not to say that if you're confused, you're automatically an INFP, but it still may have some bearing.

Also, especially for ENPs, our thinking and feeling functions are one after the other. My Fi is auxillary, but my Te directly afterwards, as my tertiary function. So, yes, while I prefer Feeling, I also utilise Thinking frequently, so even though I am most certainly a Feeling-type, it's not really that simple. In fact, I would probably say I am more aware of my use of Te than I am of my use of Fi, probably by virtue of it being extraverted.

Since I think we're pretty sure you use both Ti and Te, which would you say is your preferred type of feeling? Fi or Fe?

Of course, if you turn out ENFP, we always come out using both strongly. ><

 

[Eric B]

Eric, have you done this cognitive processes test? I'd be curious to see what your results are.

Yeah, right here, earlier in this thread:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/what-s-my-type/5701-enfp-infp-5.html

Fi may be higher than Ti, but Ti surpasses Te. It's so mixed up, that the results make me both INFP type, and Theoristtemperament!

Again, I think that this test is showing "active shadows". Everyone's looking at how much a person appears to use a function in outward interactions, but that really doesn't necessarily mean it is their true preference, as defined by the Jung/Myers system.

It would be nice if this test could detect the actual purposes (archetypal roles) of the functions. I may use a lot of Fi, but again, the more I think of it (including continuing daily uses of it), it is more negative, and both Fi and Te seem to be associated with stress.

Also, I find it interesting that moving house was the thing you picked as a difficult personal decision. I would have thought it would be a fairly impersonal process for everyone. Of course you might like the feel of one house over another, but when it comes down to it, it's impersonal, quantitative things that would almost certainly make the decision, wouldn't it?

I thought that would be something that would be very personal. For my wife, it certainly was. People always judge by how the place and the area makes them feel. For me, it would be more personal if I saw something I particularly liked that met my criterion for the house/neighborhoods I've always wanted.

I don't want to pry or anything, but can you maybe think back to a time when maybe you had a major disagreement with a family member, or some relationship went through a rocky period. Something like that?

OK, that gives me an idea of the kid of thing the question is looking for. I'll think on it.

You are an unusual one, Mr. B! But that's okay, we like a challenge.

That's definitely true. Thinking is often seen as clear-headed, sensible and logical, wheras Feeling tends to be seen more as 'wimpy' and letting 'emotion cloud reasonable, logical judgement'. It's just like Introverts being seen as 'shy' and 'antisocial' and Percievers as 'messy' and 'disorganised'. And even Intuitives as 'head in the clouds' and 'impractical'.

Western society is an ESTJ society, for sure, so naturally any differences are going to have a little stigma as being 'less' than the 'ideal'. We all know that's not the case, and I can easily make that exact same list the opposite way around, but we can't deny that there's a bit of pressure to conform to the ESTJ way of things.

So it's easy to unconsciously nudge your own preferences slightly in that direction, and for those of us on the borderline, it makes accurate typing difficult. That's not to say that if you're confused, you're automatically an INFP, but it still may have some bearing.

Well before, (and including up to the time I took that cognitiveprocesses test), I think I actually leaned too much towards Fi. I thought I preferred "what's personally important" and stuff like that, but really thinking about it, I think I am more into abstract models and frameworks and stuff like that. Again, "importance" only seems to come up in stressful situations or negative moments.

Meanwhile, I have always gotten the sense from the STJ background (and now my SFJ marriage) that "concrete reality" and J "seriousness" is the way you're "supposed" to be, but I have never felt ashamed of my obvious N preference. I even defended it when my wife and I were reveiwing my Step II subscale grades, and she thought I was the one who was more "concrete" (because of my skepticism towards charismatic Christianity, which she and our friends have moved towards. But with everything else, I'm clearly an "Extraterrestrial", and when I put it to her that way, this morning, she acknowledged).
I have also never felt ashamed of being a "P", or even an I (even with others suggesting I'm really an E). I guess it's F and P together that I'm avoiding, because F and P are generally more "friendly", while T and J are more critical, and I think I am mixed, and have more of a critical streak than an FP (but not as much as a TJ, of course). Hence, why the FP's don't seem to fit. Then, there's FJ, but I obviously do not prefer Fe like that.

Also, especially for ENPs, our thinking and feeling functions are one after the other. My Fi is auxillary, but my Te directly afterwards, as my tertiary function. So, yes, while I prefer Feeling, I also utilise Thinking frequently, so even though I am most certainly a Feeling-type, it's not really that simple. In fact, I would probably say I am more aware of my use of Te than I am of my use of Fi, probably by virtue of it being extraverted.

So ENFP's look like these big "thinkers", and it's heavy Te use, but they're not quite like TJ's? (Hence why some assign me to that type).
From the most of the profiles I see, they look little different from ESFP's, and they're just fun-loving "salesman" types; with the addition of "causes".

Since I think we're pretty sure you use both Ti and Te, which would you say is your preferred type of feeling? Fi or Fe?

Again, I originally thought Fi, but I really think that deep down inside, Fe is a bit more preferred. Again, I think I really messed it up on that test, because I came out with Fe "unused" (while Fi was second highest), but it was after this that I began rethinking it all, and I do have more of a desire to connect with groups, (though it is nonpreferred, and less developed) than deciding what's personally important to me. Again, I actually have no preference for things a lot of the times, unless it's some negative issue. All that Fi could well be "devilish".

Of course, if you turn out ENFP, we always come out using both strongly. ><

ENFP's use both Fi and Fe? I guess Fe would be higher up in the shadow range (the "critical parent"), but I'm not sure what that actually appears like in real life.

 

[arcticangel02]

Yeah, right here, earlier in this thread:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/what-s-my-type/5701-enfp-infp-5.html

Oh, duh. I'm obviously paying a whole lot of attention!

Fi may be higher than Ti, but Ti surpasses Te. It's so mixed up, that the results make me both INFP type, and Theoristtemperament!

Again, I think that this test is showing "active shadows". Everyone's looking at how much a person appears to use a function in outward interactions, but that really doesn't necessarily mean it is their true preference, as defined by the Jung/Myers system.

It would be nice if this test could detect the actual purposes (archetypal roles) of the functions. I may use a lot of Fi, but again, the more I think of it (including continuing daily uses of it), it is more negative, and both Fi and Te seem to be associated with stress.

How confusing!

And yes, I definitely agree that it would be more helpful if the test measured actual use as opposed to apparent use, but I don't think that's even possible! MBTI is a little bit difficult at times, because it deals with unconscious and inherant processes. Kiersey, in comparison, is more about behaviour, I think, and thus would (hopefully) be that much easier to quantify, because you can actually see it happen.

I find it quite difficult to put a finger on all this stuff I do unconsciously. Sometimes I don't realise I even do such a thing until I catch myself in the act, or someone else mentions that they do it. So it's a lot about self-awareness, too.

I thought that would be something that would be very personal. For my wife, it certainly was. People always judge by how the place and the area makes them feel. For me, it would be more personal if I saw something I particularly liked that met my criterion for the house/neighborhoods I've always wanted.

Well, I can't speak from experience, so perhaps I'm underestimating the amount of influence a 'good feeling about the place' would make on your decision, but I'm pretty sure it's a decision that can't really be made purely with Feeling, regardless of your preferences. So it's a bit of a murky middle ground.

But especially with relationships and interpersonal stuff, decisions made and actions taken can be much more one-sided approach. Which will hopefully give clues as to your natural preference.

OK, that gives me an idea of the kid of thing the question is looking for. I'll think on it.

Yep, let us know.

Well before, (and including up to the time I took that cognitiveprocesses test), I think I actually leaned too much towards Fi. I thought I preferred "what's personally important" and stuff like that, but really thinking about it, I think I am more into abstract models and frameworks and stuff like that. Again, "importance" only seems to come up in stressful situations or negative moments.

Couldn't that also match an INFPs mode of operating? They are generally fairly placid and easygoing, until something comes along and violates their values. A couple of quotes from type sites:

Their extreme depth of feeling is often hidden, even from themselves, until circumstances evoke an impassioned response

INFPs are flexible and laid-back, until one of their values is violated. In the face of their value system being threatened, INFPs can become aggressive defenders, fighting passionately for their cause.

Perhaps that sort of thing may have caused you to associate Fi with negative situations? Only when you're being threatened does it really 'flare up' and become noticeable - other times you may simply not be aware you're using it?

Maybe have a look at this site, if you haven't already? Their profiles are written from the POV of the person of that type, so can be much more accurate than ones written more theoretically.

Meanwhile, I have always gotten the sense from the STJ background (and now my SFJ marriage) that "concrete reality" and J "seriousness" is the way you're "supposed" to be, but I have never felt ashamed of my obvious N preference. I even defended it when my wife and I were reveiwing my Step II subscale grades, and she thought I was the one who was more "concrete" (because of my skepticism towards charismatic Christianity, which she and our friends have moved towards. But with everything else, I'm clearly an "Extraterrestrial", and when I put it to her that way, this morning, she acknowledged).

I have also never felt ashamed of being a "P", or even an I (even with others suggesting I'm really an E). I guess it's F and P together that I'm avoiding, because F and P are generally more "friendly", while T and J are more critical, and I think I am mixed, and have more of a critical streak than an FP (but not as much as a TJ, of course). Hence, why the FP's don't seem to fit. Then, there's FJ, but I obviously do not prefer Fe like that.

No, me neither. I'm proud of being an NFP - I wouldn't want to be any other way! I may, however, be ever-so-slightly guilty of nudging my E/I score towards the E, when really I'm borderline.

Of course, that may also be because I'm quite clearly an NFP - I've never doubted my scores on those functions.

So ENFP's look like these big "thinkers", and it's heavy Te use, but they're not quite like TJ's? (Hence why some assign me to that type).
From the most of the profiles I see, they look little different from ESFP's, and they're just fun-loving "salesman" types; with the addition of "causes".

No, not exactly. ENFPs, when you meet them socially, tend to be bright and flighty and silly and whatever. There's no Te there. But when they're working, or studying, or doing something that requires them to settle down and be serious, then it's Te that we tend to slip into. Neither Ne nor Fi are very grounding, so we need something else to hold us down.

So I wouldn't exactly say 'heavy' Te use, and obviously it depends on the individual, whether they've developed it enough, but we do slip in and out of using Te when the occasion warrants it, for example explaining a problem to somebody, or seriously debating a point, or just trying to get some work done.

I suppose it's possible that someone who only knew an ENFP when they were hard at work and very focused, might mistake them for a TJ, but to be honest, it's difficult to stay in a Te mode for much longer than nessecary.

For example, we tend to procrastinate and waste time and so on and so forth (*coughlikemerightnowcough*) until down to the very last moments. And then, due to sheer pressure, we 'click' into an intensely concentrated, very focused and very productive mode. I've worked at least 12 hours straight without much more than a 10-minute break for food before. Of course, I need to spend the next few days recovering, but still. It can be intense when Te is turned on properly.

Te is what grounds us. Without well-developed Te, an ENFP can be flightier (and because of the N, spacier) than an ESFP, but when we've got that covered, it restrains us a little. And we can be sensible when the occasion calls for it.

Again, I originally thought Fi, but I really think that deep down inside, Fe is a bit more preferred. Again, I think I really messed it up on that test, because I came out with Fe "unused" (while Fi was second highest), but it was after this that I began rethinking it all, and I do have more of a desire to connect with groups, (though it is nonpreferred, and less developed) than deciding what's personally important to me. Again, I actually have no preference for things a lot of the times, unless it's some negative issue. All that Fi could well be "devilish".

Hmm, I don't know. See, I think I am probably more keen on connecting with people than deciding what's personally important to me, too. But I don't think that's really a measure of Fe/Fi.

Fe is... you know those ladies who just seem to know everyone? Who approach you and ask after your brother and how's that renovation going and seem to remember all the names and major events in your life, even though they're not really very close to you normally. Who never fail to say hello to you if they see you, and always remember to send a christmas card? The ultimate small-talkers. That's Fe (or more specifically, Fe-dominant EFJ types).

Naturally, Fe as a tertiary or inferior function is not going to appear in such a way, but still, the essence of it is the same.

My INTP friend, for example, who has Fe as her inferior function, keeps a mental list of foods that we like or don't like. On occasion she tend forgets the specifics, and so has to remind herself by asking me: "Is it you or J that doesn't like white chocolate?" She's also quite good at remembering birthdays and puts effort into finding a decent gift.

So you can sort of see how the inferior Fe peeks out from time to time.

Also try to be careful that you're not influencing test results with what functions you believe you should have. It's difficult to do, once you've really started to delve into this stuff. For example, I do that test above? My results tend to come out perfectly ENFP unless I really spend ages determining what is actually me, as opposed what is what I want me to be, or what I think is me. Doing the regular MBTI tests now doesn't do me any good at all - I know exactly which dichotomy each question is testing.

So, should you do take that test again, take care. It's too easy to rig the results.

ENFP's use both Fi and Fe? I guess Fe would be higher up in the shadow range (the "critical parent"), but I'm not sure what that actually appears like in real life.

No, we don't. We just appear to. Using that example of the Fe-ladies from before - ENFPs appear like them in the moment you're talking to us. We really are quite interested in what you got up to on the weekend and those tidbits of details from your life. Sure. But we're generally hopeless at remembering those details - I forget birthdays all the time. Unless I'm paying attention, I may accidentally ignore you next time you see me - not because I mean any harm, but simply because you're not in my sphere of awareness this time.

So, on a test, when it asks questions like, do you: "Compassionately take on someone else's needs as your own." and "Help make people feel comfortable by engaging in hosting and care-taking." Well, yes. I do, when you're there in front of me, absolutely. I'm very accomodating and will definitely put your needs before mine.

But that's not true Fe. It's what I mentioned before about ENFPs Ne+Fi=Apparent Fe. It comes up on tests, and it might fool you initially, but we don't use Fe.

Does that make a sort of sense?

 

[Eric B]

How confusing!

And yes, I definitely agree that it would be more helpful if the test measured actual use as opposed to apparent use, but I don't think that's even possible! MBTI is a little bit difficult at times, because it deals with unconscious and inherant processes. Kiersey, in comparison, is more about behaviour, I think, and thus would (hopefully) be that much easier to quantify, because you can actually see it happen.

I find it quite difficult to put a finger on all this stuff I do unconsciously. Sometimes I don't realise I even do such a thing until I catch myself in the act, or someone else mentions that they do it. So it's a lot about self-awareness, too.

Well, since I'm talking about the uses of the functions, which are probably driven unconsciously, then you would think an MBTI-based test would be more likely engineered to pick that up. Though since Cognitiveprocesses test is I believe by Berens, and which category does that really fall under? She's basically Keirseyan, but recombines his theory with MBTI ("the Mixed Model").

But especially with relationships and interpersonal stuff, decisions made and actions taken can be much more one-sided approach. Which will hopefully give clues as to your natural preference.

OK, that gives me an idea of the kind of thing the question is looking for. I'll think on it.
Yep, let us know.

Having dinner with my family last night, we recalled the time 20 years ago, when my father was having sewrious issues and taking it out on us. I was in my early 20's, and stuck in minimum wage jobs that did not pay enough for me to get out on my own. So he was harassing me about that, often drunk. (This is one of those times I was getting an overload of Te style thrown my way).

So after losing one of these jobs one afternoon, I just walked to the Times Sq. recruiting center and signed up for the Air Force.

That's perhaps the biggest "family"-related decision I made, though that also seemed to be something a lot of people did.

Couldn't that also match an INFPs mode of operating? They are generally fairly placid and easygoing, until something comes along and violates their values. A couple of quotes from type sites:

Perhaps that sort of thing may have caused you to associate Fi with negative situations? Only when you're being threatened does it really 'flare up' and become noticeable - other times you may simply not be aware you're using it?

Maybe have a look at this site, if you haven't already? Their profiles are written from the POV of the person of that type, so can be much more accurate than ones written more theoretically.

I thought about that too, but still, as the dominant or "hero" function, I would think it would have more of a positive connotation a lot of the times; at least when they think of it outside of the negative reaction. A lot of times, it is hard for me to make Fi judgments, and I end up indifferent to things, or look for a logical reason for a decision.

Again, the Fi/Ti distinction, as well as "negative use of primary function vs positive use of shadow function" seems to be very fuzzy. Ti really does not seem to have any of that negative connotation, or something that comes up mostly under stress, and then is basically misused, or "destructuve". This is what came to mind first, and then when I looked at Fi (and Te) to compare, it was like yeah; those are what seem to have more of a strictly negative association).

No, me neither. I'm proud of being an NFP - I wouldn't want to be any other way! I may, however, be ever-so-slightly guilty of nudging my E/I score towards the E, when really I'm borderline.

Of course, that may also be because I'm quite clearly an NFP - I've never doubted my scores on those functions.

Well, like Keirsey said, E/I is the least important dichotomy. Looking at the functions, two types with only an E/I difference willhave the same primary functions, in a different order (types with totally opposite T/F + J/P will have the same functions as well, but they'll be totally reversed, and this is what you all call the "shadow")

No, not exactly. ENFPs, when you meet them socially, tend to be bright and flighty and silly and whatever. There's no Te there. But when they're working, or studying, or doing something that requires them to settle down and be serious, then it's Te that we tend to slip into. Neither Ne nor Fi are very grounding, so we need something else to hold us down.

So I wouldn't exactly say 'heavy' Te use, and obviously it depends on the individual, whether they've developed it enough, but we do slip in and out of using Te when the occasion warrants it, for example explaining a problem to somebody, or seriously debating a point, or just trying to get some work done.

I suppose it's possible that someone who only knew an ENFP when they were hard at work and very focused, might mistake them for a TJ, but to be honest, it's difficult to stay in a Te mode for much longer than nessecary.

For example, we tend to procrastinate and waste time and so on and so forth (*coughlikemerightnowcough*) until down to the very last moments. And then, due to sheer pressure, we 'click' into an intensely concentrated, very focused and very productive mode. I've worked at least 12 hours straight without much more than a 10-minute break for food before. Of course, I need to spend the next few days recovering, but still. It can be intense when Te is turned on properly.

Te is what grounds us. Without well-developed Te, an ENFP can be flightier (and because of the N, spacier) than an ESFP, but when we've got that covered, it restrains us a little. And we can be sensible when the occasion calls for it.

Everyone claims to be seeing "heavy" Te with me. Others say ENFP (though I'm not really "flighty" and stuff like that, though I can be occasionally, with close friends), and a few of you are suggesting INFP. For that type, Te is even lower, in the inferior position (and bordering on "shadow"). Online, such as these discussions, is basically recreation for me, although I am "into it", and often rushed if I have to go to work or bed, or something else, like you described above (and then the board/site starts freezing down on top of it:steam

Hmm, I don't know. See, I think I am probably more keen on connecting with people than deciding what's personally important to me, too. But I don't think that's really a measure of Fe/Fi.

Fe is... you know those ladies who just seem to know everyone? Who approach you and ask after your brother and how's that renovation going and seem to remember all the names and major events in your life, even though they're not really very close to you normally. Who never fail to say hello to you if they see you, and always remember to send a christmas card? The ultimate small-talkers. That's Fe (or more specifically, Fe-dominant EFJ types).

Naturally, Fe as a tertiary or inferior function is not going to appear in such a way, but still, the essence of it is the same.

My INTP friend, for example, who has Fe as her inferior function, keeps a mental list of foods that we like or don't like. On occasion she tend forgets the specifics, and so has to remind herself by asking me: "Is it you or J that doesn't like white chocolate?" She's also quite good at remembering birthdays and puts effort into finding a decent gift.

So you can sort of see how the inferior Fe peeks out from time to time.

I think I'm a lot like that, and again, underestimated it.

Also try to be careful that you're not influencing test results with what functions you believe you should have. It's difficult to do, once you've really started to delve into this stuff. For example, I do that test above? My results tend to come out perfectly ENFP unless I really spend ages determining what is actually me, as opposed what is what I want me to be, or what I think is me. Doing the regular MBTI tests now doesn't do me any good at all - I know exactly which dichotomy each question is testing.

So, should you do take that test again, take care. It's too easy to rig the results.

I'm quite aware of that, and I have noted it is becoming harder to take these tests. In the test my wife administers, they clearly say the person should now know too much about it, else, it will be compromised. (I used to start talking about it with friends she was planning to test, and she would tell me not to do that. I put a big warning up on the beginning of my page describing the theory).

What I meant, was, since I still have my choices I made on both that and the Step II subscales, to just review and see if I might have scored to high or low on them. Again, I was letting my wife look a the Step II, and I'm sure she will say I scored too high on the T/F scales. She already said that for E over I.

No, we don't. We just appear to. Using that example of the Fe-ladies from before - ENFPs appear like them in the moment you're talking to us. We really are quite interested in what you got up to on the weekend and those tidbits of details from your life. Sure. But we're generally hopeless at remembering those details - I forget birthdays all the time. Unless I'm paying attention, I may accidentally ignore you next time you see me - not because I mean any harm, but simply because you're not in my sphere of awareness this time.

So, on a test, when it asks questions like, do you: "Compassionately take on someone else's needs as your own." and "Help make people feel comfortable by engaging in hosting and care-taking." Well, yes. I do, when you're there in front of me, absolutely. I'm very accomodating and will definitely put your needs before mine.

Now, I have my Fe Dom. wife who will do all that stuff. So it's like I have fallen off on Fe. But I'm remembering that I was more into remembering people's birthdays, and such before her.

But that's not true Fe. It's what I mentioned before about ENFPs Ne+Fi=Apparent Fe. It comes up on tests, and it might fool you initially, but we don't use Fe.

Does that make a sort of sense?

So what is different; the motivation? Fi/Fe can also be another fuzzy distinction. In one of Hartzler's exercises (Fi7), it appears to involve connecting with others. But then this is supposedly about looking at their values in light of your own.

I would imagine it's the Golden Rule vs. the Platinum Rule. Fi does to others what they want done to themselves, while Fe does to others purely what they want, or the values of the whole group. So I guess the ENFP in your example of "apparent Fe" is just being nice because they want others to be nice to them?
I seem to be able to go either way with that, but I remember being a bit more into others' needs when doing something for them, before life started getting rough.

So what is Ti really like for an ENFP? It's supposed to be "trickster", meaning they are not normally into principles or categories, but under stress may become rigid about selected principles thinking it will ensure sucess when it wont. Do you have any examples of this?