Alternatum
New member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2011
- Messages
- 67
- MBTI Type
- Ixxx
- Enneagram
- 6
I had thought I was stuck between INFP/ISTJ (without ever looking like ISFP/ISFJ), until someone whose opinion I respect on another forum told me I'm “a clear NJâ€, based on observing my posts over the last half-year. Now I would never just assume this to be true, because unless I 'get' it at gut level, or there is proper 'objective' evidence (which there never is) I won't be typing as anything, but it is at least worth entertaining for the time being.
I do suspect that I am more J than P, but experience a lack of adequate use of extroverted thinking, probably explaining why I find it hard to form opinions and be decisive, especially with my ‘shape-shifting’ perceptions making things unclear. I often therefore wait for the ‘right’ choice to ‘emerge’ naturally, but whilst this often works, I experience myself as having poor extroverted perceiving, finding it hard to just improvise.
I am somewhat reluctant to discuss Te/Fe or Ni/Si preferences because it will probably just end in me arguing with Beebe model 'enthusiasts' (which appears to be expected to be automatically accepted as correct). Basically, using so-called shadow functions is analogous to Jekyll invoking Hyde (e.g. Te is the 'trickster' for INFJ, Si the 'demon'). I think Lenore Thomson's 'lasagne' model (in “Personality Type: an owners manualâ€) is more realistic and flexible, considering there is no objective evidence for 'predictable' functional ordering anyway.
Even though Lenore's descriptions of functions are better than what I've read elsewhere, I still have enormous trouble mapping them to myself. The problem with this system is I can't see past the surface descriptions to the cogs and wheels underneath, unlike the Enneagram where I eventually managed to see past the surface bullshit and see how I was a clear six.
Does anyone here agree that the degree of one's interest in the personal or inter-personal versus the impersonal is the main or sole criteria for deciding between F and T, rather than worrying about level of preference for each of the judging functions in terms of how this fits in with a (non-proven) functional model?
Lenore Thomson's account (not conclusive proof, I know) implies that INTJs that prefer Fi over Te are still INTJs NOT because this fits in with the requirements of a model so much as because they still prefer the 'impersonal' over the personal or inter-personal (I don't really understand how that works, other than that the Fi is apparently not used in a 'genuine' fashion).
I do suspect that I am more J than P, but experience a lack of adequate use of extroverted thinking, probably explaining why I find it hard to form opinions and be decisive, especially with my ‘shape-shifting’ perceptions making things unclear. I often therefore wait for the ‘right’ choice to ‘emerge’ naturally, but whilst this often works, I experience myself as having poor extroverted perceiving, finding it hard to just improvise.
I am somewhat reluctant to discuss Te/Fe or Ni/Si preferences because it will probably just end in me arguing with Beebe model 'enthusiasts' (which appears to be expected to be automatically accepted as correct). Basically, using so-called shadow functions is analogous to Jekyll invoking Hyde (e.g. Te is the 'trickster' for INFJ, Si the 'demon'). I think Lenore Thomson's 'lasagne' model (in “Personality Type: an owners manualâ€) is more realistic and flexible, considering there is no objective evidence for 'predictable' functional ordering anyway.
Even though Lenore's descriptions of functions are better than what I've read elsewhere, I still have enormous trouble mapping them to myself. The problem with this system is I can't see past the surface descriptions to the cogs and wheels underneath, unlike the Enneagram where I eventually managed to see past the surface bullshit and see how I was a clear six.
Does anyone here agree that the degree of one's interest in the personal or inter-personal versus the impersonal is the main or sole criteria for deciding between F and T, rather than worrying about level of preference for each of the judging functions in terms of how this fits in with a (non-proven) functional model?
Lenore Thomson's account (not conclusive proof, I know) implies that INTJs that prefer Fi over Te are still INTJs NOT because this fits in with the requirements of a model so much as because they still prefer the 'impersonal' over the personal or inter-personal (I don't really understand how that works, other than that the Fi is apparently not used in a 'genuine' fashion).