The Untyped

[Ruthie]

Here's a good way to tell...

Describe an orange - tell me anything you can about an orange (the fruit).

Somehow I'm skeptical that this is a "good way to tell," and I have to smile a little trying to imagine a stereotypically intuitive way of describing a piece of fruit, but here goes:

An orange is... uh, round in shape and orange in color. It has kind of a bumpy texture, a bit of density with a little bit of give when you press on it [i feel really silly right now]. When the outer layer is peeled back, the inside of the peel is lighter in color and rougher in texture. The inside of the orange is segmented into, what - 6, 8 wedges? The taste is sweet and tangy, and the juice is sticky (which is the main reason I'm not much of an orange fan... that and the seeds).

On a sidenote, did you know that the dictionary pronunciation of "orange" is "arnge?" A friend pointed that out to me years ago and showed it to me in a dictionary we used to have. Don't know if it's written that way in all dictionaries, but I always thought that was kind of interesting.

I have no idea if that description correlates to MBTI, but I think it probably crosses me off the list of gifted descriptive writers.

 

[Ruthie]

I also forgot to add that my ISTJ friend is a 6w5, probably sp/so. Ruthie is also 6w5. I think that the 5 wing may perhaps add to the interest in concepts like that.

I'm also sp/so.

 

[NewEra]

Ruthie's an ILE (ENTp).

That's a very stupid question, ChosenOne.

No, it's a good way to tell S vs. N. And she's not ENTp.

 

[BlackCat]

I'm also sp/so.

Wow, no wonder you two "feel" the same way! Nice. I really got that feeling from you the first time that I interacted with you a long time ago, but I didn't know how to put it to words.

I tend to type people based on feelings and hunches, based on how they affect me internally. Just clarifying that.

 

[Tyrant]

No, it's a good way to tell S vs. N. And she's not ENTp.

No, it isn't, it's a pointless test that proves absolutely nothing.

Why would she not be ENTp?

 

[NewEra]

No, it isn't, it's a pointless test that proves absolutely nothing.

Why would she not be ENTp?

Because the ENTp in socionics correlates with the ENTP in MBTI, and based on her top 4 functions (Si, Te, Fi, and Ne), she doesn't seem like an ENTP.

 

[Tyrant]

Because the ENTp in socionics correlates with the ENTP in MBTI, and based on her top 4 functions (Si, Te, Fi, and Ne), she doesn't seem like an ENTP.

You still didn't answer my question.

 

[NewEra]

You still didn't answer my question.

Yes I did. You asked why would she not be ENTp, and I said it's because of her strength of functions. Like I said earlier, ENTp correlates to ENTP in MBTI, which means NeTiFeSi. Her top 4 are Si, Te, Fi, and Ne. Ti doesn't figure in there, so ENTp can be ruled out.

 

[Tyrant]

Yes I did. You asked why would she not be ENTp, and I said it's because of her strength of functions. Like I said earlier, ENTp correlates to ENTP in MBTI, which means NeTiFeSi. Her top 4 are Si, Te, Fi, and Ne. Ti doesn't figure in there, so ENTp can be ruled out.

How did you decide that? Why did you rule out Ti/Fe? I don't see where you're coming from. Doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[NewEra]

How did you decide that? Why did you rule out Ti/Fe? I don't see where you're coming from. Doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't see what's hard to understand here - neither Ti and Fe were among Ruthie's top four functions. ENTp (or ENTP) is highly improbable.

 

[Space_Oddity]

Ruthie,

I've read all the thread and I confess that now I'm pretty much torn between the ISTJ and INFP. It would be safe to say that you're a very balanced individual and that you can work with all your functions very well. Congratulations

I'll try adding some arguments supporting my INFP theory later (I indeed have some ), but I think ISTJ is possible as well.

I'll have to respond later... lol.

But what I can say is that I think that Ruthie is a good example of a "modernized" SJ. I think that a lot of SJ stereotypes comes from previous generations. AFAIK Ruthie is in her 20's. She reminds me of that guy Beat, he's another ISTJ who's "modernized" and doesn't fit a lot of the stereotypes.

These modernized SJs I've met seem more open to change, because change is an encouraged thing in the world at this place in time. From what I've read of SJs, upbringing effects them a lot.

Ruthie also reminds me of one of my ISTJ friends, just with the feel that they both give off (my friend is also a female). She likes theory and abstract conversations as well, but she can have a hard time with some Ne related things. She can be totally oblivious to some implications, doesn't really think about changing things, etc. I will have to summarize my thoughts on the subject later.

Intuition and Sensing are ways of perception keep in mind. Being interested in abstract topics doesn't really have a set correlation, even though a lot of Ns are interested in them. Also being interested in abstract topics doesn't have anything to do with how you perceive things.

Firstly, there's no need to face-palm. I guess you and me look at MBTI from different perspectives, but that doesn't mean that either one is more valuable or intelligent than the other one. None of us is a professional, and I sometimes doubt even professionals, so there's no need to act superior.

As a matter of fact, I absolutely hate the MBTI stereotyping, especially the S/N stereotyping, and I'm sure I'd agree with your thoughts on the S/N difference. Actually, I understand the S/N difference very well and I really don't need any further explanations. (I may have worded it wrongly, but be sure I know it's not about liking theories - it's about how one actually ends up constructing their theories.) To your arguments, Ruthie really doesn't strike me as 'modernized' at all (I wouldn't be surprised if it insulted her ), but anyway, I don't think this is about any modernization or flexibility, it is about underlying structures in one's thinking process. This is really the only thing that the ISTJs I know unfailingly share, and I'm not sure if Ruthie does.

Also, it is true that I haven't exactly interacted with Ruthie here, so I don't know how well she actually uses Ne. Of course, if I knew her in person, I would probably be able to tell readily what type she really is, but here I have to work only with the limited information she gave, and the truth is that either J or S certainly aren't written all over them.

 

[Ruthie]

Ruthie,

I've read all the thread and I confess that now I'm pretty much torn between the ISTJ and INFP. It would be safe to say that you're a very balanced individual and that you can work with all your functions very well. Congratulations

I'll try adding some arguments supporting my INFP theory later (I indeed have some ), but I think ISTJ is possible as well.




Firstly, there's no need to face-palm. I guess you and me look at MBTI from different perspectives, but that doesn't mean that either one is more valuable or intelligent than the other one. None of us is a professional, and I sometimes doubt even professionals, so there's no need to act superior.

As a matter of fact, I absolutely hate the MBTI stereotyping, especially the S/N stereotyping, and I'm sure I'd agree with your thoughts on the S/N difference. Actually, I understand the S/N difference very well and I really don't need any further explanations. (I may have worded it wrongly, but be sure I know it's not about liking theories - it's about how one actually ends up constructing their theories.) To your arguments, Ruthie really doesn't strike me as 'modernized' at all (I wouldn't be surprised if it insulted her ), but anyway, I don't think this is about any modernization or flexibility, it is about underlying structures in one's thinking process. This is really the only thing that the ISTJs I know unfailingly share, and I'm not sure if Ruthie does.

Also, it is true that I haven't exactly interacted with Ruthie here, so I don't know how well she actually uses Ne. Of course, if I knew her in person, I would probably be able to tell readily what type she really is, but here I have to work only with the limited information she gave, and the truth is that either J or S certainly aren't written all over them.

If it helps you any, I doubt the picture would be any clearer if you knew me in person. My brother thinks I'm infj, and he knows me pretty well. Apparently not as well as he thinks he does though.

 

[Zenihita]

@zenihita:

First of all, thanks for all the time you put into really analyzing my posts!

INFP and ISTJ share the same functions, so it isn't surprising that you can see evidence of Si, Fi, Ne, and Te in the description - I guess the only real question is in which order they belong. I appreciate your pointing out the instances of Fi - I usually have a hard time identifying that function in myself.

As for the daydreaming, wouldn't that be fairly common with any introverted type - well, really any type overall, I guess? I described the way I daydream in another thread: About Intuition - post 139

Stereotypes of the serious-minded workerbee aside, why do you think that wouldn't be common with Si as a dominant function?

On this point, I'd also like to hear from other ISTJs or SJs in general to see if they are comfortable with daydreaming.

For the time being, I'm sold on ISTJ - I'm feeling pretty comfortable with it. But, like I said, there's a 30-day exchange policy, so feel free to continue trying to dissuade me...

No problem, I enjoyed it.
I think I might as well mention the main reason why I'm doing this: from this forum you probably know how INFPs in particular have the biggest trouble determining their own type, well that was my case as well, I struggled for a couple of years (it was an on and off obsession) and at times felt very certain about being something very different (like ENTP), so now I feel sort of obliged to help others with it if I can. My goal is not to dissuade you, I don't think that ISTJ is any worse than INFP, it is simply to suggest another option, offer a different perspective, just in case.

I'm not so sure about daydreaming anymore, maybe I just got that impression from how it looks on the outside. But it wasn't my strongest argument against your being ISTJ.

However, I'd disagree with Zenihita's statement that ISTJs (or STs) are not daydreamers - some of them are really not (the friend and roommate of mine love fiction, but they both stated that it's just 'an escape from reality' which is 'not a fairy-tale'), but those with well-developed Ne may very well be (my boyfriend is a HUGE dreamer, and so is the other friend - I reckon they are more 'inclined' toward the ENFP flip-side).

Yes, I probably did go a bit too far with my STJs daydreaming assumptions, after all if they don't talk about it doesn't mean they don't do that.

And Ruthie, you might want to check out Interaction Styles, if you haven't yet.

 

[Tyrant]

I don't see what's hard to understand here - neither Ti and Fe were among Ruthie's top four functions. ENTp (or ENTP) is highly improbable.

Oh, you should've simply referred to Ruthie's post about her functional breakdown. Si and Te in Socionics differ from MBTI's. I'll tell you why I think Ti-ENTp, or maybe INTj. Judging by Ruthie's post, I don't believe she quite understands what Fi means. From answers and comments given in this thread, she seems to hold a great deal of uncertainty with it.

Fi: Without the context of external attributes, she has stated multiple times that she is left uncertain about interpersonal relationships with non-family (this is a sharp contrast) - if one can deal with this uncertainty of hers, shows it, and gives her reassurance, they win her over. Also, she has stated values without context are ultimately untrustworthy and useless to her. How does this sound like Fi dominance?

Fe: She also has seemed to misinterpret Fe - valuing Fe doesn't make you warm and nice, just ask the INTPs, even being a Fe-dom doesn't mean you fart out sunshine and empathy. Fe can be easily used to hurt someone. Her claim of how untrustworthy and useless personal values are without context would fit well with a Fe valuer. In her words, she uses a lot jokes, laughter (even at times fake to put people at ease) and banter in attempt to create a comfortable and light-hearted, emotional expressive atmosphere to make others to build a rapport. Fe valuing fits in quite nicely with everything she has said so far.

Fe typically draws on external manifestations of one's internal emotional state and draw conclusions from it about what's happening inside of you, what you are experiencing, how well you fit into the emotional context of the situation, whether you like or dislike what is going on, and what you may feel like doing next, etc. Of course, there's a lot more it to that, but Fe leading types are the ones most concerned and skilled at using this.

I love playing around with anything that can be categorized - I own marketing books, college guides, baby names books, and other random books of lists. Sometimes, I'll set up weird little cross-discipline research projects for myself, like the time I tried to figure out a correlation between most popular baby names and favored political candidates by state (trying to test whether there are some names that are favored by Democrats/Republicans). I love demographics in general, and enjoy coming up with elaborate stereotypes like that.

Finding enjoyment in discovering weird connections between seemingly pointless things like baby names and political candidates, I see that mainly as random eccentricity. How is this Te? Attempting to find logical relationships between most popular baby names and favored political candidates using state as a criteria to discover a bizarre phenomena just for the sake of it .... generating a correlation system in order to draw conclusions from them just for the sake of enjoyment. It's Ti+Ne. Do people forget Ti is generally focused on organizing and analyzing?

Fi: I usually dismiss this as having little or no value to me, because, like I said I have a hard time trusting personal values without context.

This is quite possibly the entire point of Fi. It makes absolutely no sense to suggest Fi dominance with the information given in this thread.

 

[NewEra]

^^Okay, I don't understand Socionics that well. I was just going off MBTI.

 

[Tyrant]

Doesn't matter about Socionics, ISTJ and INFP still doesn't make sense, which was the point of my post. Like you said (with ignorance), Ne, Ti are the same exact things in both systems, as well as Fi (the most important parts of the post), so you can't dismiss my post outright from a MBTI standpoint.

 

[Ruthie]

Oh, you should've simply referred to Ruthie's post about her functional breakdown. Si and Te in Socionics differ from MBTI's. I'll tell you why I think Ti-ENTp. Judging by Ruthie's post, I don't believe she quite understands what Fi means. From answers and comments given in this thread, she seems to hold a great deal of uncertainty with it.

Fi: Without the context of external attributes, she has stated multiple times that she is left uncertain about interpersonal relationships with non-family (this is a sharp contrast) - if one can deal with this uncertainty of hers, shows it, and gives her reassurance, they win her over. Also, she has stated values without context are ultimately untrustworthy and useless to her. How does this sound like Fi dominance?

Fe: She also has seemed to misinterpret Fe - valuing Fe doesn't make you warm and nice, just ask the INTPs, even being a Fe-dom doesn't mean you fart out sunshine and empathy. Fe can be easily used to hurt someone. Her claim of how untrustworthy and useless personal values are without context would fit well with a Fe valuer. In her words, she uses a lot jokes, laughter (even at times fake to put people at ease) and banter in attempt to create a comfortable and light-hearted, emotional expressive atmosphere to make others to build a rapport. Fe valuing fits in quite nicely with everything she has said so far.

Fe typically draws on external manifestations of one's internal emotional state and draw conclusions from it about what's happening inside of you, what you are experiencing, how well you fit into the emotional context of the situation, whether you like or dislike what is going on, and what you may feel like doing next, etc. Of course, there's a lot more it to that, but Fe leading types are the ones most concerned and skilled at using this.



Finding enjoyment in discovering weird connections between seemingly pointless things like baby names and political candidates, I see that mainly as random eccentricity. How is this Te? Attempting to find logical relationships between most popular baby names and favored political candidates using state as a criteria to discover a bizarre phenomena just for the sake of it .... generating a correlation system in order to draw conclusions from them just for the sake of enjoyment. It's Ti+Ne. Do people forget Ti is generally focused on organizing and analyzing?



This is quite possibly the entire point of Fi. It makes absolutely no sense to suggest Fi dominance with the information given in this thread.

This is interesting. With Fe, yeah, I definitely do use humor to build a rapport (BlackCat mentioned enneagram types earlier, and I believe that's a pretty common trait with 6s). But I also get very uncomfortable when an emotional response is expected of me. I like to "fit in," and I know that's a typical Fe thing - but honestly, don't most people do little things to get along in social situations... you know, like having the courtesy to ask another person about themselves, things like that? It's by no means what I'm most comfortable with, but I'm not a complete social outcast either.

The Fi one is interesting, because I feel like I do develop an internal values system and don't usually have much trouble knowing how I feel about something. I just don't trust that process, like it's unanchored from reality or something. It's actually similar to how I see Ne - being able to do it easily and trusting the result of it are two different things.

By the way, both my boyfriend and my brother are ENTP, and while I relate well to both of them and we have good conversations, we come at things from very different perspectives. They are both skeptical of the past and enthusiastic about change. I'm skeptical of change and enthusiastic about the past. They don't like most societal structures and are fascinated by personal and intellectual freedom. I believe only a sociopath is absolutely free, and that societal structures need to be preserved. They love and respect edginess and envelope-pushing just for the sake of controversy. I think any idiot can make a name for themselves by generating controversy... it doesn't require a lot of talent or imagination. Plus, they are both very extroverted and love being out and about. I'm more of a homebody, and would rather be caught up in my own little world with my thoughts, daydreams, and pet projects.

But even though most of our conclusions are opposite, the process with which we reach them is very similar. We relate very well, and often stay up late into the night discussing and debating our differing worldviews. That's what I mean about how I view Ne as one of my processes. I can play around with these thoughts and ideas as easily as they can, but they actually trust the conclusions they reach. I retreat. The ideas to me are just that - ideas. They're just ways to kill a few hours of mental play. I wouldn't want to live in a world that treated the past as disposable and continuously jumped on the bandwagon of any new idea.

 

[Space_Oddity]

Hi Ruthie,

if you're still interested in exploring other options than ISTJ or just verifying it, I'd like to ask you some questions which could shed some light. I'm not doing it to prove some obscure point of mine, I just think it would be interesting to explore more possibilities until the 30-days return policy is due Even if you are an ISTJ after all, I'd be glad to learn something more about them, because I really like them.

So, here it goes:

1) What is your goal / purpose in life?

2) Is it possible for you not to notice details in your environment? Or getting lost in thoughts to the point of being completely oblivious to your surroundings?

3) When you (for example) discuss theories with your brothers, do you rather point out discrepancies in details that don't correspond to your information or are contradictory with something that has been said before, or do you see the theory as a whole and try to a) get into the core and figure out the general meaning of it, notice symbols etc., or b) look for general analogies with other theories / experiences? Do you try to lead the discussion to a conclusion, or you're just playing with ideas?

4) Do you consider yourself an empirical person? Do you always trust and refer to past experiences? (I mean especially your personal experiences.)

5) Is it easy for your to analyze your feelings / feelings of others? Which one do you find easier: tuning into your own feelings, or the feelings of others?

6) Do you try to solve interpersonal situations with the help of reason, or you rather try to tune into feelings of those involved?

7) Do you think that when you're deciding, feelings and reason are inseparable? Which one do you constantly put higher?

8) Why does your brother think you're an INFJ?

9) (Ok, this is kind of lame but) How would you describe your clothing style? What is more important to you when it comes to your look (outfit) - the idea behind it, or the look itself? Or nothing at all?

So, that would be it... I hope it will be of some interest

 

[Ruthie]

Hi Ruthie,

if you're still interested in exploring other options than ISTJ or just verifying it, I'd like to ask you some questions which could shed some light. I'm not doing it to prove some obscure point of mine, I just think it would be interesting to explore more possibilities until the 30-days return policy is due Even if you are an ISTJ after all, I'd be glad to learn something more about them, because I really like them.

So, here it goes:

1) What is your goal / purpose in life?

This has definitely evolved over the past 6 or 7 years. I used to want to have a supporting role in, or at least a front-row view of, history. I wanted to play a part in the events of my times, so I would always be able to look back and say "I was there," and to fully understand the events of the external world during the years of my life. I hadn't thought it through very well though... the looking back part actually appealed to me much more than the actual living through it part, and my goals are much simpler now.

Now, I mostly I want a happy, stable life; I'd like marriage and children, I want to be able to spend holidays with family, go to Orioles games in the summers, and to chit-chat with the neighbors while I carry the groceries from the car to the house. I still have a bit of that be-part-of-history bug, but I think I've learned enough to believe I can feel a part of it without needing the supporting role/front-row view. Mostly now, I fantasize about being able to teach my future children about the times I've lived in, as well as the times that came before me, and to encourage them to participate in their time and to trust in the values I hope to pass down.

2) Is it possible for you not to notice details in your environment? Or getting lost in thoughts to the point of being completely oblivious to your surroundings?

Not only possible, it's extremely common. Sometimes I try to make myself focus on an actual object in my environment, and even then I can rarely do it. I'm definitely very caught up in my head and most times am completely oblivious to my surroundings. But for someone with no conscious ability to be in my environment, I have a pretty high degree of coordination. I'm good at most sports that require hand-eye coordination, I can juggle, I have an almost natural grasp of physics (not to be confused with an academic grasp of physics). Also, my memory is excellent, except for visual memory, which is terrible. But I seem to remember facts even when I didn't think I actually absorbed them at the time. Things are much clearer to me in memory than in actual presence in the moment. That's why I think Si is a very high function, and Se... not so much.

3) When you (for example) discuss theories with your brothers, do you rather point out discrepancies in details that don't correspond to your information or are contradictory with something that has been said before, or do you see the theory as a whole and try to a) get into the core and figure out the general meaning of it, notice symbols etc., or b) look for general analogies with other theories / experiences? Do you try to lead the discussion to a conclusion, or you're just playing with ideas?

I do all of those things to some extent. I usually have some idea or theory that has been bouncing around in my head for a while. I'll start by trying to iron out the dissonance in my own mind - justify the new theory in accordance with the belief system I've already established. Then I kind of anticipate what the counter-argument would be (I usually imagine my brother's likely points here). I'll collect points and facts to support the theory, and also draw analogies with other ideas, though I rarely go too deep into this. For instance, I'll draw a lot of historical or sociological analogies, but it would be highly unlikely for me to draw in ancient philosophy or art, ya know? By the time we get together, I already have a good idea of my new theory, how it fits in with a larger theory, and the necessary points to make my case. I don't really do any of this consciously... I'll just gnaw on an idea for a while until this process sort of happens. I'm pretty good at anticipating his counter-arguments, which sometimes makes me come across as obnoxiously presumptive. But I only do that with my brother, and he knows me so it's ok.

Weirdly, we mostly debate political theory which is something we generally agree on. We're both pretty far to the Left, but seem to come at it from entirely different motivations. So I guess most of our debate/discussions focus on the motivations rather than the resulting conclusions. Also, I wouldn't consider myself intellectually curious in general. If a topic falls outside my scope of interest, I don't feel a need to learn about it.

It's also important to remember that even though most of this probably sounds N over S, this is just my intellectual life - and not as important to me as how I actually live. I feel a very strong pull to be "home" that is much more powerful than the way I come up with these theories. I don't really like new experiences or adventures, and the intellectual part - while entertaining - is such a small part of who I am. You know how there are a handful of romantic comedies that deal with divorced couples getting back together? Those were always my favorites because they focused on coming back to something that was, rather than discovering something new. That feeling of wanting to be close to the past - whether my own past or just the past in general - is much stronger than the process I use to formulate ideas.

4) Do you consider yourself an empirical person? Do you always trust and refer to past experiences? (I mean especially your personal experiences.)

I'd say probably yes. I have a natural skepticism of things I can't observe. I don't remember believing in Santa Claus when I was a child, never believed in any conspiracy theories, and never really entertained the possibility of UFOs, other life forms, etc... I do however have a religious faith, which is obviously based on a belief of something I cannot observe.

5) Is it easy for your to analyze your feelings / feelings of others? Which one do you find easier: tuning into your own feelings, or the feelings of others?

Probably my own, but it's not something I really think about. I don't struggle to figure out how I feel about something, but I don't really focus on it either. With others, I feel like I can intellectualize where they're coming from, but I can't really empathize. Usually I end up giving advice that would help me if I were in their situation but doesn't take into account how they deal with the same set of problems. So, I end up thinking I'm good at figuring people out, but I'm only good at measuring their situation against how I would feel in that situation.

6) Do you try to solve interpersonal situations with the help of reason, or you rather try to tune into feelings of those involved?

Definitely reason. I don't overvalue reason as a solution, and I see a lot of shortcomings in its use, but I'm still more comfortable using it when trying to help others than I am tuning into their feelings.

7) Do you think that when you're deciding, feelings and reason are inseparable? Which one do you constantly put higher?

Don't know. I can be pretty impulsive when it comes to buying things - even major purchases like my house. But when it comes to personal relationships, particularly romantic relationships, I feel like I use reason pretty well. I don't get involved in relationships I know are doomed to fail from the start. I'm very cautious and don't get too caught up in romance.

8) Why does your brother think you're an INFJ?

I don't know that he knows functions theory. Pretty sure he just went letter by letter to determine what he thought. He thinks I'm F over T because I tease him for being overly rational. He thinks any problem can be reasoned through objectively, and I'm much more of a subjective thinker. He likes to entertain all kinds of possibilities, and I choose a side, stick with it, and build my arguments around it. Personally, I think that's more J vs. P, but he sees it as T vs. F.

As for the N vs. S, like I said, he doesn't know functions theory. If given the stark choice of N vs. S as its classically understood, I'd probably assume I'm an N also - mostly because I'm usually caught up in my head and don't notice the environment. But when you look at the functions, you can't miss the Si in me, and he would probably agree. He always gets after me for having such quirky and consistent routines, he knows I try harder than he does to "fit in," knows I prefer very realistic forms of entertainment, and he marvels at my ability to retain information, particularly dates. He also knows I'm drawn to the past and put a lot of trust in it, while he is highly skeptical of the past and is concerned by the fact that decisions are made on the basis of tradition. I don't think I fall back on tradition without thinking about it. But I would say that after I consider alternatives, I usually find tradition to be the comfortable choice and something worth defending.

9) (Ok, this is kind of lame but) How would you describe your clothing style? What is more important to you when it comes to your look (outfit) - the idea behind it, or the look itself? Or nothing at all?

I go with comfort. I love having jobs that let me dress down, and I wish every day were casual Friday. I wear very boring colors, and feel most confident when I blend in and am dressed appropriately for a situation.

So, that would be it... I hope it will be of some interest

Very interesting questions. I'm interested to see how my answers are interpreted...

 

[Space_Oddity]

Thanks a lot for the answers!

Well... as much as I'm trying to look at everything you wrote from an unbiased perspective, I'm still leaning towards an INFP. I'm leaning quite heavily, to tell the truth. I'll try to explain why.

While the main problem with this typing seemed to lie in the fact that you can't identify with Fi as a dominant function, I think that you've been unconsciously using it for all your life. From the very start I've found your desire to become a 'proper SJ' a bit suspicious - it's not like there's anything bad about SJs, it's just that I have yet to meet an SJ who would take so much pride in being an SJ. They just... are. *shrugs* Contrariwise, in your case it all seems to me like some sort of a vision you want to fulfill because you believe it's right - but that's all Fi. Your appreciation for history also doesn't seem any Te based to me - it sounds to me like you genuinely love it, and because of that love you want to contribute to it by both your values and your way of life. That's Fi as well. Besides that, you mentioned somewhere earlier that you & your 'SJ-ness' are very different from the rest of your family, which actually extremely reminds me of my INFP (aspiring ISTJ ) brother. My family is so extremely unstructured, N and P that he probably just said 'enough' one day and decided to follow a different set of values. Nevertheless, they were still values, and no matter how much of a thinker he'll become, he'll always be Fi+Ne deep inside, even if he doesn't take it seriously, just like you don't. (You talked about being an Enneagram 6w5 - having read the descriptions, I suspect my brother might be the same type. Perhaps the similarity with an ISTJ stems from this.)

I'll try to take your answers one by one and explain how I came to my conclusion.

1) What is your goal / purpose in life?
This has definitely evolved over the past 6 or 7 years. I used to want to have a supporting role in, or at least a front-row view of, history. I wanted to play a part in the events of my times, so I would always be able to look back and say "I was there," and to fully understand the events of the external world during the years of my life. I hadn't thought it through very well though...

This is all Fi+Ne, imo. It really sounds like a dream, like some sort of an NF vision. It doesn't matter if the vision concerns the future or the past; it's still a vision. The 'I haven't thought it through very well though' part seems fairly NP-ish to me as well.

Actually, it pretty much reminds me of myself as a young teenager. When I was around 13, I totally fell in love with English 19th century novels - living in the past seemed so much appealing to me than living in the present, which is in a way so ripped off imagination. I was confident that I'd be much better suited for the 19th century than the 21st. I wanted to show this love outwardly, so I started wearing 19th century-like outfits and strange hairstyles, and I couldn't care less about what others thought. Besides that, my imagination turned to the 19th century completely and I was constantly making up novels which took place there, and when we were swapping e-mails with my ENTP friend who was also into it, we managed to mimic the style of the novels with a decent mastery.

my goals are much simpler now. Now, I mostly I want a happy, stable life; I'd like marriage and children, I want to be able to spend holidays with family, go to Orioles games in the summers, and to chit-chat with the neighbors while I carry the groceries from the car to the house. I still have a bit of that be-part-of-history bug, but I think I've learned enough to believe I can feel a part of it without needing the supporting role/front-row view. Mostly now, I fantasize about being able to teach my future children about the times I've lived in, as well as the times that came before me, and to encourage them to participate in their time and to trust in the values I hope to pass down.

You said it yourself - 'I still have a bit of that be-part-of-history bug, but I think I've learned enough to believe I can feel a part of it without needing the supporting role/front-row view.' It sounds to me like you're mature enough now to be able to reconcile your dreams with reality and come up with a conclusion that is still kind of idealistic but not unrealistic. I think it's very wise of you, and I think it is a beautiful mindset.

2) Is it possible for you not to notice details in your environment? Or getting lost in thoughts to the point of being completely oblivious to your surroundings?
Not only possible, it's extremely common. Sometimes I try to make myself focus on an actual object in my environment, and even then I can rarely do it. I'm definitely very caught up in my head and most times am completely oblivious to my surroundings. But for someone with no conscious ability to be in my environment, I have a pretty high degree of coordination. I'm good at most sports that require hand-eye coordination, I can juggle, I have an almost natural grasp of physics (not to be confused with an academic grasp of physics). Also, my memory is excellent, except for visual memory, which is terrible. But I seem to remember facts even when I didn't think I actually absorbed them at the time. Things are much clearer to me in memory than in actual presence in the moment. That's why I think Si is a very high function, and Se... not so much.

Well... I don't want to disappoint you, but this is probably my main argument against you being a Si-dom. People with Si dominant and secondary have a natural grasp of details, and the details include the details in their surrounding as well. They are constantly 'in their environment'. If I'm not badly mistaken, this would be almost a definition of Si, and if it doesn't apply to you, you're probably neither a Si-dom nor a Si-secondary. Actually, I specifically asked my ISTJ boyfriend this particular question, because I found this fact very strange in your former posts; my boyfriend accuses me of 'spacing-out' all the time and he has overall a very good grasp of reality, and he answered no, it would not be possible for him not to notice his surroundings. I believe this is also the reason why other types often find SJs 'nagging' - but they can't help it, they just see discrepancies in the environment that others don't see or don't take notice of, and talking about it is as natural for them as it is for an NP to conjure up fancy theories.

I'd say that what is causing the biggest confusion here is the fact that you seem to consider Si a judging function (you're 'living your life according to Si'), but Si is not a judging function, Si is a perceiving function. It plays a chief role is taking in and processing information, but it does not effect how you judge the information. You seem to judge everything according to your firm set of 'Si values' - but Si are not values, Fi are values.

It is true that there are some qualities typically associated with the functions - for Si, it's appreciation of history and traditions etc. But the truth is, even though Si often does bring out these characteristics in its users, it is just a 'side effect' of their perception. Actually, in my opinion, all similarities and differences between people eventually boil down to the differences in their perception. This is the core of all typology, imo, not some mystical set of characteristics every type is bound to possess.

3) When you discuss theories...

I do all of those things to some extent. I usually have some idea or theory that has been bouncing around in my head for a while. I'll start by trying to iron out the dissonance in my own mind - justify the new theory in accordance with the belief system I've already established. Then I kind of anticipate what the counter-argument would be (I usually imagine my brother's likely points here). I'll collect points and facts to support the theory, and also draw analogies with other ideas, though I rarely go too deep into this. For instance, I'll draw a lot of historical or sociological analogies, but it would be highly unlikely for me to draw in ancient philosophy or art, ya know? By the time we get together, I already have a good idea of my new theory, how it fits in with a larger theory, and the necessary points to make my case. I don't really do any of this consciously... I'll just gnaw on an idea for a while until this process sort of happens.

This is a precise description of how Ne works. I construct theories in the exact same way.

As for the bolded part - you know, with my ISTJ boyfriend there's always the problem that he thinks he's got enough information to create any argument or counterargument. At the beginning of our relationship I always felt unnaturally self-conscious whenever we were discussing something, because he always did his best to break my theories into pieces with his factual arguments and I thought that he didn't appreciate my points of view and thought I was stupid. But then he specified that he didn't think I was stupid; he only thought I was misinformed. The factual basis of the theory is always no. 1 for Si-doms. Contrastively, for types who use Ne, the search for the analogies and connections between many different (sometimes pretty random) subjects will always be the priority. Ne is primarily open ('everything is possible'); Si is primarily skeptical ('only that which is based on solid facts is possible').

Weirdly, we mostly debate political theory which is something we generally agree on. We're both pretty far to the Left, but seem to come at it from entirely different motivations. So I guess most of our debate/discussions focus on the motivations rather than the resulting conclusions.

It reminds me of debates with my old ENTP friend. We understood where the other one was coming from very well, but we still could enrich each other with an entirely different point of view. It's the Fi+Te vs. Ti+Fe, I suppose.

Also, I wouldn't consider myself intellectually curious in general. If a topic falls outside my scope of interest, I don't feel a need to learn about it.

Same here

It's also important to remember that even though most of this probably sounds N over S, this is just my intellectual life - and not as important to me as how I actually live. I feel a very strong pull to be "home" that is much more powerful than the way I come up with these theories. I don't really like new experiences or adventures, and the intellectual part - while entertaining - is such a small part of who I am.

As I've stated above, if you want to discover your true type, you have to consider primarily the way you think, not the way you live. If your N function is higher than your S function, which I believe it is, you aren't an S. It's important to remember that any type can lead any life they choose. (That's why I'm convinced that MBTI is absolutely useless for example for career counseling, for which it is, paradoxically, used the most.) Exactly - how you think is such a small part of who you are. But in regards to typology it's vital.

You know how there are a handful of romantic comedies that deal with divorced couples getting back together? Those were always my favorites because they focused on coming back to something that was, rather than discovering something new. That feeling of wanting to be close to the past - whether my own past or just the past in general - is much stronger than the process I use to formulate ideas.

I also strongly prefer something that I know and love before something new. It's because of the strong feelings I have for the thing. I think it's the best, so why should I choose something new? I want to be loyal to the thing I like already. I admit that when I was a teenager, I did have a lot of dreams and sought change - 'the grass was always greener on the other side' for me (I'm talking about major decisions like changing school etc.). However, after I made such a change I started to miss my old life and longed for the previous one to be restored. (I absolutely HATE getting out of touch with old friends, for example, and try to prevent it as much as possible.) But then I kind of 'matured' (I guess) and decided to be satisfied with what I had. When I lost it as well, it was terrible beyond words.

I consider myself a very nostalgic person in general, so I can definitely relate.

(And by the way, I always love it when couples get back together, and not only in romantic comedies. 'Persuasion' by Jane Austen is one of my best-loved books ever.)

4) Do you consider yourself an empirical person? Do you always trust and refer to past experiences? (I mean especially your personal experiences.)
I'd say probably yes. I have a natural skepticism of things I can't observe. I don't remember believing in Santa Claus when I was a child, never believed in any conspiracy theories, and never really entertained the possibility of UFOs, other life forms, etc... I do however have a religious faith, which is obviously based on a belief of something I cannot observe.

In fact, I meant something a little different by my question - I was rather driving at the situation when people think that something will go wrong only because they've already seen something similar and it did go wrong. But your answer is also interesting - in fact, I can very much relate to that. I've never believed in Little Jesus (the variation of Santa in my country), I'm fairly skeptical towards conspiracy theories (it feels like people are connecting facts that in fact aren't related - talk about bad use of Ne!), and when my classmates at junior high were experimenting with magic and esoteric, I thought they were idiots. Contrariwise, from time to time my boyfriend gets obsessed with UFOs and conspiracy theories (not mentioning that my ISTJ friend used to be the chief 'witch' in our class ><), which seem to really disturb him, far more than they could ever disturb me, because I always have the 'everything is possible, even that not everything is possible!' mindset. Inferior Ne might either completely focus on one thing or completely reject it, just as it happens with tertiary Si.

5) Is it easy for your to analyze your feelings / feelings of others? Which one do you find easier: tuning into your own feelings, or the feelings of others?
Probably my own, but it's not something I really think about. I don't struggle to figure out how I feel about something, but I don't really focus on it either. With others, I feel like I can intellectualize where they're coming from, but I can't really empathize. Usually I end up giving advice that would help me if I were in their situation but doesn't take into account how they deal with the same set of problems. So, I end up thinking I'm good at figuring people out, but I'm only good at measuring their situation against how I would feel in that situation.

This pretty much excludes Fe, if it was still an option. Again, analyzing feelings = Fi; drawing analogies = Ne. In my experience, Ni types are more capable of giving individual advice because they can focus on the single situation, but for Ne types, it's more simple to relate it to something they know. I certainly do this too, and every INFP friend of mine does it as well. That's why it always feels good to vent to them, but I can't count with them for any real advice.

6) Do you try to solve interpersonal situations with the help of reason, or you rather try to tune into feelings of those involved?
Definitely reason. I don't overvalue reason as a solution, and I see a lot of shortcomings in its use, but I'm still more comfortable using it when trying to help others than I am tuning into their feelings.

This points to Te and excludes Fe once more. You seem to be pretty comfortable with Te, no question - but I don't think it necessarily excludes the Fi dominant. Personally, I had to learn to act a little more empathetic and warm towards people because I wasn't treated well at school and thought it was unfair of others, so I opened up a little more. But it's definitely not natural for me, and many INFPs I know seem pretty reserved to other people than closest friends, and I think we all try to give each other rather rational advice than feeling advice, because we know the other one needs it. However, when I talk to my ISTJ friends, I use more Fi, because they need help with that.

7) Do you think that when you're deciding, feelings and reason are inseparable? Which one do you constantly put higher?
Don't know. I can be pretty impulsive when it comes to buying things - even major purchases like my house. But when it comes to personal relationships, particularly romantic relationships, I feel like I use reason pretty well. I don't get involved in relationships I know are doomed to fail from the start. I'm very cautious and don't get too caught up in romance.

This again seems like a balanced Te and Fi. I used to be pretty impulsive when it came to romance, but as I'm getting older I also use reason more and more, even though my feeling (values) always wins. 'Stereotypical INFP' is impulsive when it comes to romance, but the reality is often different.

8) Why does your brother think you're an INFJ?
I don't know that he knows functions theory. Pretty sure he just went letter by letter to determine what he thought. He thinks I'm F over T because I tease him for being overly rational. He thinks any problem can be reasoned through objectively, and I'm much more of a subjective thinker. He likes to entertain all kinds of possibilities, and I choose a side, stick with it, and build my arguments around it. Personally, I think that's more J vs. P, but he sees it as T vs. F.

I agree with your brother on the first two - it definitely sounds like F. (I really can't imagine any of my ISTJ friends teasing someone for being overly rational! ) The last one might be a J thing, but as your dominant functions are most likely neither Si nor Ni, it seems to be a Fi thing. You choose a side which corresponds to what you believe in, I assume.

As for the N vs. S, like I said, he doesn't know functions theory. If given the stark choice of N vs. S as its classically understood, I'd probably assume I'm an N also - mostly because I'm usually caught up in my head and don't notice the environment. But when you look at the functions, you can't miss the Si in me, and he would probably agree. He always gets after me for having such quirky and consistent routines, he knows I try harder than he does to "fit in," knows I prefer very realistic forms of entertainment, and he marvels at my ability to retain information, particularly dates. He also knows I'm drawn to the past and put a lot of trust in it, while he is highly skeptical of the past and is concerned by the fact that decisions are made on the basis of tradition. I don't think I fall back on tradition without thinking about it. But I would say that after I consider alternatives, I usually find tradition to be the comfortable choice and something worth defending.

Again - as I've explained in my earlier post, I think your routines in fact indicate a lower position of Si, not the highest one. The memory for dates does point to well-developed Si at a certain level, but I've observed it in INFPs as well (my dad is a historian of architecture, my brother is an archeologist, and I had at least one INFP History teacher at high school). I think you remember it because you love it and find it entertaining - well, in areas that I'm very interested in, I have excellent memory for facts as well. To sum it up, I don't think anything you wrote above is exclusive with being an INFP.

9) (Ok, this is kind of lame but) How would you describe your clothing style?
I go with comfort. I love having jobs that let me dress down, and I wish every day were casual Friday. I wear very boring colors, and feel most confident when I blend in and am dressed appropriately for a situation.

Ok... it was a lame question. Clothing style probably isn't a reliable indicator when it comes to typing people.

Very interesting questions. I'm interested to see how my answers are interpreted...

I hope my interpretation has been at least a little valuable to you. I believe that you're an INFP who sticks to traditional values because they are beautiful. But in the end, all types are wonderful in their own way, so go with anything that feels comfortable. (But I'll always think you're an INFP, anyway! *stubborn*)

And now, let's get back to my homework!