SJ or INFP?

[ZNP-TBA]

I'm leaning INFP based on the description.

I see your Si being used as a 'feedback' loop to your higher functioning Fi-Ne. Though I wouldn't rule out Si dom either since you tend to have a stricter focus on practical matters than some INFPs.

You sound like you're looking for stabilization and grounding so perhaps Si-dom indeed.

 

[Norrsken]

You could just be a low level INFJ, and omg that sounded offensive, but it is not what you think! A low level INFJ is just an INFJ who hasn't really gotten over some of their P type-like habits such as leaving a messy room behind when they ought to clean it up. Sometimes, good habits is learned. I think once you try and become more organized, you could be a higher level INFJ and get sh*t done.

For now, I'll say INFP, but I might be wrong, and I'll see what the other people say here.

 

[Cloudpatrol]

I'm curious as to what your opinions are! I keep debating whether I am an ISxJ, INFP or even INFJ?

Here are a few facts about me:
T/F - Judging
- People say I am very self opinionated.
- I strive to learn the truth behind reality, and learning how everything works.
- I don't trust statistics as evidence for the truth, and prefer to figure out if it makes sense.
- Superficial people put me off. I try to stay honest and say what I belief/feel.
- I hate generalizations, such as stereotypes.
- I'm an introvert without a doubt.
- I am very uncomfortable with showing moments of weakness to other people.
- The only way I can talk to someone is by discussing something I am passionate about and interested in. When I am not obsessed with something I feel empty.
- A lot of the time I am very serious but I do love to laugh and goof around.
- I love being sarcastic and do it so often that people can't even tell if i'm being sarcastic anymore.

N/S - Perceiving
- I greatly enjoy fiction related to fantasy
- I'm interested in metaphors and symbolism and love foreshadowing.
- I have submissive tendencies
- I get easily overwhelmed by crowds and loud noises
- Hearing an explosive argument gives me a lot of distress. I withdraw from overwhelming situations in order to cope with the stress.
- I love engaging in small doses of nostalgia
- A disorganized room doesn't bother me.
- I would love to travel at least once, not to explore the foreign cultures, but to see views of landscapes and live in different climates.
- I desire comfort and inner tranquility. For example I find winter relaxing, because it become dark outside sooner. It allows me to relax after a day of working. I love the feeling of being warm after being outside in icy air. It is things like this that make me wonder it I am in fact an Si dom, rather than in the tertiary position in INxP.

Strike me as overwhelmingly INFP

Typology is like painting a portrait of someone. I would compare MBTI to the skeletal system that provides framework for the body. Adding knowledge of socionics, enneagram, love languages etc fleshes the picture out and provides detail and clarity. Has that been true for you?

Trying to avoid perpetuating the "INFP's think they are sparkly unicorns" stereotype here: BUT I think we often question if we are entirely correct as we have so many facets and inherent understanding/use of other functions. I have often been asked "Are you sure you aren't an INFJ"? because I display many key characteristics - but the deepest core of me is INFP.

Post-script: Thanks for describing your character so freely!

 

[wolfnara]

I guess INFP makes more sense based on cognitive functions. And my socionics type is EII, the closest equivalent. I thought it could be different under mbti though. Perhaps the mixed responses are coming from MBTI based definitions vs JCF?

I could be at the stage of developing the tertiary function? (because according to what I have read a person develops the the functions they're naturally orientated to at first, then develop and gain on the weaker functions at they become older) I also learned that introverts to not realize the manifestation of the dominant function, and therefore should look at the inferior function. What I can't see in myself is Ne, but I am confident about Fi. Could be an Fi-Si loop indeed.

Strike me as overwhelmingly INFP

Typology is like painting a portrait of someone. I would compare MBTI to the skeletal system that provides framework for the body. Adding knowledge of socionics, enneagram, love languages etc fleshes the picture out and provides detail and clarity. Has that been true for you?

Trying to avoid perpetuating the "INFP's think they are sparkly unicorns" stereotype here: BUT I think we often question if we are entirely correct as we have so many facets and inherent understanding/use of other functions. I have often been asked "Are you sure you aren't an INFJ"? because I display many key characteristics - but the deepest core of me is INFP.

Post-script: Thanks for describing your character so freely!

Thanks! Personality theory does certainly go into the depth of human psychology. It's interesting because a whole new perspective can be seen when approaching the personalities of others in general, because of all the detail and categories it involves. However, I think most are interested in typology because of discovering their own identity.

Definitely not ISTJ, because of this:
- I don't trust statistics as evidence for the truth, and prefer to figure out if it makes sense.
Could see INFP. Could definitely see INFP more than any kind of SJ.

If anything, that is Ti (/subjective logic) I should think. I agree that an INxP can engage in their Si. The difference is whether or not it is a strength.

 

[existence]

I guess INFP makes more sense based on cognitive functions. And my socionics type is EII, the closest equivalent. I thought it could be different under mbti though. Perhaps the mixed responses are coming from MBTI based definitions vs JCF?

It could be different to a limited degree in MBTI. But if you are N/F in Socionics, that won't really turn into S/T in MBTI.

I could be at the stage of developing the tertiary function? (because according to what I have read a person develops the the functions they're naturally orientated to at first, then develop and gain on the weaker functions at they become older) I also learned that introverts to not realize the manifestation of the dominant function, and therefore should look at the inferior function. What I can't see in myself is Ne, but I am confident about Fi. Could be an Fi-Si loop indeed.

Thanks! Personality theory does certainly go into the depth of human psychology. It's interesting because a whole new perspective can be seen when approaching the personalities of others in general, because of all the detail and categories it involves. However, I think most are interested in typology because of discovering their own identity.

If anything, that is Ti (/subjective logic) I should think. I agree that an INxP can engage in their Si. The difference is whether or not it is a strength.

Ti, hmm yeah that sounded funny there. What sort of things do you see as the truth that statistics isn't evidence for?

Where you speak of new perspectives and intuitive (and feeling, of course) ideals (in your type other thread as far as I recall), why do you not see that as Ne related? You see it as Ni, or...?

 

[wolfnara]

It could be different to a limited degree in MBTI. But if you are N/F in Socionics, that won't really turn into S/T in MBTI.
Ti, hmm yeah that sounded funny there. What sort of things do you see as the truth that statistics isn't evidence for?

Perhaps this is true for poorly researched statistics. Statistics are often not a measure of the majority of the subject, especially when this is related with people. For example, in biology, when a small population is naturally selected this results in the founder effect, meaning only a narrow selections of genes and characters appear in the group. The same goes for statistical measures. The data people gather can also be shrouded by their own logic and perspectives - could that reason with objective logic?

An example is MBTI success rates tables. How many people of the claimed types were involved? Was their MBTI correct? It is not only a matter of the correctness, but also because I don't agree with categorizing information in that way, just because it is inconsistent to the present and/or the overall topic. It could lead to people making the wrong conclusions. When someone references a source even, I usually am strongly unconvinced unless the evidence is real. Perhaps they were correctly measured according to external factors and such but even then there would be no way of knowing that.

Where you speak of new perspectives and intuitive (and feeling, of course) ideals (in your type other thread as far as I recall), why do you not see that as Ne related? You see it as Ni, or...?

Because I don't understand how those values belong to Intuition and Feeling. It's hard to see myself objectively.

 

[existence]

Perhaps this is true for poorly researched statistics. Statistics are often not a measure of the majority of the subject, especially when this is related with people. For example, in biology, when a small population is naturally selected this results in the founder effect, meaning only a narrow selections of genes and characters appear in the group.

These are basic and well-known problems... when methodology is adhered to properly, it isn't an issue.

The same goes for statistical measures. The data people gather can also be shrouded by their own logic and perspectives

This isn't really saying much. This is just unnecessary relativism here. (Disclaimer: IMO)

- could that reason with objective logic?

I see Ne mainly

An example is MBTI success rates tables. How many people of the claimed types were involved? Was their MBTI correct? It is not only a matter of the correctness, but also because I don't agree with categorizing information in that way, just because it is inconsistent to the present and/or the overall topic. It could lead to people making the wrong conclusions. When someone references a source even, I usually am strongly unconvinced unless the evidence is real. Perhaps they were correctly measured according to external factors and such but even then there would be no way of knowing that.

What do you mean by it's inconsistent with the present/overall topic? I didn't follow you there.

Again, I see a lot of Ne relativism.

Because I don't understand how those values belong to Intuition and Feeling. It's hard to see myself objectively.

Hm, well, read up on the definitions more closely. More self-analysis along with that if needed.

 

[wolfnara]

What do you mean by it's inconsistent with the present/overall topic? I didn't follow you there.

Facts and ideas change over time.

Again, I see a lot of Ne relativism.

Is this because Ne makes external connections, and juxtaposing the seemingly unrelated? Or seeing how the outcome could be different depending on external factors?

Hm, well, read up on the definitions more closely. More self-analysis along with that if needed.

Of course. I have read many articles though. If I were to read definitions it would likely be something I have already read and come across. They don't tend to describe the processes, only what the functions do e.g. Ni=symbolism, sudden realizations, vision. But they don't explain why or how this is a cerebral activity.

Overall I just don't see statistics as a preferable method to analyzing a situation and looking at a topic in more depth. They seem draining, for some reason. I don't believe they are related to Te valuing, are they?

 

[existence]

Facts and ideas change over time.

Uhhh ok I'm not following at all on how this relates to MBTI research.

Is this because Ne makes external connections, and juxtaposing the seemingly unrelated? Or seeing how the outcome could be different depending on external factors?

Seeing how the outcome could be different, yes.

Of course. I have read many articles though. If I were to read definitions it would likely be something I have already read and come across. They don't tend to describe the processes, only what the functions do e.g. Ni=symbolism, sudden realizations, vision. But they don't explain why or how this is a cerebral activity.

Well it's really simple, really, don't expect a very detailed description of the processes as these functions are a very high level view of those. So, Ni is the process that does far-flung associations, leading away from what is actually there, that are linked deeply to each other with an underlying common thread due to introversion (e.g. singular focus on a future outcome/end vision but there may be other examples too, this is just a typically quoted one). Ne is also far-flung associations but they are only linked on the surface and it expands instead of that underlying thread/single focus, due to extraversion.

I'm sure I have said nothing new to you here If this isn't enough of an explanation... then elaborate on what you are looking for in terms of this "cerebral activity" issue.

Overall I just don't see statistics as a preferable method to analyzing a situation and looking at a topic in more depth. They seem draining, for some reason. I don't believe they are related to Te valuing, are they?

Stereotypically, statistics is a surface method of logical analysis so that would sound as Te but I believe Ti can also analyze statistics, it's just going to go about it differently... going deeper beyond the surface level of the statistics. If you find dealing with statistics draining that would point to you *not* being a type strong on Te (and thus, Ti either).


OK, going back to your original purpose with this thread... MBTI dichotomies only, yes? Because if you try to align that with functions, you can get into a can of worms (not always, but yes, a possibility). So, clarify for me please what sort of typing you are looking for exactly so I'm sure we are on the same page.

 

[wolfnara]

Uhhh ok I'm not following at all on how this relates to MBTI research.

Oh, not the MBTI example, I was just referring statistical data in general. I prefer to observe reality for myself than rely on data gathered by someone else, I think that is my main problem.

Well it's really simple, really, don't expect a very detailed description of the processes as these functions are a very high level view of those. So, Ni is the process that does far-flung associations, leading away from what is actually there, that are linked deeply to each other with an underlying common thread due to introversion (e.g. singular focus on a future outcome/end vision but there may be other examples too, this is just a typically quoted one). Ne is also far-flung associations but they are only linked on the surface and it expands instead of that underlying thread/single focus, due to extraversion.
I'm sure I have said nothing new to you here If this isn't enough of an explanation... then elaborate on what you are looking for in terms of this "cerebral activity" issue.

I see. That reminds me of Pierces example in the Ni vs Ne video where he describes how both intuitive would interpret an image of a red balloon and what they would associate with it. I think CF descriptions could do with more depth with real life examples included, such as what Pierce does. I think I understand how you see Ne in my answers now, because of making external associations.

Stereotypically, statistics is a surface method of logical analysis so that would sound as Te but I believe Ti can also analyze statistics, it's just going to go about it differently... going deeper beyond the surface level of the statistics. If you find dealing with statistics draining that would point to you *not* being a type strong on Te (and thus, Ti either).

Agree

OK, going back to your original purpose with this thread... MBTI dichotomies only, yes? Because if you try to align that with functions, you can get into a can of worms (not always, but yes, a possibility). So, clarify for me please what sort of typing you are looking for exactly so I'm sure we are on the same page.

When I first made the thread I was probably looking for feedback on functions. But now, probably both MBTI and Functions. I realize they are not the same, therefore I am trying to find what my mbti type is and the JCF (separately). So far I think it's fair to say I am a J in MBTI. Fi-Ne makes sense, although I am curious about the Istj responses.

 

[existence]

When I first made the thread I was probably looking for feedback on functions. But now, probably both MBTI and Functions. I realize they are not the same, therefore I am trying to find what my mbti type is and the JCF (separately). So far I think it's fair to say I am a J in MBTI. Fi-Ne makes sense, although I am curious about the Istj responses.

Yeah they are definitely not the same... I relate to Ti the most but also to J>P, like you.

I'm curious, do dichotomy-based INFJ profiles describe you well enough? Such as from this site: https://type-coach.com/types

 

[wolfnara]

Yeah they are definitely not the same... I relate to Ti the most but also to J>P, like you.

I'm curious, do dichotomy-based INFJ profiles describe you well enough? Such as from this site: https://type-coach.com/types

INFxs seem very similar in these descriptions except Infp's are more spontaneous and generate more ideas. I relate more to the INFJ profile, apart from the rich inner world. I think I have always related to INFJ descriptions more than INFPs (I tend to score as any IJ type) I can relate to both with the interest of abstract concepts...perhaps I am an N after all. Overall though INFJ seems accurate.

 

[existence]

INFxs seem very similar in these descriptions except Infp's are more spontaneous and generate more ideas. I relate more to the INFJ profile, apart from the rich inner world. I think I have always related to INFJ descriptions more than INFPs (I tend to score as any IJ type) I can relate to both with the interest of abstract concepts...perhaps I am an N after all. Overall though INFJ seems accurate.

Well that sounds fair enough for a dichotomy based typing then.

With abstract concepts btw, how long can you stay with them, how much willingness with it?

 

[wolfnara]

Well that sounds fair enough for a dichotomy based typing then.

With abstract concepts btw, how long can you stay with them, how much willingness with it?

It depends how intelligent the discussion involving the concept is. Recently I listened to a very abstract discussion (including Jung, actually) and I was very intrigued by it and listened the whole way through although it had a lot of depth. But I did get mentally drained so I didn't have any questions to ask on the topic and started to zone out, even though I didn't want to. Similarly when I Jung's writing or articles related to that, I get tired quickly. Could that be more Ti-related abstraction though? idk

 

[existence]

It depends how intelligent the discussion involving the concept is. Recently I listened to a very abstract discussion (including Jung, actually) and I was very intrigued by it and listened the whole way through although it had a lot of depth. But I did get mentally drained so I didn't have any questions to ask on the topic and started to zone out, even though I didn't want to. Similarly when I Jung's writing or articles related to that, I get tired quickly. Could that be more Ti-related abstraction though? idk

Jung is pretty Ti, so yes. But say more on what sort of abstraction it was that was tiring you out.

 

[wolfnara]

Jung is pretty Ti, so yes. But say more on what sort of abstraction it was that was tiring you out.

I think the conversation began to drain me because first of all it was long, but people began discussing things off topic - they didn't think it was a non-related topic but it began to derail into what they thought of the persons initial discussion which involved their own impressions and thoughts. I thought the talk was abstract because they were talking about symbolism and it's meaning in different cultures and what it meant to each of them (Jung came up because the person said he was very interested in symbols in Indian culture) but I thought it was interesting because of what connections they found in their research and how it can represent human psychology. Symbols are just a shape but I thought it was interesting how they added a whole new concept and meaningful idea to that. So it didn't tire me out at first until people began to disintegrate the topic of discussion, then my attention span began wearing thin. Hope that makes enough sense in terms of functions.

 

[existence]

I think the conversation began to drain me because first of all it was long, but people began discussing things off topic - they didn't think it was a non-related topic but it began to derail into what they thought of the persons initial discussion which involved their own impressions and thoughts. I thought the talk was abstract because they were talking about symbolism and it's meaning in different cultures and what it meant to each of them (Jung came up because the person said he was very interested in symbols in Indian culture) but I thought it was interesting because of what connections they found in their research and how it can represent human psychology. Symbols are just a shape but I thought it was interesting how they added a whole new concept and meaningful idea to that. So it didn't tire me out at first until people began to disintegrate the topic of discussion, then my attention span began wearing thin. Hope that makes enough sense in terms of functions.

No definite idea on it, sorry but it might've been Ni that you didn't care for?

 

[wolfnara]

No definite idea on it, sorry but it might've been Ni that you didn't care for?

That was my thought