I am still so confused! Please help me with my type

[Avocado]

It is right, that function tests won't show your preferences in exact order. But I still play with the idea of being a sensor. Or at least using some amount of Se, even though I score so low on it on every single test, I think there is a possibility, that if I really use strong Fi it can make me look inuitive, even if I am not. The true is I feel closer to intuition, than sensing, but still I have some characteristics, that can strike out Se. I have pretty developed aesthetic feeling, good ear for music and good eye for style. I love fashion and folowing current trends and I also can somehow smell what is new and trendy. I also have really party nature and often tend to act on a spur of current feeling without thinking about the consequences. I also have very high temper and can get extremly passionate about some things. I have problems with holding my energy and anger and even for a woman my age, short height and low weight I suprise people with how agrassive I can get. I also can enjoy a lot sensory things... I am an art lover, style lover, fashion lover, food love, good wine lover... I tend be a bohemian in a lot of ways.

xNFx

 

[hjgbujhghg]

I am not suprised most of you guys typed me as some kind of NF. I feel most close to the "idealists" group, but I've been so many times, told, that I vibe strong Se, than I just decided to give up and typed myself as ISFP. But if in the end I really am an NF type, how can I decide which one? I guess it would be best based on the functions, but my functions seem to be pretty messed up, or I can't really understand how they work. I made one post, that might clear it up... I decided to make a blog here and I posted some pretty open and honest stuff I am comming through right now, so maybe this would be the breaking point of finding out the functions and type.. http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64672

 

[Mal12345]

I am not suprised most of you guys typed me as some kind of NF. I feel most close to the "idealists" group, but I've been so many times, told, that I vibe strong Se, than I just decided to give up and typed myself as ISFP. But if in the end I really am an NF type, how can I decide which one? I guess it would be best based on the functions, but my functions seem to be pretty messed up, or I can't really understand how they work. I made one post, that might clear it up... I decided to make a blog here and I posted some pretty open and honest stuff I am comming through right now, so maybe this would be the breaking point of finding out the functions and type.. http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64672

Here is a paragraph on a MBTI type for you to ponder:

"ln general, they are future oriented, and direct their insight and inspiration toward an understanding of themselves and thereby human nature. Their work mirrors their integrity, and it needs to reflect their inner ideals. Solitude and an opportunity to concentrate thoroughly on what counts most is important to them. They prefer to quietly exert their influence. They have deeply felt compassion, and they desire harmony with others. They understand the complexities existing within people and among them. They do not call a great deal of attention to themselves, preferring that their contributions speak for them. They are at their best concentrating on their ideas, ideals, and inspirations."

And here is a paragraph from another type description, for the sake of contrast:

"In general, they focus deeply on their values, and they devote their lives to pursuing the ideal. They often draw people together around a common purpose and work to find a place for each person within the group. They are creative, and they seek new ideas and possibilities. They quietly push for what is important to them, and they rarely give up. While they have a gentleness about them and a delightful sense of humor, they may be somewhat difficult to get to know and may be overlooked by others. They are at their best making their world more in line with their internal vision of perfection."

 

[hjgbujhghg]

Here is a paragraph on a MBTI type for you to ponder:

"ln general, they are future oriented, and direct their insight and inspiration toward an understanding of themselves and thereby human nature. Their work mirrors their integrity, and it needs to reflect their inner ideals. Solitude and an opportunity to concentrate thoroughly on what counts most is important to them. They prefer to quietly exert their influence. They have deeply felt compassion, and they desire harmony with others. They understand the complexities existing within people and among them. They do not call a great deal of attention to themselves, preferring that their contributions speak for them. They are at their best concentrating on their ideas, ideals, and inspirations."

And here is a paragraph from another type description, for the sake of contrast:

"In general, they focus deeply on their values, and they devote their lives to pursuing the ideal. They often draw people together around a common purpose and work to find a place for each person within the group. They are creative, and they seek new ideas and possibilities. They quietly push for what is important to them, and they rarely give up. While they have a gentleness about them and a delightful sense of humor, they may be somewhat difficult to get to know and may be overlooked by others. They are at their best making their world more in line with their internal vision of perfection."

They are at their best making their world more in line with their internal vision of perfection." - This is just everything I try to do my whole life. But in general I can relate to both of the charecterisrics. From first one, I relate to everything in addition to the not call an attention, and preferring that their contributions speak for them... I like attention and I want attention. I am also not afriad to speak up for my own self. I can have pretty sharp tounge. I sometimes even like to argue, it makes my mind active and I love it. And also that... They prefer to quietly exert their influence...not at all, when I want to do something I scream it out loud and I have to say it to all of my friends. The second one: I relate to everything in addition to They often draw people together around a common purpose and work to find a place for each person within the group... I am not very good team builder, I am very individualistic. But really everything else from the second description seem to fit.

 

[Mal12345]

They are at their best making their world more in line with their internal vision of perfection." - This is just everything I try to do my whole life. But in general I can relate to both of the charecterisrics. From first one, I relate to everything in addition to the not call an attention, and preferring that their contributions speak for them... I like attention and I want attention. I am also not afriad to speak up for my own self. I can have pretty sharp tounge. I sometimes even like to argue, it makes my mind active and I love it. And also that... They prefer to quietly exert their influence...not at all, when I want to do something I scream it out loud and I have to say it to all of my friends. The second one: I relate to everything in addition to They often draw people together around a common purpose and work to find a place for each person within the group... I am not very good team builder, I am very individualistic. But really everything else from the second description seem to fit.

The second description comes from the INFP type description found in the book Life Types.

(I've changed my mind about 6, after reading your blog entry and other posts I see that 4w3 fits you precisely.)

 

[The Iron Giant]

I am idealistic, but on the other hand I try to be objective...

I think idealism can be an enneagram four trait, but fours are defined by identity. A four wants, more than anything, to have an identity. In some, this can appear as a kind of constant seeking, even a leaping from thing to thing in a search for something that helps the four feel like they've found a place that they fit.

As to trying to be objective, I think that's more of a social tuning. I expect most everyone wants to be objective, whether it's something that's comfortable for them or not. My two cents on that is that it's kind of crap the way we're pushed toward objectivity when subjective experience is, in most cases, actually far more important. In other words, I wouldn't put that into your personality type.

I always fight for what I feel is right, but I dislike the tension of confrontation.

The latter is more important than the former when it comes to determining type, and what it says to me is that your type could be a withdrawn type. That's just a category. Four would fit there. So would some others, like five, or nine. Nines are largely defined by avoiding confrontation, but I'm a six and I can be that way pretty often, too.

I always say things direct, I say what I feel, what I think, what I see, but I also try not to hurt others.

That's great. Trying not to hurt others is another social tuning, particularly of women in many cultures, but is more often associated in some systems of typology as "feeling." Speaking plainly is a common trait of "objective perception," and among the functions I personally have noticed it more in Se users. Jung's Se is very present, very real, very direct. I also see this in my xSFJ friends a lot. So if we're talking dichotomies, I think this points (inconclusively) to SF.

I am private, but I love to welcome new people in my life... I can be relaxed, but I tend to worry too much also... It's like... all the oppisites at one. For me it is just so hard to answer test questions, because most of the time, I feel like somewhere in the middle.

Well said. This is a real problem with typology: that it's based on what we're like "most of the time" rather than what we always are. A lot of what you'll see, particularly on the web, will claim that everyone of a certain type is a certain way, and not a certain other way, and that's simply not true. If you picture all of humanity as a pizza that typology cuts into slices, whether that's eight slices, nine slices, or sixteen slices, it may become more clear that the cuts are artificial. There's plenty of cheese everywhere, even if more of it is on some of those slices than others. Note how cheesy my metaphor is, for example. Aaaaand now I'm hungry.

But also a lot of doubts... I love to get to know new people, I like to to talk, but I dislike when others know too much about me, so I am more reserved about who I am and I am harder to get to know, but I love to get to know others and I love to spend my time with others much more, than just by my own self... I am shy, reserved, but I hate to be alone and love to be with my friends... What does it make me? I or E?

I'd call this inconclusive. It may sound like extraversion on the surface, with the preference of being with others, but that can simply be a sign of conscious use of Fe (IxFJ). With respect to your enneagram type, if fours tie their identity in to who they associate with, this fits. That's less like a nine or five.

I always create my day plans, schedules and I stuck to them. I disike sudden and unexpected change, but I also dislike to follow schedules and rules of someone else. I crate my own, follow my own and I believe in them... but I hate formal rules. I like logic, analytic thinking, getting to the core of problems breaking things down to parts to see how they work, I try to be objective, but I am sentimental, I care of other's feelings and beliefs and I'd hate to hurt someone. I tend to verbaly fight with others, just because I believe fitghting for what I believe in is more important, than just to be nice. I dislike people, who are just nice, to be nice. Why is to so? It's fake... Say what you believe in, it important!What is it F or T?

Going by dichotomies, I think that's F. More specifically, I think Fe. No small part of that is how Je this all looks. Schedules and plans are less often the pattern of perceiving types than judging types, but again... I'm a judging type, and I can be pretty damn disorganized.

Functions tests often give my scores like...Ni, Fi, Ne, Ti, Si, Fe, Te, Se... So some kind of INFP, INFJ, INTP hybrid.

Function tests, at their best, can only really hope to give you your dominant function. You're scoring with Ni at the top, you can ignore the rest. That would isolate you to INxJ, but I don't see you as using Te so much as I see you using Fe, perhaps flipping with some Ti. You could be INFJ, but I think ISFJ is a better fit based on some of what you've said about being plainspoken.

That said, what could help is to know how your friends see you. Do your friends find you down to earth, accessible, and real... or more of a hard to understand kind of random unpredictable person? Jung used to say that understanding ourselves is pretty much impossible. One of my favorite quotes by Alan Watts says "Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth." I think it sums up a big part of what makes typology so difficult to do alone.

My vote here, so far, is ISFJ 4.

 

[Stansmith]

You're definitely E based on the video you posted a while back, and you vibe more like an ExFP 6w7 or So/Sx 7w6. Your energy strikes me as somewhat positive, heady and upbeat.

 

[Stansmith]

Although you're into self-expression and creativity, you seem to reject the melancholy/depressive aspects of 4. The way you describe creativity and uniqueness is also very 7-ish.

Uniqueness for a lot of Fi-7/6w7s is about self-expression and variety; the quick stimulation and satisfaction you get from crafting a persona or caricature. For a 4, it's their entire 'shameful' existence.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

A huge amount of infromations ... Well I've never thought of being ISFJ. Where did this come from? After readin somehing more about INFPs and Fi, now I can see, that all of my tension and how hard I try to be according to my ideals and how much I whish and try to make things "perfect" is just this Fi. And I really do this all the time...Create an idea of how things should be and then just push and push to make this idea real, but reality often doesn't match what I wanted, 'cause all of my plans are so idealistic. Also beliefs, values, that I have are the most important to me. So even though I don't wanna be Fi, I guesss I have to admit I really am. [MENTION=18664]Stansmith[/MENTION] You hitted my other doubt... In a blog entry I posted also here, you can see my style and indentity seeking, where I can't decide whether I found my true and original style or whether I am fake so I search for true self more.... I really have this identity and belonging issues and they are very very strong, but also they are somehow mixed up with positive and very active, imaginative 7ish energy. Sometimes it's hard to say which energies are more relevant and stronger... Sometimes I act like typical 7, sometimes like typical 4.

 

[reckful]

[1 of 2]

[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] Thank you ... Could you please explain why ennea 4?

I'm far from an Enneagram expert (or an Enneagram enthusiast), but my understanding is that Enneagram 5 is basically INT country and Enneagram 4 is basically INF country. If you picture Enneagram 4 and 5 positioned on a spectrum (with 4 on the left), I'd position the four IN types along that spectrum (from left to right) in INFP–INFJ–INTP–INTJ order, with INFP the most firmly in 4 territory, INFJ close to the 4/5 borderline, and INTJ more likely than INTP to have a 6 wing. (But I don't necessarily think a 5w4 INTP is more likely than a 5w6 INTP; just that a 5w6 INTP is probably less likely than a 5w6 INTJ.) My experience with type-me subjects at INTJforum has been that it's maybe as likely for an INFJ to be a 5w4 as a 4w5 — but that could be because a 5w4 INFJ is more likely to enjoy hanging with a bunch of INTJs than a 4w5 INFJ.

You've generally typed yourself as an Enneagram 4, and you made a post where you described the aspects of your personality that you thought fit several of the Enneagram types, and I agree with you that the stuff you listed under Enneagram 4 is really the stuff that captures your core motivations best. So... that's why I pointed out that, for me, for purposes of determining your MBTI type, your identification with Enneagram 4 was worth at least a point or two in the INFP box.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Giving you more specific reactions to things you've said in your various forum posts is still on my to-do list but may be delayed for a few more days. In the meantime, I'm going to recycle some stuff I've previously posted at other forums that might be of interest to you. Although it sounds like you may be leaning strongly NF at this point, you've also continued to wonder about "Se" and at least some possibility of being one of the SP types. As you'll see if you read the long INTJforum post I link to at the end of my next post, I think that, in general, trying to type yourself based on cognitive functions analysis is not a good recipe for success, but in any case, as you'll see, the stuff I've collected in this post is pretty much all framed in terms of the dichotomies (and dichotomy combinations like NF) rather than the functions.

1. In the first spoiler is my own version of an "introduction to S and N," including some quotes from Myers and Keirsey.

I think one of the distinctions at the heart of S/N is the one between the so-called "real world" — where physical things (and "facts") exist and events happen in time (S-world) — and the abstract (immaterial and more "eternal") world of ideas, knowledge, scientific laws, the arts, etc. (N-world). Both N's and S's understand that both worlds exist (at least to some degree) and have their place. The S/N distinction has more to do with which world you find most valuable and meaningful — and focus most of your attention on. A hardcore S will tend to view N-world as relatively valueless except to the extent that it ultimately serves some kind of S-world purpose. A hardcore N, on the other hand, will tend to feel most at home in N-world, and view the physical world as more of a canvas or playground on which the laws of nature, science, psychology, beauty, etc. play themselves out. Just as an S may tend to only value ideas to the extent that they serve some practical end, an N is more likely to find the facts/details/etc. of the "real world" uninteresting to the extent that they don't embody, illustrate or otherwise tie into some more abstract pattern, principle or other aspect of N-world.

Hardcore S's tend to view themselves as practical, down-to-earth and common-sensical, and to roll their eyes at dreamy, impractical, pointy-headed intellectuals whose theories and "bright ideas" tend to blind them to the way things really work — while hardcore N's can be prone to view hardcore S's as deficiently non-intellectual (and perhaps somewhat dim) people who seem to often miss the forest for the trees and to be regrettably uninterested in the ideas/laws/patterns that make the world an interesting place.

Isabel Myers said N's "face life expectantly, craving inspiration," while S's "face life observantly, craving enjoyment." N's "admit fully to consciousness only the sense impressions related to the current inspiration; they are imaginative at the expense of observation"; whereas S's "admit to consciousness every sense impression and are intensely aware of the external environment; they are observant at the expense of imagination." She also said that N's "are willing to sacrifice the present to a large extent since they neither live in it nor particularly enjoy it"; whereas S's tend to be "reluctant to sacrifice present enjoyment to future gain or good."

Keirsey says that an N "lives in anticipation. Whatever is can be better, or different, and is seen only as a way station. Consequently, N's often experience a vague sense of dissatisfaction and restlessness. They seem somewhat bothered by reality, constantly looking toward possibilities of changing or improving the actual"; whereas an S "wants facts, trusts facts and remembers facts. He believes in experience and knows through experience (history), both personal and global. ... They focus on what actually happened rather than worrying too much about what might have been or what will be in the future."

Kroeger and Thuesen say N's "find the future and its possibilities more intriguing than frightening" and "are usually more excited about where they're going than where they are"; whereas S's "focus on 'what is' and find 'what can be' unsettling."

Keirsey also notes that an N child "may be difficult to handle. He always seems to have a core of 'being his own person' which adults sometimes find objectionable and offensive. ... He may seem opinionated to others, the NT in particular, and he often is very certain that he knows; at the same time, he cannot justify his convictions to others' satisfaction when questioned."

It's common to read, in MBTI sources, that an N is substantially more likely than an S to be bored and unhappy with a job that could fairly be described as doing the same thing over and over. An NT will enjoy putting some kind of system together, then want to move on to devising a new system, leaving it to the S "administrators" to actually use/apply the system, while the S administrators are more content to be the hands-on people applying the system day in and day out to deal with each day's new demands, and are happy to leave it to the N's to have to endure the brain damage involved in figuring out new systems, or improving old systems.

As Isabel Myers put it, N's "enjoy learning a new skill more than using it," while S's "enjoy using skills already learned more than learning new ones."

The MBTI Manual notes that people considered "highly creative" tend to be N's, with writers tending to be NFs, and mathematicians and scientists tending to be NTs. Kroeger and Thuesen note that elementary school teachers are mostly S's, high school teachers are fairly evenly split, and college professors tend to be N's.

2. In the next spoiler is some of my perspective on NFs (and NTs).

I already described what I call "N-world" — the abstract (immaterial and more "eternal") world of ideas, knowledge, scientific laws, the arts, etc. Both NTs and NFs are oriented toward N-world, but an NT's orientation will tend to be more impersonal, while an NF's is likely to be more people-oriented. Note that this doesn't mean that an NT may not have a strong interest in psychology. Virtually any subject that's reasonably rich can end up being the focus of an NT's scholarly interest. But it's fair to say that, all other things being equal, the NT will be more likely to have a more "academic" interest in the field and the NF will be more likely to be a therapist. (Caveat: Everybody has to make a living. So the NT psychologist might well be a therapist even if his passion for the field was more scholarly.) You might say the NT psychologist will tend to be more interested in studying people (in the abstract), where the NF psychologist will be more focused on coming to understand/enlighten/heal particular individuals (although E vs. I could also be a factor in that respect).

NTs (and especially INTs) are the quintessential scholar/scientist/geek types, and INT's are the consummate computer programmers. When I refer to an INT as an "abstract thinker," I'm not just referring to how an INT thinks; I'm referring to what kind of person an INT is. Learning and analyzing are things you'll often find an INT doing in his spare time. I've heard INTs described as relating to the world as if it was a museum. You'd expect the audience for Nova or any TV show offering science as entertainment to have an audience dominated by NTs — but note that lots of NTs' interests run more toward the humanities than the "hard sciences." NT's are also often described as being "systems" people — i.e., people who are driven to create systems that elegantly and efficiently accomplish various purposes (computer programs being a perfect example).

I don't think there's a comparable, familiar stock character that captures "essence of INF" quite as well as "thinker/geek" captures INT.

I think of NF's as the "self"-oriented types. By that I don't mean selfish, or even self-centered (necessarily, anyway). What I mean is that an NF, more than the other types, is likely to cherish the view that each person is a unique individual who adds up (or, ideally, can come to add up) to some kind of meaningful whole, and whose life ideally consists of a kind of journey of self-discovery and self-improvement in which each passing year will find you wiser about yourself, and also a better and/or expanded person, than you were the year before.

For example, an ENFP (I speak from some personal experience) may demonstrate a tendency to stumble into disasters (often somewhat self-inflicted) that look to certain observers like sorry wastes of time and energy that would better have been avoided, while the ENFP is more likely to take the view that valuable lessons were learned, and she's a better/wiser/stronger person, going forward, than she otherwise would have been.

NOTE: As with a number of MBTI type characteristics, a person's age may muddy the water. It's probably fair to say that, all other things being equal, a 20-year-old of any type is more likely to think of life as a journey of self-discovery in which they'll end up "adding up" to something respectably resembling a "meaningful whole" than they will when they're 30, or 40. So the best gauge for you may involve comparing yourself to your fellow 20-year-olds, rather than comparing yourself to the general population.

An NT spending his spare time learning about something, or learning how to do something, is also engaged in activity that could be referred to as "self-improvement," but an NT is more likely to view what he's doing in impersonal (not "self"-oriented) terms — i.e., as expanding his knowledge or repertoire of skills (with the meaningfulness focus being more on the knowledge/skills, rather than on the person).

Looking at the characteristics associated with N, you might think that the term "intellectual" would tend to fit all N's (NTs and NFs both, and especially INTs and INFs) — and it does, to a significant degree — but an INT is significantly more likely than an INF to be someone for whom "intellectual" is one of the first words that would come to mind in describing them.

3. In the next spoiler is a summary I put together of David Keirsey's take on NFs (along with some of my own $.02).

Here's a caveat before you read the Keirsey NF descriptions. I'm of the view that, while the four MBTI dimensions are largely independent of each other, if you focus on some of the specific personality traits that they can affect, there are various ways for the influence of one MBTI preference to either reinforce or, on the other hand, mitigate/balance the influence of another. You may have heard it said that ENFPs are the "most introverted" of the extraverts — implying that there are aspects of either N or F or P (or some combination of them) that to some extent cuts against E, causing an ENFP to be (or at least seem) less "extraverted" (in one or more specific respects) than other E's. I think, at least with respect to Keirsey's take on NFs, that it may be fair to say that NFPs are somewhat more NF than NFJs — and, in particular, I'm inclined to note that, at least in some respects, I think INFJs are the least NF of the NFs. Although INFJs and ENFPs are in the same group (in terms of Keirsey's 4 temperaments), my take is that a typical INFJ (the "least NF of the NFs," by reckful's reckoning) is at least as close (if not closer) to a typical INTJ as a typical INFJ is to a typical ENFP.

So am I saying that a typical INFJ isn't likely to identify with Keirsey's NF descriptions, or be just as likely to identify with Keirsey's NT descriptions? No — but I think an INFJ is more likely to read some of Keirsey's NF descriptions (and reckful's as well) and feel like they fit pretty well but maybe feel exaggerated or otherwise a bit off of dead center.

In my NT/NF intro, I noted that it was arguably harder to briefly describe what a quintessential INF was like than a quintessential INT and so, in rounding up Keirsey quotes, I was somewhat amused by the abstruseness of this description: "We encounter a special difficulty in attempting to put into words the nature of the [NF]. Where the [other types] pursue ordinary goals, the goal of the [NF] cannot be seen as other than extraordinary. ... The purposes of SPs, SJs, and NTs are understood by SPs, SJs, and NTs alike, although they may not embrace them. ... None of these understand the aim of the NF, and in turn, the NF cannot really grasp the others' commitment to what seems to the NF to be false goals. For the NF pursues a strange end, a self-reflexive end which defies itself: becoming. ¶ While the SPs, SJs, and NTs can go after their goals straightforwardly and at full throttle, the NF's search for self is circular and thus perpetual: How can one achieve a goal when that goal is to have a goal? The NF's 'truest' self is the self in search of itself, or in other words, his purpose in life is to have a purpose in life. Always becoming himself, the NF can never truly be himself, since the very act of reaching for the self immediately puts it out of reach."

Keirsey says: "Although [NFs] make up only about 12 percent of the general population, ... their influence on the minds of the populace is massive, for most writers come from this group. Novelists, dramatists, television writers, playwrights, journalists, poets, and biographers are almost exclusively NFs. Technical and scientific writers tend to be NTs, but writers who wish to inspire and persuade, who produce literature, most often are NFs. ... The theme of people in restless search of self runs through novel after novel, is voiced by protagonist after protagonist, and is the source of agony in drama after drama. ¶ The search for meaning as a necessary pilgrimage for all people is advanced by the NFs in their writings. Very often the other types ... are troubled by the thought that they ought to be pursuing these values, even if, somehow, the search for meaning and integrity does not beckon to them. This reluctance of 88 percent of the world to join the search for self-actualization is a great source of mystification to the NFs."

Keirsey also points out that, "where the SPs are drawn to the performing arts, the NFs are drawn to the arts which involve verbal and written communication," and he notes that, "more than any other group, NFs can speak and write fluently, often with poetic flair."

Keirsey says: "Whether a guru of Esalen or a teacher in a more traditional setting, the profession of transmitting ideas and attitudes tends to attract NFs. Together the SJs and the NFs make up the bulk of public school teaching faculties. Very few SPs or NTs staff the schools of the nation. If the NTs do go into teaching, they gravitate toward higher education. ... SJs outnumber NFs in the teaching field ... roughly three to two. As their subject matter, the NFs tend to choose the humanities and the social sciences."

Keirsey notes that "NFs ... show little interest in buying and selling or any commercial occupations, nor do they find the physical sciences particularly attractive. They prefer to work with words, and need and want to be directly or indirectly in communication with people." And he also notes that money "is one of the least important things to NFs."

Comparing NTs and NFs, Keirsey says: "Although he is apt to be passionate in his pursuit of a creative effort, the NF can be an intellectual butterfly, flitting from idea to idea, a dilettante in his pursuit of knowledge when compared to an NT."

And: "As with the NT, the NF is future-oriented and focused on what might be. But, rather than thinking about the possibilities of principles as does the NT, the NF thinks about the possibilities of people, 'actualizing the potential' of others and of himself. As with his perception of himself, so it is with the NF's perception of others: Whatever is, is never quite sufficient. The thought that the visible is all there is is untenable for an NF." NFs' "hunger is not centered on things but people. They are not content with abstractions; they seek relationships. Their need does not ground in action; it vibrates with interaction."

Similarly, Kroeger and Thuesen state that NFs "eat, sleep, think, breathe, move, and love people."

Kroeger and Thuesen also say NFs "are the idealists of life and they tend to serve causes that advance human interests. ... As idealistic do-gooders, NFs articulate and champion various causes."

Moving to the subject of relationships, Keirsey says: "Both the NF female and male respond to their mates with sympathy, tenderness, and frequent, passionate expressions of love, both verbal and nonverbal. ... NFs are not afraid of using poetry, music, and quotations to enhance their courting relationships; the romantic developments in the lives of NFs thrive on receiving these tokens of affection and dedication. NFs have a flair for dramatizing their courtships, making each the perfect love. A storybook flavor permeates their courtship behavior. ... Seeing their identity as mate is a major part of their personality. ... Just as the possible rather than the actual lures NFs in other parts of their lives, so do the possibilities in relationships inspire them. When a relationship is being established, the recipient of the NF's attention is apt to be the center of his world. The pursuit is given almost single-minded attention and no effort is spared in the wooing. ... Both NF males and females are likely to be blind to any flaws in their beloved in the early stages of a romance."

Keirsey also says: "A danger an NF faces in his intimate relationships is that he will move from relationship to relationship rather than making the necessary effort to develop those already existing. The NF's tendency to experience anticipation as more attractive than consummation can cause him to use his energies pursuing the dream at the expense of what is actually available. Once an NF believes that he or she knows all there is to know about another, disinterest sets in; restlessness and a sense of boredom develop. NFs, as do other types, want a certain amount of variety and change in their lives. Other types, however, may seek this through intellectual pursuits, adjustment of living routines, vacations, new activities. The NF is most vulnerable to seeking this through searching out new relationships, more often than not at the expense of deepening those already existing."

reckful here: I would interject that, to the extent that there's a "fickleness" flavor to the preceding paragraph, I think it's somewhat more likely to apply to an ENF and/or NFP (and especially an ENFP) than an INF or ENJ, but I'd agree that it will tend to be true that, for any NF (as compared to an NT), the relationships in her life are likely to be a focus of her restless energies, with the result that she'll generally tend to want to have some kind of development/change going on in the area of people and relationships — although, with luck, it either won't involve her SO or it will involve her relationship with her SO growing and evolving (—cue roll of male INTJ eyes—) in satisfying ways, rather than the replacement of her SO.

Keirsey says "NF children are apt to enjoy 'people' toys, dolls or animals to which they can attach a personality, and these treasured toys become very much a part of the NF's life. ... The NF child is apt to play with all his toys as fantasy objects, just as does the NT, but the NF is more likely to weave stories around them rather than try to understand them."

Comparing the school interests of Keirsey's four main temperament groups, he notes that the SP student "gravitates toward music, drama, art, crafts, mechanics, construction, or anything active, while SJs tend to enroll in clerical or business classes, the NTs in math and science, and the NFs in the humanities and social sciences."

reckful again: I wouldn't make too much of the NT = sciences and NF = humanities thing. I'm strongly T and I was very good at math/science, but I was always drawn more strongly to the humanities. Keirsey himself is an NT and does psychology (obviously). I'm Limbic, as you know, and it may be that, all other things being equal, a Limbic (more emotional) NT is more likely to be drawn to the humanities than a Calm NT — but I'm just speculating. In any case, I think it's better to think of an NT as a "scholar" (and/or "engineer," used broadly) than as a "scientist," if by scientist you mean the hard sciences.

[This post ended up too long, so I split it...]

 

[reckful]

[2 of 2]

4. I think Keirsey had a lot of insightful things to say about the various MBTI types, but I also think he made a pretty big mistake when he decided to label ISFPs the "Artists." In going from Please Understand Me to Please Understand Me II, he actually changed Artist to "Composer," but I'm afraid that correction wasn't sufficiently wide in its scope. To his credit, Keirsey also said, right from the start, that NFs were by far the most common types in the arts that involved "verbal and written communication" (as you know if you read the stuff in the previous spoiler), but the fact is that N's (and especially NFs) are actually the most common types in the vast majority of what you'd call the "creative arts" — and, since that issue is certainly germane to your type, I've recycled a relevant post of mine in the next spoiler.

My understanding is that, if you distinguish art from crafts — to use a familiar distinction — then, statistically speaking, most types of creative artists (using that term broadly) are disproportionately populated by N's — and it doesn't much matter whether the art you're talking about involves physical stuff (like painting) or incorporeal stuff (like poetry). Browsing the statistics in the MBTI Manual, it looks like maybe a P preference has the 2nd-biggest influence on artistic interests, with F in 3rd place.

Of the 114 professional fine artists in one study shown in the second edition of the MBTI Manual, 91% of them were N's (65% NF and 26% NT). More specifically, 25 were INFP and only one was ISFP.

The list of occupational rankings along the SN dimension at the back of the MBTI Manual (based on a variety of studies in the MBTI database) includes the following entries:

• Photographers: 73% N
• Teachers of art, drama & music: 71% N
• Artists & entertainers (broad category): 69% N
• Musicians & composers: 65% N
• Designers: 58% N

There are no artistic occupations that are majority-S.

The correlation between N and creativity isn't limited to the arts, either. An entire section of the MBTI Manual is devoted to "Studies of Creativity," and they include a series of studies conducted by the Institute for Personality Assessment and Research that looked at people who both worked in creative professions and were "selected by peer nomination" as "highly creative." Out of the resulting 107 "highly creative" mathematicians, architects, research scientists and writers, only three were S's. A 2½-page table presents the results of multiple other studies correlating various measures of creativity (from students majoring in the arts to people working in creative fields), and N's are always in the majority (and often quite overwhelmingly).

And all these N majorities are particularly noteworthy in light of the fact that N's are typically reported to make up only around 25-30% of the general population.

It's widely accepted (and I agree) that the Big Five Openness to Experience factor is essentially tapping into the same underlying human temperament dimension as MBTI S/N, and being high on Openness (the Big Five equivalent of an N preference) is associated with aesthetic interests of all kinds (both verbal and non-verbal arts).

The Big Five Inventory (which I previously linked you to) is one of the more well-regarded (and academically sanctioned) Big Five tests, and its 44 items include the following three (all of which test for Openness to Experience):

• "Has few artistic interests" [reverse-scored]
• "Values artistic, aesthetic experiences"
• "Is sophisticated in art, music, or literature"

I'd say that, if there's a single type that deserves to be viewed as the quintessential "creative artist" type, it's arguably the INFP.

5. Would you say you're a bit on the flaky side (from an INTJ perspective) when it comes to "New Age" stuff? See the next spoiler.

The whole world of stuff that gets lumped under the "New Age" umbrella — in the words of Wikipedia, that "decentralized Western social and spiritual movement that seeks ... the attainment of the highest individual human potential ... [and] includes aspects of astrology, esotericism, metaphysics, alternative medicine, music, collectivism, sustainability, and nature ... [and is also] characterized by an individual approach to spiritual practices and philosophies, and the rejection of religious doctrine and dogma" — tends to be much more N than S, but among N's, it's also fair to say than NFs tend to make up the "New Age" core. At the risk of annoying some of the NFs in the audience, I think it's fair to say that the more flaky any particular New Age practitioner seems, the more likely it is she's an NF rather than an NT.

One of the most well-known MBTI books is Please Understand Me, by David Keirsey, and it includes a 70-question test to determine your type. The original version of the book included this question:

Are visionaries
(a) somewhat annoying
(b) rather fascinating​

This was supposed to be an S/N question. Response (a) was supposed to appeal to S's, and (b) to N's. But I thought it was a poor question, because I'm a really strong N but also a strong T and, to me, "visionary" has a spiritual new-agey theories-out-of-thin-air connotation, so I chose (a) annoying. I thought the question was better designed to separate NF's from S's than N's from S's. Well, lo and behold, it turns out quite a few NTs must have had the same problem, because Keirsey adjusted the question for purposes of the later version of the book. In Please Understand Me II, the question now reads:

Do you find visionaries and theorists
(a) somewhat annoying
(b) rather fascinating​

I still think the inclusion of "visionaries" makes it a weak question, but it's better than it was.

Anyway, the more pertinent question is: What does Polly think of visionaries? And chi and crystals and astrology?

PS: Just in case I've given you an overly strong impression — maybe partly because I'm a wiseass and partly because I'm strongly T — that T's have a negative reaction to anything New-Agey, let me re-emphasize that, particularly if you're talking about less fringy/flaky New Age ideas and practices (meditation, yoga, eastern philosophy), you're likely to find plenty of NTs with at least a mild interest. What's more, even with a strong T like me, if you tell me I'm going to have to make conversation with the person in the seat next to me for the length of a five-hour flight and you tell me I can choose among a strongly New-Agey NF woman, an SF woman who loves to shop and cook, or an ST guy who loves sports and fixing up antiques, I'm definitely going to choose the NF woman. Some of what she talks about may make me roll my eyes, but she's still the one most likely to feel like a "kindred spirit" to me.

6. Finally, you've talked about puzzling results on online functions tests and told us "my functions seem to be pretty messed up, or I can't really understand how they work." In my view, the fault for your confusion is at least as likely to be with the cognitive functions themselves as with you — and, if you're interested in hearing why I consider myself a "dichotomies guy," you'll find quite a lot of explanation in this long INTJforum post.

Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for the two links in that post:

McCrae & Costa article
Reynierse article​

 

[hjgbujhghg]

[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] thank you very much, you've made an amazing job collecting so many informations!
After readin your S/N article, I have to say I am a "hardcore" N . More than anything else I am interested in ideas, art, creative works, science, theories... Most of all I value intelectual and inspiring people and try to take my inspirations from everything around me. I tend to be unsatisfied a lot and always try to change things around for better. Everytime I reach some goal, I feel like there are tons of other things, that has to be imrpooved. I've always been great in writting and making speaches, the reason why I decided to study medias, is because I'd love to be a journalist, or reporter. I write stories and poems sicne I learned how to write . But aslo the true is, I love perfomring arts. I am not good at making anything with my heands, or body, but I love singing and acting and I am a huge fun of theaters and music. But I have to point out... the post seems to say, Ns are better, more inteleligent and more creative, than Ss... I think you can't categorize people like that. Everyone can be inteligent and creative, just sensors are inteligent and creative in a differnt way, than inutiutives are.
About the NT/NF post... I can relate to both pretty well. To NFs... I really search for meaning and individuality within myself and everyone else around me. I always believe, that everything has some special meaning and one thing leads to other. We are here to develope, learn and improove ourselves. But I am not very type of a person, that would help other people. Just like NTs I am interested in the system of how human's mind works, the system of our thinking processes, while the practicular helping doesn't appeal to me so much. I am fascinated by theories and systems, but more into this humanitarian way. That is the reason why I like psychology, sociology, politology... About the other NF post, I can relate very much, but that thing with love and expressing my feelings so much to others... ewh... no way ! I actually have some difficulties with expressing my feelings direct. I even appeal as cold to lot of people. I would say I am totally anti-romantic type. Everytime my boyfriend tries to be romantic I can't help myself, but start to laugh and say he sounds pathetic. And to me really romance sounds a bit... pathetic. Even relationship itself are not so meaningfull for me. Maybe if they would be a bit more free, but living with one person and expressing and giving all my life to him... why? I want to live full life, unlimited, free and changing. Love is limiting.... About being poetic and artistic. Yes I am, but somehow I always had a thing for dark poetry, that is not so much about love, or romance, but rather talk about some problems and is emotionally really deep. I have a thing for Jim Morrison's poetry, Kurt Cobain's poetry and Layne Stalye's poetry.
About new age stuff... I actually kind of like it. But I am not a new age person that much, I just like some ideas. I believe meditation and yoga excercise are great for hunam's body and mind. For time to time I excercise yoga myself. I used to very much believe in astrology, when I was younger, but now I see it much more, like a funny lie and just astrology is a great example of how people can believe any bullshits, when you say them you can count it, or drew some charts that proof it. I have no idea on which real principe would astrology really function? None I guess... But I believe in energies. I believe, that everything around us is built up on some enrgies, that influence each other, and I think it's a proven fact. Electricity is an energy, gravity is an energy...everything is energy. So logically there has to be an energy everywhere in nature, positive, or negative. And one energy influences the other...That's why I believe in existence of karma, in power of alternative medicines and spiritual practices. But in general I am skeptical about religions and spiritual movements. I need to see some logical basis to really start to think about some philosophy, or movement, but unfortunetly most of the spiritual movements seem to be blind to logic and rather just appeal on feelings of their adherents. That is why I can't ever choose any religion for good... I can see some good ideas here and there, but when the craps about power of super natural beings comes out everytime I read some good spiritual idea I feel like people has to be fools to really believe this crap... That's why I like Marilyn Manson... this guy is deep and spiritual and at the same can say "fuck" to all religions and religionistc people!
About you against and for functions theory... I think functions are better, then just MBTI itself. It can say much more about the person's nature. All feelers have something in common, but an introverted feeler, doesn't use his feelings the same way as extroverted feeler does.

 

[dtkua]

Hi! Thanks for reading this thread . I am an old sailor riding through MBTI and enneagram waves for pretty long, to the point I admited I will be forever confused about my type. But I don't want this... I want once and for all, now what type I am, but it seems like imposible mission. First I was really sure I am some kind of NF type, most likely ENFP, then also INFP, or INFJ. Then I started to read more about functions and I very much relate to Ti, so I considered, that I might be ENTP, or INTP as well as INFJ with well developed Ti. But then the doubters came with their...you are Se... So I started to consider, that I am an ISFP, or ESFP after all... And now...now I just really don't know what the hell am I?! Ti, or Te? Fi dominant, or not? Intuitive, or a sensor?

Wow. This is exactly what I'm going through now, you've described it perfectly. In most tests I've scored INFP, but somehow I'm really not sure. It doesn't fit 100%, and should do. The worst thing is that at one moment it becomes almost life and death issue and you HAVE TO find out your type.

 

[reckful]

I'm b-a-a-a-a-ck...

As promised, here are some reactions to various of your TC posts (including ones from other threads).

I assume there's no reason for me to say much more at this point about the strong identity-seeking aspect of your personality. My two-part post talked about the search for self being especially associated with both NFs and Enneagram 4's, and you've mentioned that you always come out Type 4 on Enneagram tests, and I'd say your posts really make you a proverbial NF "poster girl" in that respect. For the benefit of the other thread readers, and to make this Polly portrait a little more complete, I'm just going to throw in a handful of quotes from your posts along those lines.

- My whole life I've been seeking for my "true self"
- I want to find out who I am in my real core
- I always need to be true to myself
...
- My whole life I've been feeling like I miss something inside of me
- The inner feelings of emptiness
...
- I am looking for meaning in everything
...
- I need to express myself through original and unusual style, or hobbies
...
- I have strong inner beliefs and ideas, that I always want to achive and go along with
...
- I often feel like I am on a mission, I am looking for some speacial message in everything

Being my own self is one of the most important things in my life as much as finding my own self and my core needs so then I could follow them.

I really search for meaning and individuality within myself and everyone else around me. I always believe, that everything has some special meaning and one thing leads to other. We are here to develop, learn and improve ourselves.

2. What do you hope to accomplish in your life?
However stupid or egocentrically it might sound I want to be unique and inspiring.
3. What do you hope to avoid doing or being? What values are important to you?
I would hate to be boring, unoriginal or stereotyping. ... I want my life to be original and exciting. ... I also want to be creative, self expressive with young and fresh ideas. Administrative work and family life without any excitement, or chance to be creative and expressive would be the murder of my individuality. After all... I think it's the murder of everyone's individuality and I know some people are going to hate me... but I don't understand why people do this commitments and I hope I never will.

I feel better and stronger, than I used to be, but with this comes more doubts. I finally ... found my own sense of style and originality, but I feel like isn't it all just fake? Is it really me? I just don't know. ... I feel it's gotten out of the control and far from who I really am. So I try to stop all of this and start over looking for my indentity.

================================

In your last post, you said, "All feelers have something in common, but an introverted feeler doesn't use his feelings the same way as extroverted feeler does." As you know, I have my doubts about whether Fe vs. Fi (at least as they're slotted in the most popular functions model) is the best way to frame this issue, but I couldn't agree more that some types of F's are "feelers" in a way that others definitely aren't.

You've said that one of the reasons you've wondered about whether INFP really fits you is "I have a hard time to relate to how caring and nice and sensitive natures xNFPs seem to be. I don't see myself like that at all. I am sensitive, but I don't know if in the way of being a feeler. I can't imagine myself being in some caring position, or nurture others."

Well... first of all, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that at least half the population is made up of F's. Assuming Linda Berens has her figures right (and she says they're from the MBTI Manual), the official MBTI folks are apparently now estimating that, whereas 43.4% of men are F's, only 24.4% of women are T's — which suggests that something like 60% of the population may be F's. But in any case, even if you just assume that around half of people are F's, has it been your experience that around half of the population is made up of people who are notably "caring and nice and sensitive" and prone to "nurture others"? No? I didn't think so.

I've been participating in type-me threads for four years now (mostly at INTJforum) and, in my experience, it's not uncommon for INFs to test as INTs, at least partly because many of the F choices on typical MBTI tests (including the official test) are choices that are more likely to appeal to SFs and EFs than INFs — and I think that's probably even more true of female INFs than male INFs. I think male F's are often aware that they differ from cultural male stereotypes in ways that make them more "F-ish" than average whereas, by contrast, I think INF women who compare themselves to cultural female stereotypes (not to mention the majority of actual women) are reasonably likely to think of themselves as more T-ish than those "feeler" women (EFs, SFs and, especially, ESFs).

In particular, it seems to be pretty common for INFs (female or male) to question their F preference because of what they see as their relative lack (compared to some of the other F types) in terms of things like outwardly-directed emotional warmth and active helping/service behavior. And I think introversion and an N preference can each make some contribution to what an INF may view as that kind of "lack of F." I think an N preference tends to be associated with a significant degree of what you might call emotional detachment. Myers referred to SFs — rather than the F's in general — as the "sympathetic and friendly types." And Jung went on and on about introverts' fraught relationship with their emotional side. "Both [extraverts and introverts] are capable of enthusiasm," he explained. "What fills the extravert's heart flows out of his mouth, but the enthusiasm of the introvert is the very thing that seals his lips."

I'd say all the INs (INFs and INTs both) share at least some significant potential to be the kind of people who will more often feel deeply and meaningfully stirred by aesthetic experiences than by their day-to-day interactions with others. And I think it's reasonably characteristic of an INFP for their F preference to be more prone to take the form of a drive to somehow "serve humanity" or "make the world a better place" than a service-to-others streak directed at the people they're interacting with on a day-to-day basis. I'd say passionate involvement in, e.g., environmental or other progressive causes is pretty characteristic of INFPs. And an INFP artist's desire for self-expression is reasonably likely to include at least some sense that the people who read her novels or poetry or whatever and are exposed to her perspective will be enlightened or otherwise have their lives improved.

And I'd also say that there's no question that an INFP — and especially an INFP with no family responsibilities — can end up being a fairly self-absorbed person (and you've described yourself as "more self-absorbed than sacrificing"). Not selfish in the sense of being unfair to others or wanting more than her share or otherwise violating the golden rule, but self-absorbed in the sense that, consistent with some of the NF descriptions in my last post, her goals of self-discovery, self-improvement, self-expansion, experiencing life "in the full," etc. are her central focus, rather than any kind of service-to-others drive.

It's also not uncommon to find INFs questioning their F (as you have) because they see themselves as more logical and analytical than they think "feelers" tend to be. (You said, " I am too ... rational to be a feeling type.") But the notion that F's are people who just let their emotions (or some non-logical "feeling function") make their decisions for them is one that doesn't even apply that well to ESFs, and certainly doesn't fit INFs well. All four of the IN types (INTs and INFs both) tend to be notably analytical (including a significant degree of analyical detachment from their emotions), and to bring logic into play when they're making important decisions. All other things being equal, an INF is more likely than an INT to feel like her emotions are significant and may have something important to tell her, but the devoted scrutiny an INF gives to her emotions is likely to include a healthy dose of critical analysis, rather than just blind acceptance.

In a couple of posts, you've mentioned that you "relate well to Ti" — but, notwithstanding the most popular cognitive functions model, the fact is that most INs, partly for the reasons I've just described (their highly analytical natures), tend to feel like they relate pretty well to substantial parts of typical Ti descriptions. As one collection of evidence, and as further discussed in this post and this post, INTJs are supposed to be Te types but there's a 350-post thread at INTJforum that shows that, when INTJs take Nardi's keys2cognition functions test, they get high Te scores and high Ti scores — and Te really isn't substantially favored over Ti.

================================

I think Keirsey had a lot of good insights, as you know, but I think his NF descriptions tend to be somewhat skewed in the rosy/romantic direction, at least for INF purposes. That said, though (and as you know from the roundup in Part 3 of my last post), after describing what he viewed as the NF tendency to romanticize relationships, he also warned that NFs could tend to be restless/fickle — prone to find that any relationship that they've been in for a significant length of time is somehow not enough. In listing an INFP's characteristic weak spots, personalitypage.com notes that INFPs "may have difficulty maintaining close relationships, due to unreasonable expectations."

You've said...

My saying has ever been... I won't ever get married and I won't ever have real relatiohsip, because it's just too confining. And here I am with my boyfriend going to our vacations, posting pictures of a happy couple to our friends. And I am just unsure about all of this... Is this really what I want? I feel like escaping it all, but I know it would be so irresponsible and selfish.

...and...

I would say I am totally anti-romantic type. Everytime my boyfriend tries to be romantic I can't help myself, but start to laugh and say he sounds pathetic. And to me really romance sounds a bit... pathetic. Even relationship itself are not so meaningful for me. Maybe if they would be a bit more free, but living with one person and expressing and giving all my life to him... why? I want to live full life, unlimited, free and changing. Love is limiting.

And I'd say there's more than one way to be "anti-romantic." The way that would be less characteristic of an INFP would be for a person (maybe a male IT...) to be in a steady relationship and to not only not yearn for something more or greater beyond the current relationship, but also to have some tendency to be neglectful of whatever romantic riches the current relationship might have to offer. And the way that's more characteristic (I'd say) of an INFP would be to view the world of "romance" in somewhat bohemian/unconventional terms — as a rich world full of possibilities for different kinds of experiences with different kinds of people. For someone with that kind of perspective, confining yourself to a single partner is like a food lover being stuck eating only, say, Chinese food. And that may be "unromantic" in conventional terms, but you could also see it as an idealistic standard of love/sex/romance as a potentially rich and life-expanding cornucupia that no one relationship could ever hope to live up to — and "free love" and polyamory and similar kinds of movements are often framed in that kind of idealistic way.

That said, though, I'd also note that a fair amount of skittishness when it comes to settling on a supposedly lifelong choice of a romantic partner tends to be at least somewhat characteristic of young people of most types.

The last thing I want to note in this department is that, when it comes to what you might call that unsentimental (or anti-sentimental) streak of yours that tends to "laugh and say he sounds pathetic" when your boyfriend "tries to be romantic" — I'd say INFPs come in a range of flavors when it comes to romantic sentimentality, but I think that streak is significantly uncharacteristic of ENFPs. My experience has been that ENFP women tend to happily soak up most kinds of positive appreciation that anyone wants to aim in their direction, emphatically including romantic gestures from a boyfriend, and my understanding is that my experience in that regard is pretty typical of ENFPs.

Similarly, I think a noteworthy taste for (in your words) "dark arts" (along with, as you also described it, "mystery, death, depression"...) is also substantially more characteristic of an INFP than an ENFP. And, in fact, I think a tendency to favor the dark/gothic/moody/brooding/tormented corner of the aesthetic world is pretty strongly characteristic of INFPs. So I'm not misunderstood, I'd say ENFPs also tend to have a significant soft spot for moody outcast types like (to take two of your faves) Kurt Cobain and Jim Morrison, but ENFPs, as you may know, are also somewhat infamous for their rainbow/teddy-bear/unicorn-loving streak. I'd say somebody who's more of an all-out goth is significantly more likely to be an INFP (as between those two types). You also told us that "I am attracted in everything strange and 'weird,'" and that's yet another INFP-over-ENFP indicator to me. If there's a single type most known for a propensity to cultivate their own eccentricities and strongly define themselves in terms of all the ways they're different from the mainstream, it's the INFP. ENFPs, like all the EFs, tend to be more concerned with being liked and accepted by others. ENFPs definitely want to be authentic (like INFPs) but, all other things being equal, they'll be less inclined to seize on and emphasize stuff that seems particularly likely to rub lots of other people the wrong way.

Speaking of bohemian, you've noted that, as a general thing, you "tend to be bohemian in a lot of ways," and the types that I most associate with bohemian attitudes and tastes are definitely the NFPs. Similarly, you said, "I like hippies and similar movemants," and I've always said that NFPs (ENFPs and INFPs both) are the most quintessential hippie types. I think Keirsey was right to describe SJs as the most culturally mainstream, and I think the S and the J each make some contribution to that, so it's not surprising that a typical "counterculture" core would tend to be disproportionately NP.

And on that note... I think attitude toward change is one of those cases where two of the MBTI dimensions can be viewed as contributing, each in its own way, to some aspect of personality. If you want to contrast change-oriented vs. tradition-oriented, I'd say S/N and J/P can each make a contribution, with SJs being the ultimate traditionalists (temperamentally over-pessimistic about change, and tending to over-value the way things are and/or "always have been"), NPs being the ultimate change agents (temperamentally over-optimistic about change, and prone to err on the side of having too little respect for established ways), and SPs and NJs being somewhere in between and arguably more realistic (about change). Maybe you could say NJs are change agents, but more cautious and realistic about possible changes than the NPs; and that SPs are not that driven to be changers/innovators, but are more open to change (and less tradition-worshipping) than the SJs. In any case, I'd say NPs are the types most likely to end up itchy for a change just because it's "time for a change," and/or from a feeling that things have gotten stale and need to be stirred up to get life's vital juices flowing again, and/or from a feeling that the other grass usually is greener.

Against that background, here's you...

I am also very interested in society and politics. I could imagine myself being a part of liberal political party with humanistic and green ideas. I need something with strong idea and motivation toward change and future.
...
I want go with changes and trends. ... I also hate to feel tied up, I literally feel panickly scared, when I know there is no escape from something. I always need to feel like...it's okay I can escape whenever I want to.
...
authority- No! Freedom and open rules... that's what I believe in.

- I have strong ideas about changing the system....
- I want to improve world, myself, my environment according to my inner feeling of what is right
- offer an ideas how to imrpove things
...
- I need a lot of change
- most of all I value freedom
- the worst thing for me would be to be tied up, or chained down and unfree

I tend to be unsatisfied a lot and always try to change things around for better. ...
...
I want to live full life, unlimited, free and changing.

Maybe this is as good a point as any to mention that the two preferences of yours that seem the most certain to me are N and P. My F lean is pretty strong, too, but the caveat there is that I think T/F is the messiest of the four MBTI dichotomies by a significant margin, and the partial entanglement with male/female is just a part of that.

================================

E/I is the dimension where it seems to me like you're closest to being borderline. Jung himself said he thought more people are essentially in the middle on E/I than are significantly extraverted or introverted and, as I understand it, both MBTI and Big Five data suggest that extraversion/introversion may exhibit something like a normal distribution, with most people not too far from the middle. So I wouldn't rule out the possibility that xNFP might turn out to be a more suitable label for you than either INFP or ENFP would be — but I know your inner identity-seeker isn't likely to be all that happy with a wishy-washy "x" conclusion and, in any case, I continue to have a mild I lean.

As you may already know, the types with the greatest hermit potential are the ITs, and especially male ITs. IFs are introverts, and that means they'll tend to favor social interaction that involves what's often referred to as their "inner circle," but it's not at all uncommon for IFs — and this is more true during their school years than later in life — to end up having a regular gang (or two) who they spend a lot of their free time hanging out with. And young introverts can also be relatively bigtime partiers, although, all other things being equal, introverts tend to experience more underlying discomfort and/or awkwardness in the process of meeting new people than extraverts do. In general, the differences between introverts and extraverts tend to be substantially more pronounced when they're dealing with strangers or not-too-close acquaintances than when they're dealing with their family and friends.

It's probably also worth noting — and I'm guessing you probably know this already — that the ranks of performers (singers, actors, stand-up comics, etc.) are well-populated with introverts. You sometimes read (and I've read forum posts that confirm this, and it's true of me as well) that an introvert is often more comfortable standing up in front of an audience of, e.g., prospective clients and making a well-prepared presentation than that same introvert will be at the cocktail party afterward where they have to meet and try to make small talk with those same people. All other things being equal, it's undoubtedly true that an introvert is somewhat more likely to suffer from stage fright than an extravert, but plenty of introverts take pretty naturally to the stage — or learn to overcome whatever discomfort they may be temperamentally prone to.

It's also worth noting that, although Keirsey talks about all four NF types being strongly driven by the quest for self-identity, it's the INFs, not the ENFs, who tend to come out as Enneagram 4s. ENFs may well be the runners-up in the search-for-self department, but it doesn't tend to be the all-consuming core drive for them that it often is for INFs. They way your self-descriptions revolve around your identity issues has a significantly stronger INFP ring than ENFP ring to me.

For what it's worth, here's some of the other E/I-related stuff in your posts, most of which has contributed to my I lean — but, again, I don't rule out a mild (neurotic) E:

- I hide my feelings
- I hide the inner me and I dislike to open up too much, rather I show the "better" idealized me
- I usually show up my cool, nevermind side when I get into troubles
...
- Even though I want attention, I am very shy
- I am not self confident

I am too shy to be an extrovert, yet I am too sociable to be an introvert.
...
I am sociable and talkative, but mostly with my friends. With strangers I am shy and quiet.

I am private, but I love to welcome new people in my life.
...
I love to get to know new people, I like to to talk, but I dislike when others know too much about me, so I am more reserved about who I am and I am harder to get to know, but I love to get to know others and I love to spend my time with others much more, than just by my own self... I am shy, reserved, but I hate to be alone and love to be with my friends.

I love to spend my time at parties, it's true I rather spend my time partying with my well known and close friends, but I can get pretty spontaneous and wild also.

While the emotions inside of me are almost always on fire I have my "cool" face. I love writing poetry to get all the emotions outside. It is a great way of expression

On your tendency to hide many of your more intense feelings, I can't help reminding you that I've already quoted Jung explaining that "what fills the extravert's heart flows out of his mouth, but the enthusiasm of the introvert is the very thing that seals his lips."

Enough from me, for now anyway.