Am I really an INFP or something else?

[Iceblueblossom]

Heyho!

I know I only wrote a thread like this concerning subtypes about a month ago but since it really helped me gaining more perspective (and I am fairly sure about my type now) I thought I might ask you for your help concerning something that has been bothering me for quite awhile: my mbti. I've always felt like the system couldn't really explain my own experiences with my mind in a satisfying manner. And while I was telling myself that I will just settle with the type that describes me best (INFP) I still keep going back to it and question myself. I typed myself as INFJ in the past and quickly went back to INFP but now the option of being Si dominant (especially ISFJ) came up...

Now you might probably ask yourself how I could even be unsure about being INFP or ISFJ as those two are vastly different. I feel like alot of this confusion comes from me being a 9w1 and 962 tritype (though I am at times not so sure about the 2 part). I typed myself as INFP for many many years now and people for the most part don't question this typing though in groups where I was quite active people kept pointing out how strong my Si is. In fact, if not relying on what I explain about myself, most people would point it out as the function they are sure of. While I myself am pretty sure that I have Si and Ne in my stack I am not that confident whether I use Fi-Te or Fe-Ti. It mostly comes from the way that I relate to people and seem to show my sympathy to them. While I have my own bias towards this I can be wrong. Maybe if I show you where I get tripped up in my typing process you can help me to make things more clear. If you have suggestions that go beyond those types I am also willing to hear and consider! Thanks in advance!

Instant referencing to my own person
This is a huge part of how I interact with people and bothers me to no end as I know it is not exactly well received by most people. Whenever I communicate with others I tend to bring in my own perspective and especially experiences to the table. Whenever someone tells about something that bothers them or happened to them I am instantly comparing this to myself. Do I relate? What experience that I went through is it most like? It helps me to connect with people. I also use this as a way of bonding by saying "hey, I understand, here is my experience with it". It's an overwhelming feeling of "OMG ME TOO!" and it's almost impossible not to share for me. However, I often tend to project and assume things based on how they would feel to me. People tell me a story and I automatically fill in all the gaps assuming I know everything despite there being many more things I could have asked. In fact, I don't even understand how people come up with follow-up questions in the first place. I have to put in actual effort into thinking about what I could ask and what I don't know. Because of that the way I interact can be very self-focused even though I got the feedback from others that it doesn't really come across this way. I still notice that I am not 100% there in the experience of the person and am comparing, contrasting. This is one of the big reasons I went for Fi instead of Fe in the past but lately I ask myself if it could be strong Si as well?

Own opinions and morals
This one could be important. As a 9, I have a struggle to identify what exactly my values are and opinions are even harder. The way I experience morals is more of a "what am I SUPPOSED to do?" "what is the RIGHT thing to do?" though I am not sure if this purely comes from myself or not. To give an example: recently I saw two abandoned turtles (not from here) on a tree trunk in the water. While being confused by it first after talking with other people we came to the conclusion that they would not survive the winter outside. Everyone told me I would have to call a certain institution tough they themselves didn't bother doing it so I was left alone at the lake. I was thrown into a loop of anxious thought whether to call and switching between "I don't want to bother them, what if they jump into the water and disappear while I am here" and "I am doing a bad thing if I don't call right now and let those turtles die in the winter". I was also hoping for my mother (who I rely on too much for those kind of decisions despite me being a grown adult) to tell me that it's important or fine to call so I would be more in tune with my decision. This decision was taken away from me by the turtles jumping in the water and swimming away, leaving me the option of saying "it wouldn't have worked anyway". And this happens alot. I am very preoccupied by what I am supposed to do that would be "overall right and good" but I base those things often by what other people value. For example I didn't have a strong opinion about the covid vaccination until people kept talking about it and listing all the reasons why people who don't do it are immoral so I adapted the same view. I don't have an opinion on politics and listen to all the opinions of others first before I form my own and even then I can always understand why people would think another way. There are some things that I can't compromise on though though I wouldn't go out of my way to fight people about it. What I also noticed is that I am more likely to show strong responses and act accordingly if I happen to SEE something unfolding right infront of my eyes. I will not get very upset if people tell me about a story or a situation that is happening somewhere. I need to see the impact and the situation itself to get that kind of "sting" that would let me to having a strong opinion. Someone telling about a terrible story would often get a "oh wow, that sucks" reaction out of me even if I try to act up my emotions a bit to not seem rude. But seeing it unfold would most probably be a different story - though that would depend on what the situation is and whether I feel personally attacked by it or not. However, I am not sure if I base all my decisions off of values rather than thinking how other people would react to what I did. Though it's less about "I don't want this person to be affected by what I do" and rather "I don't want to deal with the emotional turmoil that it will occur if they are not happy / agree with my decision. So I am not sure if my Fi just considers alot of Fe values and that is how you could explain the tendencies...?

Authenticity
I always stick with social norms in interaction and think that being polite is more important than being honest most of the time. Though it doesn't change the fact that I feel like a fraud or like dying a bit inside if I say things like "I am so happy for you!" despite actually being very jealous on the inside. I see how I have to do those things in order to be accepted but at times I am overly aware of how different I can be when I can't "keep up" the act. I am bad at showing love and care, at telling people I really appreciating them unless I really feel it and especially with overly emotional responses. Though, I have to admit, I easily pick up "energies" from around me. So when deadling with a super emotional, loud, warm person, I will become one myself and be more likely to express in a similar way. On the other hand, when talking to a more quiet, logical type I will adapt myself to their energy as well. It is very hard to imagine myself having something "seperate" from the person next to me that I could bring to the table that are NOT my own experiences. It would feel very wrong to be super warm and loud with a person who is very quiet. At times I find myself having an existential crisis about not knowing who I really am and trying to fill that void with putting labels on myself (mbti, enneagram...) or identify with the things I like maybe a bit too much. Also very important to note: I don't feel as if my emotions are valid. I tend to wallow in them alot but at the end of the day I always approach myself as a "okay, you might have this feeling but it is not valid since it is not rational". So unless I see an "objective reason" to be upset about something I will push my emotions inside deep down and blame myself for having them in the first place.

Te vs Ti
I think when it comes to the thinking functions I relate way more to the Te approach. When working on a project I get slightly frustrated when people don't work in an efficent way and are still at the first task despite the time being almost over. To me it's always important to finish everything within the specific time given and using the time accordingly. While I am very bad at long term planning (a deadline that is in 2 months doesn't exist to me yet...) I notice this alot when doing tasks with a tight schedule. Another example is me being highly frustrated with mbti as a system. The reason being that every person seems to use different definitions of the functions. Some mix it with socionics terms, others advice not to, a person I know even reworked the system and rearranged function stacks. This makes me very angry for some reason. Because no matter how much I read and watch and discuss there will be never a "right" answer or a basis for discussion that is universal. We will not be able to have conversation if we don't know what system exactly we are referring to. A part of me just screams "just give me the right answer" "just tell me what type I am so I have my peace!". I am a person that wants closure in a way though I am also the same person who keeps digging this topic up whenever she settles for a type.

When it comes to Ti I always say that it is hilarious. I often even joke "where is my Ti???". Interestingly enough with my friends I am known as the very detail-oriented and logical person even though I don't really feel that way. I rely on other people to point out logical flaws in things (even my own speech and that HIGHLY triggers me), I rely on others for opinions and I learn most things by interaction with people or letting them explain things for me (videos also count) instead of doing the research myself. Also, as I already mentioned - I don't easily see what I DON'T know in a conversation and gloss over it. I only realise that my understanding is not complete when asked specific questions. I am pretty good with coming up with "educated guesses" though and giving a "it would only make logical sense if it would be that way" answers. Without actually knowing if that is the case. At times I also remember things that I heard or read somewhere but I don't quite know where I got this from. So spreading outdated / misinformation is definitely a danger to me. I think the way in which Ti could potentially show for me is probably the reason why my friends call me "logical" in the first place. When people come to me instead of only giving emotional support (which I can be bad and awkward with) I help them to figure out their situation and why it likely occured so they understand it. Also when things really interest me I can go hours and hours into "information absorbtion". When purchasing something big I will make sure to read EVERYTHING about that thing to not only make sure I get the best thing but also to get myself in the "mood". At the end I have specific topics am I VERY knowledgable about and if someone would ask me for advice about for example keyboards, monitors or microphones I could give them a 2 hour essay and guide to find the perfect fit for them. I can also easily integrate new knowledge into this system and in that way change my understanding of the thing and by that for example also my opinion on it. In general I think my opinions can be pretty flexible in the way that if someone comes up with a better explanation that makes sense to me I will readily adopt it. Though if something REALLY makes sense to me and I see the person infront of me making illogical claims I can get defensive about my point. Though that thankfully is not something that happens often. Overall I don't feel like Ti is VERY strong in me though I could also be wrong about that. When hearing Ti doms talk about needing to understand every single detail of something and it's workings to understand the concept I can't really relate. I am more of a big picture thinker.

Caring for people
As already stated the way I care for people is mostly through being generous with my times and offering advice / my own perspective on things. In the past I gave alot of emotional support in the way that I tried to talk peole through their mental health issues. This however made me feel terrible myself after awhile so now I prefer a more distanced approach. Though to be honest, I think compared to some people my approach was very distanced from the start. When it comes to the ISFJ I don't relate to the "nurse" and "nurturer" stereotype. I don't feel like I must do stuff for people - in fact, I am kidn of annoyed if people ask me for favours (unless they are very close friends and it's something I care about). I also watched a video awhile back when a person went heathily into the "treasure your ISFJ if they plan a party" and I just couldn't relate at all. While I like to communicate with people and feel better while doing it I don't feel the need to go out of my way alot of times (I am sp dom after all and not so). Either I get invited in something or I don't bother. However, when I am healthy I noticed I can go above and beyond to offer my help to people who are struggling. Though it is often out of a feeling of "doing the right thing" too. So yeah, while I DO help people I don't relate with the motherly warm stereotype at all. Which is what made me reconsider being ISFJ every single time.

Ne usage
I will list some things that I think could be my Ne (not) showing up. Also kinda in combination with Si. (Please note that many people told me I could possible have ADHD (though I am not very sure if I do have it? But keep it in mind...?)) Maybe it will help to figure out the position it will be in:
- I am always generating future possibilities with decisions I do. How will people react when I do this? How will that play out? How would that go with this option instead? The images are pretty vivid and I tend to jump around alot, often unable to make a decision (I once stood for 4 hours infront of a shelf because I wasn't sure which cookies to buy......)
- I have random bursts of energy when thinking about trying a specific thing but dropping it once it doesn't feel new anymore. Though things I actually enjoy I can put into a routine and keep at them for a long time.
- When planning out how to approach a new task I usually take a sheet of paper and start to write down whatever comes to my mind first. Collecting ideas - and I sort through them later using methods that I know worked in the past.
- Whenever I start a conversation my mind INSTANTLY generates the next logical / connected thing to say. While I am jumping to that connection I get a new idea. This is the reason why I can talk or write for hours without having an actual conversation partner.
- I am daydreaming A L O T. Mostly when I am listening music, but even without it. I tend to imagine scenarios like in music videos or insert myself into my favorite fandoms while being the main character and bonding with the cast. Besides that I also have constant debates in my head - for example, if I am struggling emotionally, I might imagine talking to my therapist and do a whole back and forth with them. This can apply with other situations too - even debating my own mbti.
- Negative "what if" scenarios that keep coming up whenever I think about trying something or something is approaching. I often think 20 steps ahead instead of focusing on one step at the time. This often keeps me from actually doing things in the first place
- I am in general not the most open person when it comes to new experiences or things that I could try. Some things just seem dangerous or unpredictable so I avoid it.
- While I go through different interests they all stay under the same umbrella. I love anime and everything to do with it. So streaming, drawing, singing and gaming all fall under the same sort of thing. Even mbti for me is often connected to trying to type characters. I rarely go out of my way to try something more "out there".

And lastly, some random things that could be helpful
- When I am angry or struggle I heavily rely on talking it out with other people. I often tend to understand myself more through that process. But I dislike showing strong emotions infront of others. Especially if those are bad emotions. When I try I do my best not to let others see it, I push anger away, in the past I also used to hide the fact that I laughed. It feels like emotions are an internal thing to me yet I can't really grasp them either
- As a child and teen I definitely had the typical "I am not like others" "I am special" "Nobody understands me" attitude. This slowly went away after awhile though parts of it are still present.
- I was always the good kid in school, following all the rules, trying not to cause trouble. Quiet, passive, doormat.
- At the same time I was overly emotional when my feelings were hurt or if I couldn't take the anger I built inside anymore (enneagram 9 says hello)
- I always felt uneasy when people didn't follow the rules or set outside structures
- I didn't have a "who am I" phase when I was growing up. I didn't ask myself many questions. I do now in my 20s though.
- I NEED schedules to function and I am good at setting them up but not always at following them. When nothing external is planned I tend to go insane because I can't at a good structure myself and be productive but I need it to be healthy.
- I am very good at keeping up with deadlines. I will never get things done without them. I will also never work consistently on a project if I still have time left but keep procrastinating until I rush through things.
- While I was doing creative writing I was never using emotional or artistic language. I also don't use metaphors. My language is very straight forward and honestly very dry. People told me my stories sound like a scientific paper
- People describe me as kind, shy, diligent, hardworking and easy to be around. When I originally tried to ask people what annoyed them about me when trying to find out my type most people couldn't really name things. The only things that came up from time to time were "you care too much about what others think" and "I can't always tell what you are thinking or if I annoyed you or not".

I think I will end this here. This was VEEEEEEEEEEERY long. If you read through this all: respect and thanks for your patience. Feel free to leave your impressions if you want!

 

[Iceblueblossom]

This question keeps coming up even a year later.
I would still appreciate some feedback on it!!

Recently during my teaching internship I was told that I don't excite my students as I am way too logical / structured about my lessons and am talking more about "you are supposed to classify this literature like this" rather than talking about interpretations and characters.
Stuff like this really makes me think at times

 

[Earl Grey]

@Iceblueblossom, from a first glance, the intense effusiveness combined with the very Extraverted Feeling-style of communication does seem like it could point to I-FJ.

You communicate very well and in a way that shows that you are used to, and comfortable with being able to conceptualise and share your thoughts in a way that prioritises understanding- that it is of great enough value to you. There is a sense of openness to 'polling' others about yourself that Fi individuals, especially high Fi, are generally very reticent about and find difficult doing. Your thought process- "I will put in the effort to make this as easy for you as possible (by explaining as much as I can) while being incredibly welcoming about it," - feels like a classic I-FJ + 9 combo (whether or not it actually comes across as easy is a different matter).

Not all Fi/Introverted Judgers in general are this way, but it stands out so much I would not be surprised if you were Fe/FJ.

Your 'share from your own experiences to connect' sounds superficially Fi at first, and folks who follow stereotype, especially the bit about 'Fi has its own thing and always references itself and Fe focuses on the other person only and ever' would give you Fi for that. But the motivation seems to be to gauge who you are talking to- it seems to be important to you if someone agrees with you or can agree with you, or is appealing to you in specifically a way that promotes a kind of social cohesion (whether or not it succeeds. Motivation is the focus here). It does seem like a Fe strategy. Don't listen to the folks saying 'Fi is the one and only self referential one ever'.

"I still notice that I am not 100% there in the experience of the person and am comparing, contrasting. This is one of the big reasons I went for Fi instead of Fe in the past but lately I ask myself if it could be strong Si as well?"
Indeed it seems like your priority isn't on the other person, but that's another Fe stereotype. Fe individuals can do this to test the 'social temperature' of where they are at. If you indeed are sp/so, it fits. Soc at times doesn't look at the individual person, but who they are and how they fit in within their community, without realising that they're ignoring the actual individual.

Think of a very bad classic unhealthy EXFJ soc 1, an extreme example of this. At worst, don't care of what you feel or who you are, as long as you comply and fit in- Fe doesn't necessarily mean they'll 'pay attention to the other individual'. Those might not be your motivations (it does not seem to be, it is only an example), but it does explain that just because you 'focus on yourself more than the other person', it doesn't necessarily automatically mean Fi. With sp coming higher than soc, it could be the classic 9 + sp/so tactic of figuring out where and how you fit in to maintain social equilibrium, so that you would be 'enough' for where you are and who you want to talk to, or at least inoffensive. As for your question as to if it is Si, it could be. But it seems more strongly like Fe rather than making any of the perceiving (N/S) types clear. For what it's worth, it doesn't seem Ni, however. Ni is very in-their-own-head in a way that you don't seem to be, but that's only a hunch.

"The way I experience morals is more of a "what am I SUPPOSED to do?" "what is the RIGHT thing to do?"
Wrong question. What makes something 'right' to you? What makes you think you are 'supposed' to do it? And- what do these things tend to be?
Though I must say, "Though I am not sure if this purely comes from myself or not." sounds very classic attachment triad (3, 6, or 9), but that much is stereotype.

Something about what you said, however-
"I don't want to bother them, what if they jump into the water and disappear while I am here" and "I am doing a bad thing if I don't call right now and let those turtles die in the winter"
There's that 'polling' in action. Both concerns have a commonality in them- which (perceived) social expectation do you break? Do you let animals suffer (bad thing)? Do you 'bother someone'? The concern is about things that lie outside of you. Judging (T/F) + E (So, Te or Fe). Not that Ti or Fi don't do this or don't think this way, but it is less likely their absolute first, kneejerk reaction. Especially high Fi can become incredibly embroiled in what they personally feel about the situation that they come across as 'self-absorbed' and selfish because they're focusing on how much it is so important to them that These Precious Turtles Survive No Matter What (or whatever it is that caught their attention) and stuck in a rut. It's very in-the-moment and not as procedural as J is, which is what leads to some of those Fi situations where they run in wanting to help but realising too late they didn't really think about how- just that they wanted to. Your concerns seemingly lie mainly in the procedure of the judgement here- "In order to do it, I must call X, but should I?" - but the chief issue isn't alleviating your own emotions but how you can be as inoffensive as possible to all parties (the 'social temperature') during the execution of your plans, which leans more to Fe + J.

This as well:
"but I base those things often by what other people value. For example I didn't have a strong opinion about the covid vaccination until people kept talking about it and listing all the reasons why people who don't do it are immoral so I adapted the same view."
It's very J-style polling. Te and Fe does this, and you seem to be of the feeling flavour, so Fe. The fact that you focus very strongly on the morals over the, or rather than the practicality on the issue and how it affects you personally as well suggests F (Fi, specifically) > T.

"Though it doesn't change the fact that I feel like a fraud or like dying a bit inside if I say things like "I am so happy for you!" despite actually being very jealous on the inside."
This just means you have a conscience and limits. Even Ts do this.

"I see how I have to do those things in order to be accepted but at times I am overly aware of how different I can be when I can't "keep up" the act."
Classic Fe + attachment triad and again, polling. Your judgement depends on externally-sourced factors, which is what Fe/Te is.

"On the other hand, when talking to a more quiet, logical type I will adapt myself to their energy as well."
Adapting to the social temperature. Fi + 9 also does this, but more to be inoffensive in general. I notice that they don't actually change themselves, they just be themselves, but smaller and quieter. There is a sense of reticence about them whereas with Fe, even with 9, I've always had the sense from them that they are *thinking*, "I have to do this." - very self-obligating.

"It would feel very wrong to be super warm and loud with a person who is very quiet."
Again judging what is 'correct' based off external factors. Question, though- do you think about whether the other person thinks if it is 'wrong' to not match your energy? Why is the 'energy-matching' on you?


I haven't read the rest. I may later.
Personally, as far as I've read, everything seems to uniformly point towards Fe, and I don't think it would be premature to say I do think I-FJ is a better fit for you.

 

[Iceblueblossom]

Wrong question. What makes something 'right' to you? What makes you think you are 'supposed' to do it? And- what do these things tend to be?
Though I must say, "Though I am not sure if this purely comes from myself or not." sounds very classic attachment triad (3, 6, or 9), but that much is stereotype.


"It would feel very wrong to be super warm and loud with a person who is very quiet."
Again judging what is 'correct' based off external factors. Question, though- do you think about whether the other person thinks if it is 'wrong' to not match your energy? Why is the 'energy-matching' on you?

Hello Anantashesha,

thank you so so much for your very detailed response! I really appreciate you going in depth about this!
I would really love to hear about your thoughts when it comes to the rest of the explanation but I am already very satisfied to hear about your answers / thoughts!

To answer the questions:

1) It's interesting to think about what makes me feel this impulse of "I have to". I think alot of it started with "I have seen certain people get respect and praise for being a certain way so I decided to get the same WORTH as them I need to be as selfless as possible and never do mistakes". I can be alot like an enneagram 1 in that regard (but more with an inner critic). Being a bad person (both with my actions and "deep down") is among my biggest fears which is why I hate being called selfish and self-absorbed. Which happened before unfortunately and really made me spiral down with self-pity. Some of the things I am "supposed to be" is everything that would make me a good person - interesting enough it's not always what other people would TELL me I need to be. But it's the things I noticed being valued the most. Being warm and friendly, relieable, logical, being able to talk through problems in a more detached way without getting personal feelings involved... and I tried to shape myself into the type of human being who would be all that. At the cost of my own well-being. Interestingly enough I still get told that it's impossible to read my emotions on my face, I seem to be super detached and have trouble connecting with people. That outward Fe approach is something I only took on throughout the years in order to get along with others. It doesn't always feel natural for me though. It might be my own high standards though.

And yes! I recently retyped to 963 (though I am not 100% sure about the heart fix) as I want to get attention and praise from others while being kind of uncomfy with too close contact.

2) Good question actually. I think to a certain degree I just take on the energy of that person naturally. It still feels like I am being myself - but I am showing different parts of myself. With introverted thinking types my more analytical, at times even sarcastic side can come out while I hide the bubbly "random" side of me. It can even be hard to access if the other person doesn't give this "input". I was told once "just be yourself" but also of times I don't even know how the "100% authentic" person of me would be. Even though I analyse myself all the time in search for such an identity. But I guess that could also point to Fe rather than Fi.

I have one question though:

You communicate very well and in a way that shows that you are used to, and comfortable with being able to conceptualise and share your thoughts in a way that prioritises understanding- that it is of great enough value to you. There is a sense of openness to 'polling' others about yourself that Fi individuals, especially high Fi, are generally very reticent about and find difficult doing. Your thought process- "I will put in the effort to make this as easy for you as possible (by explaining as much as I can) while being incredibly welcoming about it," - feels like a classic I-FJ + 9 combo (whether or not it actually comes across as easy is a different matter).

Why would this point more to IXFJ rather than Te? Isn't Te about outward expression of logic? I always assumed that me going into great detail (or rather: coming up with more things to talk about as I speak) would be more of an indication of Ne and the Te would also me with expressing myself. Also: Me asking for your advice in the first place rather than relying on my own Ti is also what I took as a possible Te behaviour. Also my need to be put into a box hahaha.

But yeah, thanks again, I will think about it some more!

 

[Earl Grey]

And yes! I recently retyped to 963 (though I am not 100% sure about the heart fix) as I want to get attention and praise from others while being kind of uncomfy with too close contact.

Funny. I was about to suggest 3-fix for you, but a bit higher- 936, but I cannot say definitively. It looks like you're on it already at least- that's good. You're not the 3 stereotype of the money hugry power grabbing ladder social climber. I do think that people get E3 wrong a lot and for you to type as 3-fix when you are obviously not the aforementioned stereotype indicates that you understand it well and have looked beyond the "I am nice so I must be 2." shenanigans with E2.

Yes, you are very chameleonic, your strategies are very strongly attachment type while seemingly disregarding your own feelings, or at least being more focused on the external than internal, exacerbated by the fact that you are 9 first. Even from your old OP I did not quite get the sense of double positive, or at least not that high in your tritype, for you. It wasn't that I saw things that would necessarily take away from 2, but there was an abundance of 3 over 2. I've tinkered around my mind for a while about a 'phobic' variant of E3 and if there ever was one, the kind of 3-fixer you are would be it, but I digress. You sound like you'd be a 3w2 for wing.

Question, why are you uncomfy with close contact? Is it universal or only towards certain types of people (arrogant people, rude people, etc), or certain circumstances (you are not close enough yet, you work with them, etc)? It seems to contradict your saying you 'like to connect', so I'd like to understand.

2) Good question actually. I think to a certain degree I just take on the energy of that person naturally. It still feels like I am being myself - but I am showing different parts of myself. With introverted thinking types my more analytical, at times even sarcastic side can come out while I hide the bubbly "random" side of me. It can even be hard to access if the other person doesn't give this "input". I was told once "just be yourself" but also of times I don't even know how the "100% authentic" person of me would be. Even though I analyse myself all the time in search for such an identity. But I guess that could also point to Fe rather than Fi.

Interesting. It's like you are a mirror- what you show depends on what is the outside. This is less about authenticity and about how you decide to deal with socialrelated fields- people have many different strategies for this. For instance, some are confrontational and elitist, some are friendly, etc- the root, the source is them going "I'm seeing this person. How do I deal with this?" and acting according to what they think the right answer is. Yours appears to be to maintain some kind of social cohesion and you are skilled and chameleonic enough to adapt to an array of people. Typically Fe, yes. And also quite typically 9 and/or 3.

I have one question though:

Why would this point more to IXFJ rather than Te? Isn't Te about outward expression of logic? I always assumed that me going into great detail (or rather: coming up with more things to talk about as I speak) would be more of an indication of Ne and the Te would also me with expressing myself. Also: Me asking for your advice in the first place rather than relying on my own Ti is also what I took as a possible Te behaviour. Also my need to be put into a box hahaha.

But yeah, thanks again, I will think about it some more!

It was an outward expression, but not of logic, just of yourself- structured in a way that makes sense perhaps, but it was not of logic, it was simply data- of yourself. It is structured following some kind of logic, but the data itself isn't logic, data is data. And- "Isn't Te about outward expression of logic?"- not necessarily, or not exclusively. All types can be quite verbose, try getting suck in an underground lab with one of those crazy-scientist-level INTP 5s. They would also be incredibly logical, but they are not Te/TJ. Outward expression of logic is also nowhere near the exclusive realm of TJs, take the typical stereotype of EXTP debaters, for instance.

It would not necessarily be an indication of Ne. It depends on the context and type of information. Ne's stereotype is the whole "OOO SQUIRREL!" and while I do think that is an incredible stretch (though I have met E--Ps like that...), the truth in the stereotype is in that E--Ps are generally very self-referencing and self-gratifying. Especially with the ones with strong Fi and perhaps of the soc last, E4 variant, they don't care that you don't understand them. They understand it and it's enough. The worst of this stereotype comes out for all E--P types- they just can't shut up. They don't care that you don't understand what they're saying. They want you to see the world through their eyes- E-TPs especially have a reputation for being argumentative. It's like they have their own language and system.

J (Fe and Te), on the other hand, adapts external languages and systems- it is standardised, efficient, and most importantly, comprehensive, easily communicable. Their statements, no matter how verbose, tends to come to a point instead of going on tangents- that is what your OP was. Very long, yes, but informative, clear, directional, and with a purpose in mind. It's definitive- "These are what I could be, and here are the reasons". Typically, that is J. And the 'asking for your advice' can fall into the typical 'polling the external' behaviour of J (Fe, Te) + attachment types as well. This does not mean that they blindly follow outside sources, or are dependent on them necessarily (but they can be), but that they put a premium on outside sources when making judgements. They prefer to move and influence, or relate to the outside than in. Some do it by conforming, some do it by understanding it, some do it by conquering it- it's a spectrum. The best stereotype of this are E-TJs- lots of interacting, lots of immersing in systems, lots of logistics, lots of moving parts, but the commonality is that they are all interacting with or creating an 'external system'.

Aside from that, you are highly people-oriented and moralistic and you have also not provided any examples of Te reasoning. Take the example of the turtles as well, there is very little about logistics aside from knowing that you will have to call someone, which is the barest of minimums and that anyone should be able to do, T or F. Your concerns were chiefly F- on the people and 'social temperature' sort.

 

[Earl Grey]

1) It's interesting to think about what makes me feel this impulse of "I have to". I think alot of it started with "I have seen certain people get respect and praise for being a certain way so I decided to get the same WORTH as them I need to be as selfless as possible and never do mistakes". I can be alot like an enneagram 1 in that regard (but more with an inner critic). Being a bad person (both with my actions and "deep down") is among my biggest fears which is why I hate being called selfish and self-absorbed. Which happened before unfortunately and really made me spiral down with self-pity. Some of the things I am "supposed to be" is everything that would make me a good person - interesting enough it's not always what other people would TELL me I need to be. But it's the things I noticed being valued the most. Being warm and friendly, relieable, logical, being able to talk through problems in a more detached way without getting personal feelings involved... and I tried to shape myself into the type of human being who would be all that. At the cost of my own well-being. Interestingly enough I still get told that it's impossible to read my emotions on my face, I seem to be super detached and have trouble connecting with people. That outward Fe approach is something I only took on throughout the years in order to get along with others. It doesn't always feel natural for me though. It might be my own high standards though.

Missed this. This also seems like E3. There's a sense of about 2 of 'needing to prove they are worthy' as well, but they are a rejection type. They tend to do it by denying themselves things- there is an aspect of themselves that ironically 'moves away' from the interaction. It's very idealised- goes with them being in the positive outlook triad- but as ideals go, they are at times out of touch with reality. Less adaptive. There can be a sense of 'holier than thou' about them. They go for the idea of whatever it is they think would help them escape that rejection. Smothering at worst.

E3 moves more towards others- attachment type, after all. E3 feels like the person going through a room, looking at what the best of every person is and adapting it to themselves. E2's "How can I be a good person?" VS E3's "How can I be a good person like that person?" - there is a lot more back-and-forth feedback with the external with the 3 (what I mean by moving towards others)- you can't be the best if you don't know your competition, after all. With lower health E3 and the worst of their stereotypes, they have no identity of their own, taking the best they see from others to slowly perfect their own presentation. Needlessly competitive and duplicitous at worst.

You are not E3 core, so these tendencies will be more muted, but there is a clear trend towards that direction. What you say in what I bolded of your quote above is ... very classic E3. It could still be E2, but combined with everything else, E3 seems to fit more- E3 methods filtered by E9 core motivations. E3s take the shape of whatever they think would be the most desirable or infallible to others, and-
"Some of the things I am "supposed to be" is everything that would make me a good person - interesting enough it's not always what other people would TELL me I need to be. But it's the things I noticed being valued the most. Being warm and friendly, relieable, logical, being able to talk through problems in a more detached way without getting personal feelings involved... and I tried to shape myself into the type of human being who would be all that."
-seems to be your idea of what is desirable or infallible. It just coincidentally aligns with the stereotypical external presentation of 2s. Motivations and methods check out for 3 more. Underlined is the underlying thought process- E3. You were able to (and interested in) intuiting what the best 'social currency' was and you gather it, but it is, again, externally dependent in the way attachment types usually are, as well as disregarding your personal input in favour of mirroring the ideal external- attachment, and possible competency (1, 3, or 5) triad.

 

[Iceblueblossom]

Yes, you are very chameleonic, your strategies are very strongly attachment type while seemingly disregarding your own feelings, or at least being more focused on the external than internal, exacerbated by the fact that you are 9 first. Even from your old OP I did not quite get the sense of double positive, or at least not that high in your tritype, for you. It wasn't that I saw things that would necessarily take away from 2, but there was an abundance of 3 over 2. I've tinkered around my mind for a while about a 'phobic' variant of E3 and if there ever was one, the kind of 3-fixer you are would be it, but I digress. You sound like you'd be a 3w2 for wing.

Interesting!! I actually thought about being more of a 3w4 as I want to get attention for being a good person "by myself". So I can feel like people like the way I am deep down. And I am also doing content of things that are important to me personally. So getting attention for what makes me passionate would mean alot to me.
Though yes, I change "who I am" quite a bit for other people and I am contradicting myself by feeling the need that the way I am is not something that can be respected (though I refuse to change TOO much for people if I feel uncomfortable with it). I think I didn't relate to the extroverted nature of the w2, though maybe that would be different if looking at it through the lense of my main enneagram type. Nice to see that my analysis of myself was correct then! Makes me more sure of my own evaluation and typing that way. It would also explain alot of my tendencies (for example being unsure whether I integrate or disintegrate to 3 as I see negative parts and also positive parts of the 3 in myself).

Question, why are you uncomfy with close contact? Is it universal or only towards certain types of people (arrogant people, rude people, etc), or certain circumstances (you are not close enough yet, you work with them, etc)? It seems to contradict your saying you 'like to connect', so I'd like to understand.

It is mostly the "people want things from me" thing. A bit like some 5 tendencies actually. A part of it is certainly my bad mental health for sure (diagnosed depression). But I like people to like me and to see me as someone who is worthy, a good person, nice to talk too. But oftentimes I am not comfortable with people getting too pushy. Wanting me to show warms emotions towards them (especially if we are not really close), wanting to meet up, wanting social niceties from me. I got told many times that I can seem pretty distant and don't reach out to people. I have no issues doing this online (and even then my communication style is more detached and not the classical "OMG I AM SO HAPPY FOR YOU " style) but with people I know personally, unless we are super close, I feel like I need to put on an external barrier. If I am REALLY attached to a person I can get clingy though. It's an interesting duality. It's the same online for whenever people from my community want to interact with me (messaging me, wanting to be my friend). I don't have the mental energy to get friends with everyone and I get uncomfortable with people getting way too attached. It's like they expect me to give something back and when I can't, because it doesn't feel like I can do it at the moment, because I don't feel it, I feel like I disappoint the people. It's like at times my "being a normal human being" batteries are gone and I can't force myself to do the social game anymore. The same with dating (dating is actually the worst instance for this because the people not only want friendship, they want MORE and they want it FAST). I got multiple complaints already of me supposedly not asking questions to them and not showing interest in getting to know them (even though,again, my lack of questions is mostly coming from a tunnel vision on topics, me not being able to think of an organic question or... to be honest ACTUALLY not having something that would interest me about them that much). It is frustrating at times and I feel most at ease with people who I don't have to keep up this "act" anymore. Where I can just bounce my thoughts off of them, sharing my opinions and emotions and where it is okay when I am not the most emotionally nurturing person. Even though I at times cringe at my own spam messages of me overanalysing things (like I am doing right now).

It would not necessarily be an indication of Ne. It depends on the context and type of information. Ne's stereotype is the whole "OOO SQUIRREL!" and while I do think that is an incredible stretch (though I have met E--Ps like that...), the truth in the stereotype is in that E--Ps are generally very self-referencing and self-gratifying. Especially with the ones with strong Fi and perhaps of the soc last, E4 variant, they don't care that you don't understand them. They understand it and it's enough. The worst of this stereotype comes out for all E--P types- they just can't shut up. They don't care that you don't understand what they're saying. They want you to see the world through their eyes- E-TPs especially have a reputation for being argumentative. It's like they have their own language and system.

It's funny because if you didn't say that my messages are structured another way I would have thought that this is exactly how I am: Can't shut up, don't care if the person understands and very self-referencing. I think you are getting why I am mistyping myself for maaaany years now, huh?

Also I assume you are excluding the possibility of EXFJ? I never seriously considered it but some of the Ti inferior signs resonate with me. Though I guess because of the things I mentioned I can't really see myself being Fe dominant.

@Anantashesha

 

[Earl Grey]

Interesting!! I actually thought about being more of a 3w4 as I want to get attention for being a good person "by myself". So I can feel like people like the way I am deep down. And I am also doing content of things that are important to me personally. So getting attention for what makes me passionate would mean alot to me.
Though yes, I change "who I am" quite a bit for other people and I am contradicting myself by feeling the need that the way I am is not something that can be respected (though I refuse to change TOO much for people if I feel uncomfortable with it). I think I didn't relate to the extroverted nature of the w2, though maybe that would be different if looking at it through the lense of my main enneagram type. Nice to see that my analysis of myself was correct then! Makes me more sure of my own evaluation and typing that way. It would also explain alot of my tendencies (for example being unsure whether I integrate or disintegrate to 3 as I see negative parts and also positive parts of the 3 in myself).

Interesting. I do not quite understand E4, so I cannot speak much for it, but I can say that there were more indications of 2 than 4 in what you said. No one is 100% the traits of any type, so having a bit of '4-ish' or '4-like' traits if you were a w2 (or vice versa) isn't too important. The self-rejection lends itself to 2 more, and there is a certain dramatism I associate with 4s- they 'feel' things for the sake of it, to experience it.

With 2s, there's more self-questioning there- "Is this the right path? Am I still on the right path?" - whereas 4s tend to be more indulgent and unapologetic, and I did not get that vibe from you. You seem quite careful and tentative, questioning. But again, you are 9 core, and your 3 is only a fix, so this is relatively minor and you may indeed be 4 and have more 4 inclinations than you have displayed here- 9 being a positive outlook type may mask your being w4. Perhaps it being only a wing could account for why it is relatively invisible-seeming. It may or may not be correct, but that is my reasoning.

For what it's worth, I had the sense of you having a line of integration to 3 before I saw that you typed as 9-core. There's a certain energy about you (not a high level one, but some kind of energy I can't quite describe) reminiscent of, specifically, 3/integration to 3. Of someone trying harder and figuring things out in the realm of E3 matters.

It's funny because if you didn't say that my messages are structured another way I would have thought that this is exactly how I am: Can't shut up, don't care if the person understands and very self-referencing. I think you are getting why I am mistyping myself for maaaany years now, huh?

I'm not surprised. But someone who thinks that way is someone who is concerned about it, and people tend to put in effort into things they are concerned about. You may be underselling yourself here- perhaps unconsciously staying safe by thinking you may not be that structured yet in order to keep striving to be?

If this version of you is one that 'doesn't care if the person understands you', I wonder how much more clarity the one that does, has.

People, especially around their 20s tend to not have a clear idea of themselves yet- not that they don't know who they are, but they haven't quite put words to it yet. It's there, but unnamed. You know what it is, just not what it's called, and where it lies on the scale. In a village of arrogant people you would be the 'most humble' person there, yet it takes referencing from other people and balancing out their input to figure out where you lie- it's hard to tell where exactly if you lie if you have no measurement (or wonky references), and with life comes the experience and knowledge required to make sense of it- how extensive the scale goes, and where you lie on it.

It is mostly the "people want things from me" thing. A bit like some 5 tendencies actually. A part of it is certainly my bad mental health for sure (diagnosed depression). But I like people to like me and to see me as someone who is worthy, a good person, nice to talk too. But oftentimes I am not comfortable with people getting too pushy. Wanting me to show warms emotions towards them (especially if we are not really close), wanting to meet up, wanting social niceties from me. I got told many times that I can seem pretty distant and don't reach out to people. I have no issues doing this online (and even then my communication style is more detached and not the classical "OMG I AM SO HAPPY FOR YOU " style) but with people I know personally, unless we are super close, I feel like I need to put on an external barrier. If I am REALLY attached to a person I can get clingy though. It's an interesting duality. It's the same online for whenever people from my community want to interact with me (messaging me, wanting to be my friend). I don't have the mental energy to get friends with everyone and I get uncomfortable with people getting way too attached. It's like they expect me to give something back and when I can't, because it doesn't feel like I can do it at the moment, because I don't feel it, I feel like I disappoint the people. It's like at times my "being a normal human being" batteries are gone and I can't force myself to do the social game anymore. The same with dating (dating is actually the worst instance for this because the people not only want friendship, they want MORE and they want it FAST). I got multiple complaints already of me supposedly not asking questions to them and not showing interest in getting to know them (even though,again, my lack of questions is mostly coming from a tunnel vision on topics, me not being able to think of an organic question or... to be honest ACTUALLY not having something that would interest me about them that much). It is frustrating at times and I feel most at ease with people who I don't have to keep up this "act" anymore. Where I can just bounce my thoughts off of them, sharing my opinions and emotions and where it is okay when I am not the most emotionally nurturing person. Even though I at times cringe at my own spam messages of me overanalysing things (like I am doing right now).

Also I assume you are excluding the possibility of EXFJ? I never seriously considered it but some of the Ti inferior signs resonate with me. Though I guess because of the things I mentioned I can't really see myself being Fe dominant.

What you say here answers why not E, or at least why it is unlikely. When I first read your OP, I VS E was up in the air- I personally consider it the least important dichotomy in MBTI regardless. Changing T/F, N/S, J/P changes your functions- E/I only changes the order (eg, INFP is Fi Ne Si Te, ENFP is Ne Fi Te Si). That being said, Introversion seems clearer now due to the low energy, and a tendency to be careful and conserve. For what it's worth, 9s and 5s are often confused for each other because 5's low energy can mimic 9's maintaining equilibrium, which can involve not wanting to be overextended (their idea of what overextends them depends on the individual). They can both come across as very unmotivated, reticent, and stingy with themselves as a result. I can see why you drew from 5 as an example.

Look at this: https://personalityplaybook.com/2014/09/21/mbti-step-ii-the-40-facets-of-the-16-types/ and go to the Extraversrion VS Introversion facet. MBTI is about cognition and the direction your energy goes to- external or internal, and to a degree the amount of energy level you have about it. External usually correlates positively with higher energy levels since, well, to interact with the external you have to actually do things. I'm not sure if you're aware if I/E in MBTI isn't strictly about social introversion and extroversion, but in case you don't, now you know.

The examples of distance you have given involve ... strangers. Essentially, "I do not want to get buddy buddy with strangers." That isn't even out of the ordinary.For what it's worth, what you say above seems rational and just run of the mill introversion. People don't always want to talk to everyone they see, even social extroverts. It's not indicative of any type other than perhaps Introversion. "I get uncomfortable with people getting way too attached." is also a typical way people with people-pleasing tendencies tend to try defend against people trying to worm in and take advantage of that, what with how much difficulty they have saying no. It doesn't come across as unfriendly, just justifiably defensive, and does not take away from your overall friendly demeanour.

That being said,
"(and even then my communication style is more detached and not the classical "OMG I AM SO HAPPY FOR YOU " style) but with people I know personally, unless we are super close,"
is surprising. You do not come across to me as detached at all, even a bit. Friendly. In the middle, at the very least. (You even said "Hello Anantashesha." It's not what decides it, but adds to it, and I must admit is funny). You are not overly effusive, but you have not come across as detached, either. Just because you aren't effusive, it doesn't mean you are the opposite, but then again I have only known you for the however many minutes it took for me to read what you post on this thread.

However, put together, it makes sense. If you come across as friendly and seemingly open, 'shutting people out' when they thought they were being invited comes across as, well, distant. You may seem more open (to friendship) than you actually are. That could be why you are friendly yet called distant, because again, you have been quite friendly here. You mention as well about 'keeping up an act'- people can be used to expecting that as a default from you and any lesser can come across as "something is wrong", which, with your temperament, I would guess that you wouldn't tell them, thus it seeming like distance. I guess it is a form of distance, but again, reasonable and not distant overall. I can see why you would be called distant but I disagree with what I've seen so far.

 

[Iceblueblossom]

For what it's worth, I had the sense of you having a line of integration to 3 before I saw that you typed as 9-core. There's a certain energy about you (not a high level one, but some kind of energy I can't quite describe) reminiscent of, specifically, 3/integration to 3. Of someone trying harder and figuring things out in the realm of E3 matters.

Oooh, again, interesting!! It was indeed told that I "take up space" more than a usual enneagram 9 would - in a good way. I guess having a 3 fix might help with that as I myself am not really healthy. Or at least I am struggling with many things at the moment. Though that would beg the question whether "healthy" refers to mental health or not. As I might be a more healthy version of the type 9 while also struggling (with disintegration etc).

Look at this: https://personalityplaybook.com/2014/09/21/mbti-step-ii-the-40-facets-of-the-16-types/ and go to the Extraversrion VS Introversion facet. MBTI is about cognition and the direction your energy goes to- external or internal, and to a degree the amount of energy level you have about it. External usually correlates positively with higher energy levels since, well, to interact with the external you have to actually do things. I'm not sure if you're aware if I/E in MBTI isn't strictly about social introversion and extroversion, but in case you don't, now you know.

Yes, I was quite aware of the difference between social and cognitive introversion and extroversion though to me personally it was very hard to figure out. I think I could see both for myself and I tend to be energised by people (if it's not too many). I think I might be socially introverted but get energy by DOING things (if I actually start doing them is another question). But yeah, when I am stressed I definitely redraw instead of relying more on my extroverted functions.

is surprising. You do not come across to me as detached at all, even a bit. Friendly. In the middle, at the very least. (You even said "Hello Anantashesha." It's not what decides it, but adds to it, and I must admit is funny). You are not overly effusive, but you have not come across as detached, either. Just because you aren't effusive, it doesn't mean you are the opposite, but then again I have only known you for the however many minutes it took for me to read what you post on this thread.

However, put together, it makes sense. If you come across as friendly and seemingly open, 'shutting people out' when they thought they were being invited comes across as, well, distant. You may seem more open (to friendship) than you actually are. That could be why you are friendly yet called distant, because again, you have been quite friendly here. You mention as well about 'keeping up an act'- people can be used to expecting that as a default from you and any lesser can come across as "something is wrong", which, with your temperament, I would guess that you wouldn't tell them, thus it seeming like distance. I guess it is a form of distance, but again, reasonable and not distant overall. I can see why you would be called distant but I disagree with what I've seen so far.

I DO think I am friendly (or try to be), but in personal interaction this warmth doesn't always come across I think unless I really put emphasis on it. I got told that my facial expressions and reactions are hard to read, again, that I can withdraw, seem uninterested etc. I think what those people mean is that I am not really outwardly connecting or going out of my way to initiate closeness. I am nice once you get to know me and I am very uncomplicated and "chill" but I don't try to make other people feel comfortable with actual effort (try to make people laugh, buy or bake something for them, again, asking questions, show interest). You might be right, that my initial impression is different from what I tend up presenting to others, that is true. I noticed that people usually get super drawn to me and want to become friends with me but end up going away, as if they have seen something they don't want to deal with.

Also, to kind of quote my mother on this topic: She ironically said that I am bad at being a chameleon and changing myself for the social situation whenever I need to. Bad at seeing how each person individually wants to hear, access the situation and act accordingly. Apparently I am more "aloof" to that and end up treating everyone the same. Again, interesting, since it's not something I recognise myself (not) doing. This made me think whether me seeing myself as adaptable is a mistake and I am more static than I thought I am.

Also, I think you being an ISTP we might have very different ways of looking "distant" to others. Though I can't say for certain since I don't know you. You also don't give off that impression to me over text and I am only judging based off of obvious stereotypes (sorry if that was completely wrong).

 

[Iceblueblossom]

@Anantashesha, btw, a little question I have:

I've seen time and time again that people harshly judge others when it comes to not living up to a social code - being rude, being mean to others, etc etc.
"I would never be friends with people like that" "If people don't respect trans rights then I am not letting them into my friend circle".
I've read time and time again that this is some sort of harsh Fe judgement (at least partly) of wanting everyone to act the same.
Would you agree with that statement or not?

Because I have a ton of different friends - regardless of whether I agree with their views or not. If they accept me personally and I get along with them I don't really care THAT much. Yes, I do educate whenever their behaviour or views backlash and tell them why people were angry. But at the end of the day I get along with those people. Some people were really angry at me in the past for being friends with these guys and started avoiding me for that reason.

I think I can get pretty judgy about things like that too, but only when it comes to very specific things that are special to me. For example, I have a friend who shared similar views to me when it comes to relationships, but after his first experience ended up sleeping with alot of woman and seeing them as a way to get the "release" he wants. I really started to have resentment for that person. If it wasn't something I personally was so convinced of I wouldn't have become so passive aggressive. Still, we are still friends. But I try not to talk about this topic anymore.

In my opinion interacting with different people, seeing all their points of views to form my own opinion is one of the most rewarding things about friendship and this is why I love being friends with many different people (unless they are COMPLETE jerks to everyone). I think I even get along the best with people who can be a bit more harsh and unconventional with their views. I think it's really admirable that they can stand up for what they believe is right (a quality I myself lack). I do love my enneagram 8s for example

 

[Earl Grey]

Oooh, again, interesting!! It was indeed told that I "take up space" more than a usual enneagram 9 would - in a good way. I guess having a 3 fix might help with that as I myself am not really healthy. Or at least I am struggling with many things at the moment. Though that would beg the question whether "healthy" refers to mental health or not. As I might be a more healthy version of the type 9 while also struggling (with disintegration etc).

This is its own topic in entirely. I don't think any official sources goes in-depth enough about the 'health levels' of each type. It's not entirely clear either what the 'low health' means, other than the type just going against their 'core virtues' by bypassing the growth they are supposed to do. In that sense, this 'unhealthiness' may not even be the kind of unhealthy mental illness, etc is. Some people have tried drawing correlations between certain mental illnesses and MBTI, but personally I think that's full of crock.

I suppose, however, that you can at least conclude that you are both unhealthy type-wise and unhealthy mental-illness wise, or just one, or neither. They're not tied together. For example, an 8 could be temperamental, but also just simply an asshole- feeling like they're not swaggering enough that they overcompensate. They're unhealthy for an 8, but they don't necessarily have a 'mental illness'.

Disintegration seems to be situational, triggered by stressors. So you could 'achieve' being a healthy version of your type but still disintegrate. Lower health seems to be a longer-term thing since it involves your own state of mind/POV.

Yes, I was quite aware of the difference between social and cognitive introversion and extroversion though to me personally it was very hard to figure out. I think I could see both for myself and I tend to be energised by people (if it's not too many). I think I might be socially introverted but get energy by DOING things (if I actually start doing them is another question). But yeah, when I am stressed I definitely redraw instead of relying more on my extroverted functions.

This makes sense, and also leans more to introversion. Some call this 'looping'- you double down on your dom and tert functions while ignoring your aux. So for an introvert, say an INFJ, it would be Ni+Ti, double introversion. I don't quite buy the theory, but it makes sense in this aspect. Extroverts and Introverts tend to double down on their extroversion/introversion.

I DO think I am friendly (or try to be), but in personal interaction this warmth doesn't always come across I think unless I really put emphasis on it. I got told that my facial expressions and reactions are hard to read, again, that I can withdraw, seem uninterested etc. I think what those people mean is that I am not really outwardly connecting or going out of my way to initiate closeness. I am nice once you get to know me and I am very uncomplicated and "chill"

There is more than one way to express warmth. You are not warm in your expressions, but as far as I can see, you are in your words and intentions. If you are used to 'keeping up an act', losing energy to do that and thus losing out on whatever resulting expressions could also lead to suddenly seeming withdrawn and uninterested. Not outwardly connecting or initiating closeness can be a mild form of distance, but it strikes me more as neutral. I can see and have experienced more gregarious people seeing it as outright distance, however.

but I don't try to make other people feel comfortable with actual effort (try to make people laugh, buy or bake something for them, again, asking questions, show interest). You might be right, that my initial impression is different from what I tend up presenting to others, that is true. I noticed that people usually get super drawn to me and want to become friends with me but end up going away, as if they have seen something they don't want to deal with.

"but I don't try to make other people feel comfortable with actual effort (try to make people laugh, buy or bake something for them, again, asking questions, show interest)."
This seems to contradict what you have said before:
"so I decided to get the same WORTH as them I need to be as selfless as possible and never do mistakes. I can be alot like an enneagram 1 in that regard (but more with an inner critic). Being a bad person (both with my actions and "deep down") is among my biggest fears which is why I hate being called selfish and self-absorbed."
This sounds like making people comfortable, and with effort. Especially the 'selfless as possible' bit.
It sounds like you are more inclined towards being a quieter sounding board than a cheerleader. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be comfortable, however- it might just mean you are disinclined towards the 'cheerleader' type of comfort, not that you are not comforting overall.

Also, to kind of quote my mother on this topic: She ironically said that I am bad at being a chameleon and changing myself for the social situation whenever I need to. Bad at seeing how each person individually wants to hear, access the situation and act accordingly. Apparently I am more "aloof" to that and end up treating everyone the same. Again, interesting, since it's not something I recognise myself (not) doing. This made me think whether me seeing myself as adaptable is a mistake and I am more static than I thought I am.

Also, I think you being an ISTP we might have very different ways of looking "distant" to others. Though I can't say for certain since I don't know you. You also don't give off that impression to me over text and I am only judging based off of obvious stereotypes (sorry if that was completely wrong).

Granted, MBTI and Enneagram are about cognition and motivation, respectively. Not skill or behaviour- they are indicators, but not what makes the type. If they were, all intelligent introverts are 5s and all anxious people are 6s and all businessmen are 3s- etc. You could be interested in something, but not achieve skill in it. All that to say your mother may or may not be correct, but I would advise you to get feedback from more than just your mother- people you are close to you, have known you a while, and who you trust. And unless your mother actually hangs out with you in all your social situations, she sees only an aspect of you, and let's be real, we don't tend to be our 'fun' selves with our parents.


(Funny little thing- my listed type is a joke listing. Don't mind it, though I indeed am not ISFX either. Your impressions are your impressions, nothing to apologise about.)

 

[Earl Grey]

Anantashesha, btw, a little question I have:

I've seen time and time again that people harshly judge others when it comes to not living up to a social code - being rude, being mean to others, etc etc.
"I would never be friends with people like that" "If people don't respect trans rights then I am not letting them into my friend circle".
I've read time and time again that this is some sort of harsh Fe judgement (at least partly) of wanting everyone to act the same.
Would you agree with that statement or not?

Disagree. They are simply moral stances, and to say it is something Fe-like implies that Fi, Te, Ti, would not do this, or would not have these kinds of morals, and that much does not make sense.

Perhaps the types would differ in their methods. Such as Fe/Fi drawing ultimatums "Behave, everyone!" "Aren't you ashamed of yourself? Don't you want to be a better person?" - making use of emotions/the social sphere/appeal to the individual, or Ti/Te arguing why it's illogical or impractical, but still, those morals or being socially exclusionary are not exclusive to, or even hallmark Fe. I am not Fe and I hold those stances. It might not even mean that the individual wants everyone to act like them or 'act the same', just that they want to stop being a harmful idiot.

Fe individuals can also not cut these friendships off because they don't want to distrupt the status quo, rock the boat. If they turn a blind eye or convince themselves it doesn't matter that much, nothing has to break or change- and not breaking things, especially relationships, tends to be something they value or have a hard time going against.

Because I have a ton of different friends - regardless of whether I agree with their views or not. If they accept me personally and I get along with them I don't really care THAT much. Yes, I do educate whenever their behaviour or views backlash and tell them why people were angry. But at the end of the day I get along with those people. Some people were really angry at me in the past for being friends with these guys and started avoiding me for that reason.

I think I can get pretty judgy about things like that too, but only when it comes to very specific things that are special to me. For example, I have a friend who shared similar views to me when it comes to relationships, but after his first experience ended up sleeping with alot of woman and seeing them as a way to get the "release" he wants. I really started to have resentment for that person. If it wasn't something I personally was so convinced of I wouldn't have become so passive aggressive. Still, we are still friends. But I try not to talk about this topic anymore.

It does seem that you do have limits of your own, they just may not be the same ones many others have. Personally, I would have no patience for bigots, especially those who are not interested in changing. That being said, I can befriend people whose views I disagree with- unless they cross a moral line, and bigotry crosses that line for me. Infidelity seems to be one of yours. Personally I have seen Ts who do the same thing- exclude bigots. Consider that they are the kind of people who would want others to change who they are, or even downright suffer, just to cater to their own sense of comfort. That is incredibly selfish, and many want no part of that- even if it is not directed to themselves, it could be directed to people they know and care about. Bigots tend to be indiscriminate that way- consider parents who throw out their own children for being gay. When you don't take sides between wolves and deer you implicitly side with the wolves, so the saying goes. Perpetuate the harmful ways by letting it blossom instead of weeding them out. They thrive because no one tells them that what they are doing is wrong.

Quesition, however- what keeps you being friends with him, and would you reach more intimate/closer levels of friendship knowing he is how he is, and having the resentment you do for him as long as he keeps accepting you and getting along with you?

In my opinion interacting with different people, seeing all their points of views to form my own opinion is one of the most rewarding things about friendship and this is why I love being friends with many different people (unless they are COMPLETE jerks to everyone). I think I even get along the best with people who can be a bit more harsh and unconventional with their views. I think it's really admirable that they can stand up for what they believe is right (a quality I myself lack). I do love my enneagram 8s for example

This is a very soc way to see it- specifically again, soc + attachment. Very involved, very give-and-take- melding in with the social sphere and deriving enjoyment from it. Haha, people either like or dislike the 8s. Strong personalities and all that.

 

[Iceblueblossom]

I suppose, however, that you can at least conclude that you are both unhealthy type-wise and unhealthy mental-illness wise, or just one, or neither. They're not tied together. For example, an 8 could be temperamental, but also just simply an asshole- feeling like they're not swaggering enough that they overcompensate. They're unhealthy for an 8, but they don't necessarily have a 'mental illness'.

Super important conclusion to draw honestly. I will try to keep this in mind! I always told myself I must be an unhealthy version of a type if I am suffering from mental health issues. Will try to see it from a different light now!

It does seem that you do have limits of your own, they just may not be the same ones many others have. Personally, I would have no patience for bigots, especially those who are not interested in changing. That being said, I can befriend people whose views I disagree with- unless they cross a moral line, and bigotry crosses that line for me. Infidelity seems to be one of yours. Personally I have seen Ts who do the same thing- exclude bigots. Consider that they are the kind of people who would want others to change who they are, or even downright suffer, just to cater to their own sense of comfort. That is incredibly selfish, and many want no part of that- even if it is not directed to themselves, it could be directed to people they know and care about. Bigots tend to be indiscriminate that way- consider parents who throw out their own children for being gay. When you don't take sides between wolves and deer you implicitly side with the wolves, so the saying goes. Perpetuate the harmful ways by letting it blossom instead of weeding them out. They thrive because no one tells them that what they are doing is wrong.

The thing is, is actually agree with this sentiment here. Like when people actively go after trans people that definitely crosses a line. To me it's just hard to define who is a bigot or who isn't. The definitions are as various as there are people. Most of the people I kept around were willing to have a discussion about it, said they understand where I am coming from but still disagreed heavily with me. One person who was more outwardly "anti" left my life a few years ago, though not for that exact reason. I think for me it's hard to just say "hey, you are doing this wrong". I have more patience with people than I do with myself in this regard. But I've been trying to be more consistent and more strict about some basic things. While I can respect different opinions (if you want to call it like that) it triggers me when others are not considering other point of views themselves. But yeah, different story

Quesition, however- what keeps you being friends with him, and would you reach more intimate/closer levels of friendship knowing he is how he is, and having the resentment you do for him as long as he keeps accepting you and getting along with you?

I think I am clinging to much to the way our friendship used to be. I still try to chat with him in the same way we did before, and getting disappointed / shocked everytime he reacts in the opposite way and get angry. Honestly, as things are right now, I don't think I would be able to feel emotionally more close to him - not more than before. I am still fine with being friends and trying to stay away from that topic, especially since outside of that we are still getting along very fine. But yes, not too comfy with it overall.

Btw, idk if we should spam this thread further and whether we should continue the conversation here as we are getting further away from the original question.

 

[Earl Grey]

The thing is, is actually agree with this sentiment here. Like when people actively go after trans people that definitely crosses a line. To me it's just hard to define who is a bigot or who isn't. The definitions are as various as there are people. Most of the people I kept around were willing to have a discussion about it, said they understand where I am coming from but still disagreed heavily with me. One person who was more outwardly "anti" left my life a few years ago, though not for that exact reason. I think for me it's hard to just say "hey, you are doing this wrong". I have more patience with people than I do with myself in this regard. But I've been trying to be more consistent and more strict about some basic things. While I can respect different opinions (if you want to call it like that) it triggers me when others are not considering other point of views themselves. But yeah, different story. I think I am clinging to much to the way our friendship used to be. I still try to chat with him in the same way we did before, and getting disappointed / shocked everytime he reacts in the opposite way and get angry. Honestly, as things are right now, I don't think I would be able to feel emotionally more close to him - not more than before. I am still fine with being friends and trying to stay away from that topic, especially since outside of that we are still getting along very fine. But yes, not too comfy with it overall.

That makes sense. The patience, combined with the general tendency to not 'break' things, especially emotionally/in the social realm, I can see you wanting to be very careful before making an essentially usually permanent decision of cutting someone off, one that is strong and singles out people, when your natural inclination is to seek connection and familiarity in others. Why is it hard for you to tell someone they are doing something wrong?

Re; bigots- People draw their lines differently. For some, especially rampant online by what is called 'SJW's ('Social Justice Warriors'), completely cuts off bigotry in entirely. Some are more midline- for example, I would still talk to bigots who can be reasoned with and who can and/or are willing to turn a new leaf. People can change, not just in bigotry, and I think that much- giving people a chance while still holding them accountable- is a reasonable stance. Unfortunately you will find many that are unwilling to be reasoned with- their focus was never about others, but their own comfort/imposing their own idea of how others should be. You can explain to some till you're blue in the face about how it's 'harmful to others' and they won't care, or disagree, because to them they never cared. A person who does wouldn't have dug themselves so deeply into blindly disliking, even hating people just for who they are to begin with.

Btw, idk if we should spam this thread further and whether we should continue the conversation here as we are getting further away from the original question.

It's your thread. Rule of thumb is that your thread, your rules, especially if your thread is for/about yourself rather than a big generalist thread (like "What are you feeling?" "Post your favourite music!" etc). In doubt, you can ask the moderators. Posts can always be moved into new threads, as well. For what it's worth, the content you have here still ties into who you are, which is a part- well, the main part if anything- of typing someone, even if it wasn't directly answering a typology question, though I recognise we're going on a bit of a tangent here and there.

Some people would try look through people's threads, private blogs, before even typing them, and as one of the people who prefers doing it, I would think of it as extremely handy that a lot of the pertinent information is in the thread itself. Had this conversation happened elsewhere, it would likely still have unfolded in this way- people who go into typing someone more in-depth tend to ask a lot of questions this way.

That being said, if you are more comfortable moving else where and have more questions you think might be off-topics, there are Private Messages.

 

[Iceblueblossom]

Why is it hard for you to tell someone they are doing something wrong?

Hmmm, I am not sure if I would say it's really hard for me? My friend is pretty known for not taking ANYTHING personally so I told him very clearly what I think of his behaviour. I tend to educate people and tell when when I disagree on things (something I am pretty proud of as it wasn't always that easy for me). However, you are right, I never used the words "You are wrong". I think it's because of my own lack of faith when it comes to my own opinions. While I feel very strongly about things it's this feeling of "Who am I to tell people how they are supposed to live" "Who tells I am right about this?". And especially when it comes to the topic of relationships my experience is very limited. And I have met a ton of different people (especially online). I consider myself on the asexual spectrum so I know I will never understand the forces behind wanting to sleep with everyone. I am asking myself "am I wrong for judging someone just because I can't understand it? This should my problem and not theirs". I keep the option open that this is just how love actually works and I am again living in a delusion again. Regardless of how uncomfortable something makes me, it's this mentality of "This is the type of world I am supposed to live in after all, I have to deal with it". And yeah, a part of it is again "I want to hear his point of view even if it's against my values". But yes, especially if I know a person more, I am not really afraid to tell them my opinion - maybe not as harshly as I feel about it, but I do. I think the issue would be whenever meeting someone I don't have any sort of connection to. I don't know how they might react, I don't know if we would start a conflict and if my opinion would even be appreciated. IRL it's worse than online for sure. And again, it's also a feeling of "I am not supposed to be the person to educate people, others are way more connected with the real world than I am". I know that this is not a good argument as things like ethics can be judged by everyone, and it's in general something that humanity came up with to get along with each other - thus really relying on people to give their input on what is acceptable or not. But it's still not easy, especially as an enneagram 9 with a 6 fix.

You can explain to some till you're blue in the face about how it's 'harmful to others' and they won't care, or disagree, because to them they never cared. A person who does wouldn't have dug themselves so deeply into blindly disliking, even hating people just for who they are to begin with.

Hmmm, yeah, I would say I agree with that. I think where the grey area for me comes in are people who say "Yes, trans people are valid and are allowed to exist but I am not fond of the fact we gender language now" (especially if it's in a language other than English where "they/them" doesn't exist) or "I am not a fan of neopronouns". I can understand the "we shouldn't change our entire language structure to make 1% of the population feel better" mentality. Whether that is an ethical thing to say / think is up for debate. But it took me a long time listening to different people and reflecting on how I could apply something like this to my own life (imagining I was a person who is trans having to live in a world like this) until I could form my own opinion on things and be aware of what I am agreeing with and what not. I think this is also why judging someone is hard for me as I can see all points of views (again, typical 9 speaking). And I can recognise when someone is talking with the individuals in mind or from a purely systematic point, not focused on the human aspect. I think where I personally stop understanding would be not accepting the science of trans people. If someone is saying that trans people are "biologically the gender they are born with" and are doing this thing for attention or could just live with it and I present them with a scientific study of how the brain structures differ - just to hear from the person "yeah, whatever, I still don't accept this". Then I have 0 understand for an answer like this. So yeah, I think after reflecting this here (I wasn't quite aware of it before I wrote it down) it basically comes down to "are they talking about big systematic changes or are they against the individuals behind it". Though I guess some people would argue that being against a systematic change is the same as spitting in the face of individuals. I could also definitely see THAT point of view.

Some people would try look through people's threads, private blogs, before even typing them, and as one of the people who prefers doing it, I would think of it as extremely handy that a lot of the pertinent information is in the thread itself. Had this conversation happened elsewhere, it would likely still have unfolded in this way- people who go into typing someone more in-depth tend to ask a lot of questions this way.

Makes sense to me! I actually worked with someone who tried to type me before (they used the objective personality system though). We were having conversations for about a week (and listened to a recording of me talking) before he gave me his result. While I kinda disagree with his conclusion I think he still had the right idea! I am always just afraid I might manipulate the conversation in a direction where I think the other person expects me to go or where it would look like I am a certain type even when I am not. This bias and overanalysing always comes into my posts and the way I speak if I know I am going to get evaluated. Ironically though as I want the most accurate representation of my thought process. Even though I told my typer that I was doing this their conclusion still played right into my hands which made me go back to INFP again as a form of rebellion.

By the way, if it helps, I could provide you with my recordings of me streaming (ofc only in dms) to maybe get a good feeling of me communicating outside of text. Though to be honest streaming is also a very specific context that could change the order of some things.

 

[Pionart]

You're an ISFJ.

 

[Earl Grey]

Hmmm, I am not sure if I would say it's really hard for me? My friend is pretty known for not taking ANYTHING personally so I told him very clearly what I think of his behaviour. I tend to educate people and tell when when I disagree on things (something I am pretty proud of as it wasn't always that easy for me). However, you are right, I never used the words "You are wrong". I think it's because of my own lack of faith when it comes to my own opinions. While I feel very strongly about things it's this feeling of "Who am I to tell people how they are supposed to live" "Who tells I am right about this?". And especially when it comes to the topic of relationships my experience is very limited.

A fix to this is to point towards objective outcomes if you feel you may be biased. People usually have enough of a clarity of mind to extrapolate how something may pan out and end, as well as explain it. Things aren't 'wrong' for no reason after all, they're usually wrong because they tend to produce unfavourable outcomes- outline and explain them.

This puts the choice on the other person- "If you do X, Y, Z, it influences A B C and it may end up this or that way." - when they do move forth regardless, they do so knowing the risks and cannot weasel out of culpability. Instead of simply saying "It's wrong," explain why it is wrong, and how it could end up badly. Doing it that way might give you more confidence, and ensure you that, yes- whatever bad thing it is, the person knows what they're doing and are making that active choice to do it anyway.

And I have met a ton of different people (especially online). I consider myself on the asexual spectrum so I know I will never understand the forces behind wanting to sleep with everyone. I am asking myself "am I wrong for judging someone just because I can't understand it? This should my problem and not theirs". I keep the option open that this is just how love actually works and I am again living in a delusion again. Regardless of how uncomfortable something makes me, it's this mentality of "This is the type of world I am supposed to live in after all, I have to deal with it". And yeah, a part of it is again "I want to hear his point of view even if it's against my values". But yes, especially if I know a person more, I am not really afraid to tell them my opinion - maybe not as harshly as I feel about it, but I do. I think the issue would be whenever meeting someone I don't have any sort of connection to. I don't know how they might react, I don't know if we would start a conflict and if my opinion would even be appreciated. IRL it's worse than online for sure. And again, it's also a feeling of "I am not supposed to be the person to educate people, others are way more connected with the real world than I am". I know that this is not a good argument as things like ethics can be judged by everyone, and it's in general something that humanity came up with to get along with each other - thus really relying on people to give their input on what is acceptable or not. But it's still not easy, especially as an enneagram 9 with a 6 fix.

There are differences here. There are values, and there are preferences. Both can dictate how you would prefer to live your life, but one has an innate moral dimension to it, and one doesn't. For example, if I like apples and you like oranges, neither of us are wrong. If you want to marry but your friend doesn't, neither of them are wrong. It's simple preference. It's also okay to be uncomfortable with someone's preferences- say someone likes wearing gaudy hot pink flashy clothes with neon glasses. You can dislike it, but the person isn't breaking the law, isn't doing anything 'wrong'- they're just not catering to your tastes, and they don't have to, and that's normal and fine and fair.

Your asexuality is an example of that- preference. You can also judge without actually passing judgement- say neon glasses guy comes to your dinner with his gaudy glasses. You can judge him to yourself, "Ugh, what kind of fashion is that?" but keep it to yourself and understand that while it doesn't make you happy, it makes him happy, and that's what matters. It's your honest thoughts, and that is okay. But the moment you stand up and give him a standing lecture on how he'd never make it to the met Gala and he should be ashamed, you are passing judgement, and that's what's bad about 'being judgemental'. All that to say it's okay and healthy to have your own opinions of things, even if they are 'negative' ones.

Some people mix up values and preferences, and this is where the slippery slope lies. Hardcore, blind Christians are an example of this- say they jump on neon guy because 'Christ wouldn't want him to wear satan-coloured glasses' or whatever it is. That's where people are using their preferences to violate someone else's values and that is not okay. But if someone's values are offensive- say, they think that America should return to the slavery days, that's not simple preference anymore and they are being actively harmful, and should be shut down- but I think you can see that much. Rule of thumb is that if it affects themselves, leave them be. If it affects other people, then it becomes other people's business too. But the more you are able to explain yourself and support yourself with evidence, the more confidence you will get in being able to gauge situations and, don't be afraid to make mistakes on the way. It's a learned skill, and a good one.

Hmmm, yeah, I would say I agree with that. I think where the grey area for me comes in are people who say "Yes, trans people are valid and are allowed to exist but I am not fond of the fact we gender language now" (especially if it's in a language other than English where "they/them" doesn't exist) or "I am not a fan of neopronouns". I can understand the "we shouldn't change our entire language structure to make 1% of the population feel better" mentality. Whether that is an ethical thing to say / think is up for debate. But it took me a long time listening to different people and reflecting on how I could apply something like this to my own life (imagining I was a person who is trans having to live in a world like this) until I could form my own opinion on things and be aware of what I am agreeing with and what not. I think this is also why judging someone is hard for me as I can see all points of views (again, typical 9 speaking). And I can recognise when someone is talking with the individuals in mind or from a purely systematic point, not focused on the human aspect. I think where I personally stop understanding would be not accepting the science of trans people. If someone is saying that trans people are "biologically the gender they are born with" and are doing this thing for attention or could just live with it and I present them with a scientific study of how the brain structures differ - just to hear from the person "yeah, whatever, I still don't accept this". Then I have 0 understand for an answer like this. So yeah, I think after reflecting this here (I wasn't quite aware of it before I wrote it down) it basically comes down to "are they talking about big systematic changes or are they against the individuals behind it". Though I guess some people would argue that being against a systematic change is the same as spitting in the face of individuals. I could also definitely see THAT point of view.

This is where people differ. Let's have an example here, let's say there's POV #1 and POV #2.

POV #1 is to view cause-and-effect, if the bigot (or whoever it is) is doing things that can actively harm other people, that's when it becomes the business of the people they are harming, but otherwise, leave them alone, it's fine. Some people just can't help it- two dudes kissing weirds them out and they haven't reconciled it with themselves yet, but they're not about to throw a hissy fit about it and are staying polite and civil and might stay out of the way, but not exclude or rag on the LGBT folks. If it's too much for them, they can just part ways peacefully, but in the end no one is hurt.

Now, take POV #2- some people go even further- to say that anyone who holds these bigoted views at all, even if they are living quietly and inoffensively should be immediately vanquished with force and prejudice. Cut them off, toss them out, yell at them, chase them away, the works.

On the surface, #2 seems like it could be 'more moral'- it's the one removing the harmful, harmful bigots from the world after all. But- to be able to hold POV #2 is to implicitly state that you believe that people can never change.

There are stories of bigots who learn, either because they are educated or because their child is suddenly LGBT and they want to do the right thing, and end up opening their minds. POV #1 might seem passive, but it is in the long-run most inclusive and the least polarising and harmful- it even gives the bigot space to change their mind, turn over a new leaf without even having to put in the effort. Some people just change- some think that LGBT individuals are deviants and living around them will simply show that they are wrong. Some have changed that way.

Which is more moral? Which makes more sense to you? Which is more aligned to how you think?

And see how I didn't say which one was 'wrong'- I explained both sides and the potential consequences of each. That's also an example of enlightening someone about the morality of their choices without telling them outright that one side is absolutely wrong. It still allows for unforeseen consequences and quite a bit of relativity. Sometimes, the best we can do is not be right, but do our best to be careful. You don't have to have the one, final, absolutely correct 'end all' answer, but you do need answers. Lest you trap yourself in paralysis, and like the example with your turtles, let the world make the choice for you.

The point is: which consequence can you live with? And if we were friends, would I be okay with someone making those kinds of choices? It yields information without being controlling, while also being morally responsible enough to have stood up and said your piece instead of staying quiet.

Makes sense to me! I actually worked with someone who tried to type me before (they used the objective personality system though). We were having conversations for about a week (and listened to a recording of me talking) before he gave me his result. While I kinda disagree with his conclusion I think he still had the right idea! I am always just afraid I might manipulate the conversation in a direction where I think the other person expects me to go or where it would look like I am a certain type even when I am not. This bias and overanalysing always comes into my posts and the way I speak if I know I am going to get evaluated. Ironically though as I want the most accurate representation of my thought process. Even though I told my typer that I was doing this their conclusion still played right into my hands which made me go back to INFP again as a form of rebellion.

By the way, if it helps, I could provide you with my recordings of me streaming (ofc only in dms) to maybe get a good feeling of me communicating outside of text. Though to be honest streaming is also a very specific context that could change the order of some things.

People sometimes have a good grasp on the theory but not how to tie it to real life data- so good sources, but bad conclusions. Some are the opposite- no theory but good at 'scoping' people out- so they have conclusions, but it's a case of "I know what it is, I just don't know what it's called or how to explain it." - weak theory. Could be a case of the former with the person typing you, from the sound of it. A good typist should be able to not be influenced, or resist being influenced a certain way, but either way, it's usually a learning experience for both parties.

"This bias and overanalysing always comes into my posts and the way I speak if I know I am going to get evaluated." - so I have noticed. Your wanting the most accurate representation of your thought process- going into as much organic detail as possible helps with that. Personally, that's part of why questionnaires are never enough for me when typing someone, I need to have seen them behaving naturally and making organic choices without thinking about what MBTI they might be behaving as. "Even though I told my typer that I was doing this their conclusion still played right into my hands which made me go back to INFP again as a form of rebellion." - it sounds to me like the typist wasn't able to tie their conclusions to the data satisfyingly enough to convince you of their validity. It happens.

I wouldn't mind seeing the recording, but I likely would not be able to help since my strength lies in being able to go back and forth like this, live (no, I'm not saying we should voice call). Some people do better typing when they can see the person, for me I do better being able to focus on the words as well as direct it by asking questions- a video is not interactive. That being said, if you have any specifics related to anything you said in the video, I might be able to put in my thoughts about them. Just don't expect me to read your face/body language or the like.

 

[Iceblueblossom]

There are differences here. There are values, and there are preferences. Both can dictate how you would prefer to live your life, but one has an innate moral dimension to it, and one doesn't. For example, if I like apples and you like oranges, neither of us are wrong. If you want to marry but your friend doesn't, neither of them are wrong. It's simple preference. It's also okay to be uncomfortable with someone's preferences- say someone likes wearing gaudy hot pink flashy clothes with neon glasses. You can dislike it, but the person isn't breaking the law, isn't doing anything 'wrong'- they're just not catering to your tastes, and they don't have to, and that's normal and fine and fair.

Your asexuality is an example of that- preference. You can also judge without actually passing judgement- say neon glasses guy comes to your dinner with his gaudy glasses. You can judge him to yourself, "Ugh, what kind of fashion is that?" but keep it to yourself and understand that while it doesn't make you happy, it makes him happy, and that's what matters. It's your honest thoughts, and that is okay. But the moment you stand up and give him a standing lecture on how he'd never make it to the met Gala and he should be ashamed, you are passing judgement, and that's what's bad about 'being judgemental'. All that to say it's okay and healthy to have your own opinions of things, even if they are 'negative' ones.

Interesting. I never tried to differentiate between values and preferences. If formulated like that, I think my values are pretty weak and not fixated. I have alot of preferences or opinions based on what I see makes most sense, without being really passionate about it. I think I CAN get upset at things that hurt my values but it's not something I can anticipate in advance and it doesn't happen AS often as me being annoyed about something / having an opinion. I will be honest, I don't usually tell the people that I don't agree with what they are doing but I am talking alot with other people about it. At times being specific, other times not. It's like hearing other people say "yes, I have the same opinion as you" makes my view more valid. A "okay, so it's not ONLY ME who had this reaction".

About the asexuality thing: Yes, as long as he doesn't hurt anyone, there is not really an issue. But if I think about possible consequences and something similar, what comes to my mind is: "How do we know if this doesn't have any negative influence on others? Maybe the people want something serious from him and he will throw them away after being done?". Seeing that something like that almost happened it's not even that unlikely. Another thing would be "this is something that will probably something that will contribute in shaping the way people date nowadays so there will be a big shift". While writing this I also realise that "there being a shift" is not even something bad in a way. And sleeping around is not even negative in itself. It's just me who gives this a judgement and deems it as a development I wouldn't like seeing - mostly for my own comfort. Honestly, when thinking about it, it's kinda f*cked up I am trying to make everything comfortable for ME because of opinions that I personally hold. When my friend said that ONS's are okay, since both parties are "using each other" I really hated this sentiment deep down. But, as you said, at the end of the day, he didn't do anything that harms anyone else (at least from what I read from him so far). Which is why it's not really "wrong". I honestly never used this way of judging situations before. I think most of the time I evaluated things like this case by case and not in a general system. I think as far as I got, my own moral structure is "you can be yourself as long as you don't make others people worse for it".

POV #1 is to view cause-and-effect, if the bigot (or whoever it is) is doing things that can actively harm other people, that's when it becomes the business of the people they are harming, but otherwise, leave them alone, it's fine. Some people just can't help it- two dudes kissing weirds them out and they haven't reconciled it with themselves yet, but they're not about to throw a hissy fit about it and are staying polite and civil and might stay out of the way, but not exclude or rag on the LGBT folks. If it's too much for them, they can just part ways peacefully, but in the end no one is hurt.

Now, take POV #2- some people go even further- to say that anyone who holds these bigoted views at all, even if they are living quietly and inoffensively should be immediately vanquished with force and prejudice. Cut them off, toss them out, yell at them, chase them away, the works.

This fits really well into what I said before. I really agree with POV 1. If you go out of your way to inconvenience other people, you should be corrected. POV 2 is something I don't really agree with. As long as they are not causing any issues, they are free to believe whatever they want. Just don't make it the issue of other people. I would even go as far as saying: If you are able to hold a discussion (ideally not with people who are emotionally involved with the matter), still accept the pov of others and stay in the theoretical realm, then it is still fine. While I think that some opinions (or values) can be problematic for society, I don't think lecturing every single person on "this is how you are supposed to behave / think" is going to change anything. If it's a deep held belief, I made the experience that people will grab into it with even more force. If you force them to do something, they want to rebell even more. With those cases I think giving logical arguments on why they might reconsider and then leaving the decision up to the person is most benefitial. I am not going to stand arround preaching justice the entire day, even if I might find their believs morally problematic. I hold the belief that if they are seeing the logical consequences of their behaviour and are not adjusting accordingly they will get slapped back by society. I will not be the person to cancel them, but other people will. It's a "well, I warned you, this is what you get" mentality. At times it's even just a "you know, I personally don't care about this too much, but I see how you could make yourself some enemies, so let me give you some advice before it goes out of hand". In a way it's less a "this is wrong because it affects people and I want to defend the people" and more of a "this is not how you are supposed to do this, why can't you see why everyone is upset".
To name an example: A former friend was one of those "internet trolls" with very strong (and at times very controversial opinions) that he would throw into anyone at Twitter, seeing it as facts and degrading everyone who holds a different opinion. I was less upset by the fact he held those beliefs in the first place but it was a feeling of "... if you want to argue with someone at least do it properly, what are you trying to ACHIEVE. You are just provoking people". Clearly not seeing that provoking others can be a goal in itself to him and it was never about having a proper debate with others. I never "canceled" him though, just privately gave advice or tried to "translate" what he "actually" meant to the other person on Twitter, trying to mediate between those two parties, so that nobody has to be upset. The only time when I told him "this cannot continue" was when friends were actually complaining I was even assoziated with this kind of person and that I am trying to change someone that clearly doesn't want to change. After awhile I got sad that my friends are so different and I would never be able to do something with all of them together. It was like I was standing between two armees and I had to choose a side. When I confronted my friend about this dilemma, his answer was "sorry, I understand you, but I will not change how I behave just so you can have it more comfy." This and many things lead up to me slowly distancing myself - but it honestly took alot.

People sometimes have a good grasp on the theory but not how to tie it to real life data- so good sources, but bad conclusions. Some are the opposite- no theory but good at 'scoping' people out- so they have conclusions, but it's a case of "I know what it is, I just don't know what it's called or how to explain it." - weak theory. Could be a case of the former with the person typing you, from the sound of it. A good typist should be able to not be influenced, or resist being influenced a certain way, but either way, it's usually a learning experience for both parties.

"This bias and overanalysing always comes into my posts and the way I speak if I know I am going to get evaluated." - so I have noticed. Your wanting the most accurate representation of your thought process- going into as much organic detail as possible helps with that. Personally, that's part of why questionnaires are never enough for me when typing someone, I need to have seen them behaving naturally and making organic choices without thinking about what MBTI they might be behaving as. "Even though I told my typer that I was doing this their conclusion still played right into my hands which made me go back to INFP again as a form of rebellion." - it sounds to me like the typist wasn't able to tie their conclusions to the data satisfyingly enough to convince you of their validity. It happens.

I think the person I talked to already had a bias in mind from the minute we started talking. It was very obvious to me. Probably made even stronger by the fact they identify as an INFJ themselves and could relate to me. So everything I said (and "chose" to say) kinda played into this already made decision. Ironically, me trying to manipulate the discussion in such a way made them even more sure in the type in the first place. A second person, who typed me through an audio recording and didn't chat with me prior, came to the exact same conclusion through the system. It might be, that I come close or even are this type in the objective personality system, but as it as not much to do with the mbti as most people use it, it left me really unsatisfied. It was like I wasn't interacting with people in the same language. I also ended up disagreeing with many things, funny enough, one of those was me being Fe in any capacity, since I saw (and still see) myself as way too self-referencing compared to people with the same type. The arguments they used made sense to me, but I couldn't verify them though my own observations. Also: Identifying as an INFJ was an experience in itself. Everyone was doubting my type and I felt like I had to "prove" to others that I am not mistyped. This definitely helped with my frustration.

I wouldn't mind seeing the recording, but I likely would not be able to help since my strength lies in being able to go back and forth like this, live (no, I'm not saying we should voice call). Some people do better typing when they can see the person, for me I do better being able to focus on the words as well as direct it by asking questions- a video is not interactive. That being said, if you have any specifics related to anything you said in the video, I might be able to put in my thoughts about them. Just don't expect me to read your face/body language or the like.

No, I understand! It's not something you absolutely have to see. I just thought it might help you in case you are one of those people who can type based off of tone of the voice or anything like that. If it doesn't add anything for you, we don't have to do it!

 

[Earl Grey]

Interesting. I never tried to differentiate between values and preferences. If formulated like that, I think my values are pretty weak and not fixated. I have alot of preferences or opinions based on what I see makes most sense, without being really passionate about it. I think I CAN get upset at things that hurt my values but it's not something I can anticipate in advance and it doesn't happen AS often as me being annoyed about something / having an opinion. I will be honest, I don't usually tell the people that I don't agree with what they are doing but I am talking alot with other people about it. At times being specific, other times not. It's like hearing other people say "yes, I have the same opinion as you" makes my view more valid. A "okay, so it's not ONLY ME who had this reaction".

More pointers towards your judging function being an extroverted one- i.e; F + e, or Fe. Not that you can't form your own, as you can see, but that you feel better with outside cues to verify your thoughts. At its best, that kind of cognition is very evidence-based: realistic, empirical, etc- at least, as much as one can get- since it deals with 'reality' and the information that is out there, after all. The downside is being too easily swayed and not making a stand; and this is not exclusive to Fe either. Imagine Te individuals who just push paperwork or blindly follow procedure with no nuance. There's valuing (e)-style information then there's overvaluing it- everyone has both (i) and (e) in their type after all, what makes them either is which they prioritise more. For what it's worth, you don't seem to be that bad- though you do teeter dangerously to be unable to at times stand by your own thoughts. Then again, that's a journey everyone makes.

About the asexuality thing: Yes, as long as he doesn't hurt anyone, there is not really an issue. But if I think about possible consequences and something similar, what comes to my mind is: "How do we know if this doesn't have any negative influence on others? Maybe the people want something serious from him and he will throw them away after being done?". Seeing that something like that almost happened it's not even that unlikely. Another thing would be "this is something that will probably something that will contribute in shaping the way people date nowadays so there will be a big shift". While writing this I also realise that "there being a shift" is not even something bad in a way. And sleeping around is not even negative in itself. It's just me who gives this a judgement and deems it as a development I wouldn't like seeing - mostly for my own comfort. Honestly, when thinking about it, it's kinda f*cked up I am trying to make everything comfortable for ME because of opinions that I personally hold. When my friend said that ONS's are okay, since both parties are "using each other" I really hated this sentiment deep down. But, as you said, at the end of the day, he didn't do anything that harms anyone else (at least from what I read from him so far). Which is why it's not really "wrong". I honestly never used this way of judging situations before. I think most of the time I evaluated things like this case by case and not in a general system. I think as far as I got, my own moral structure is "you can be yourself as long as you don't make others people worse for it".

Taking this chance to share a bit more knowledge that may help you process this information. Specifically, this:
"How do we know if this doesn't have any negative influence on others? Maybe the people want something serious from him and he will throw them away after being done?"

This is not what asexuality is. Asexual people can do this, but so can allosexuals- someone being an asexual doesn't give them a higher chance of being essentially a cheating arse. This is a potentially bigoted and definitely ignorant way of thought, but this is why I am telling you this so you will know and understand it better. Asexual people simply do not get 'aroused' from seeing somebody that is 'hot' (or get aroused from people, period). Think about it- how many people are that way to you? Your mother, father, siblings if any, good friend? Are you more likely to cheat them, hurt them, use them, just because you are not sexually attracted to them? Can you understand how harmful and painful that assumption is to an asexual?

That is how it is for asexuals- just because they are not sexually attracted, it does not mean they are not committed. And the more people understand asexuality, the better they can discover what is up with them and communicate that to their partners.

That being said, if your asexual friend lies and cheats their partner, they were a lying, cheating arse to begin with. Asexuality has nothing to do with it. Some people use the excuse, "Asexuals don't know how important sexual attraction is, that's why they cheat!" but the same argument can be made against allosexuals: they know how important it is, and that's why they desire it so much to the point of cheating. Some could even say "Asexuals don't find sex important, so they are not likely to cheat!" (not necessarily true, but see how any kind of assumptions can be made like this?). See how it can go both ways- see how the point is that they were a cheating bastard to begin with- not that they are asexual, or allosexual.

A way to avoid this is to ask yourself this question before voicing concerns: Why do I think this way? Has this person done anything that made me believe they would behave this way? Where did this train of thought come from? What are the chances of it (him being a cheater, for eg) being true, and what are the chances of the opposite (him being sexually devoted) being true? If the chances of him cheating are so low, why am I so concerned/worked up about it?
Replace asexuality with anything else of choice. If you do not have the answers to these, you are likely still missing information. Chances are, it's honest ignorance, but it may help you at least begin the path to finding the answer. Take care to not accidentally hurt someone while trying to protect others.

This fits really well into what I said before. I really agree with POV 1. If you go out of your way to inconvenience other people, you should be corrected. POV 2 is something I don't really agree with. As long as they are not causing any issues, they are free to believe whatever they want. Just don't make it the issue of other people. I would even go as far as saying: If you are able to hold a discussion (ideally not with people who are emotionally involved with the matter), still accept the pov of others and stay in the theoretical realm, then it is still fine. While I think that some opinions (or values) can be problematic for society, I don't think lecturing every single person on "this is how you are supposed to behave / think" is going to change anything. If it's a deep held belief, I made the experience that people will grab into it with even more force. If you force them to do something, they want to rebell even more. With those cases I think giving logical arguments on why they might reconsider and then leaving the decision up to the person is most benefitial. I am not going to stand arround preaching justice the entire day, even if I might find their believs morally problematic. I hold the belief that if they are seeing the logical consequences of their behaviour and are not adjusting accordingly they will get slapped back by society. I will not be the person to cancel them, but other people will. It's a "well, I warned you, this is what you get" mentality. At times it's even just a "you know, I personally don't care about this too much, but I see how you could make yourself some enemies, so let me give you some advice before it goes out of hand". In a way it's less a "this is wrong because it affects people and I want to defend the people" and more of a "this is not how you are supposed to do this, why can't you see why everyone is upset".
To name an example: A former friend was one of those "internet trolls" with very strong (and at times very controversial opinions) that he would throw into anyone at Twitter, seeing it as facts and degrading everyone who holds a different opinion. I was less upset by the fact he held those beliefs in the first place but it was a feeling of "... if you want to argue with someone at least do it properly, what are you trying to ACHIEVE. You are just provoking people". Clearly not seeing that provoking others can be a goal in itself to him and it was never about having a proper debate with others. I never "canceled" him though, just privately gave advice or tried to "translate" what he "actually" meant to the other person on Twitter, trying to mediate between those two parties, so that nobody has to be upset. The only time when I told him "this cannot continue" was when friends were actually complaining I was even assoziated with this kind of person and that I am trying to change someone that clearly doesn't want to change. After awhile I got sad that my friends are so different and I would never be able to do something with all of them together. It was like I was standing between two armees and I had to choose a side. When I confronted my friend about this dilemma, his answer was "sorry, I understand you, but I will not change how I behave just so you can have it more comfy." This and many things lead up to me slowly distancing myself - but it honestly took alot.


I think the person I talked to already had a bias in mind from the minute we started talking. It was very obvious to me. Probably made even stronger by the fact they identify as an INFJ themselves and could relate to me. So everything I said (and "chose" to say) kinda played into this already made decision. Ironically, me trying to manipulate the discussion in such a way made them even more sure in the type in the first place. A second person, who typed me through an audio recording and didn't chat with me prior, came to the exact same conclusion through the system. It might be, that I come close or even are this type in the objective personality system, but as it as not much to do with the mbti as most people use it, it left me really unsatisfied. It was like I wasn't interacting with people in the same language. I also ended up disagreeing with many things, funny enough, one of those was me being Fe in any capacity, since I saw (and still see) myself as way too self-referencing compared to people with the same type. The arguments they used made sense to me, but I couldn't verify them though my own observations. Also: Identifying as an INFJ was an experience in itself. Everyone was doubting my type and I felt like I had to "prove" to others that I am not mistyped. This definitely helped with my frustration.


No, I understand! It's not something you absolutely have to see. I just thought it might help you in case you are one of those people who can type based off of tone of the voice or anything like that. If it doesn't add anything for you, we don't have to do it!

All that being said, I was still observing the things you have said for typology cues. The only thing missing for your MBTI is the N/S divide. Yours is not a strong divide- some have a very strong one, but I do think you are more likely S than N. Let me explain, with the disclaimer that I tend to be better at Enneagram than MBTI, but perhaps something to chew on/consider;

Repeatedly, throughout this exchange, you have tended to bring up specific, anecdotal information (turtles, among others, and then your typist, and then the asexual, and now the former internet troll friend, etc. With you repeatedly, naturally reaching for this form of information, it indicates quite strongly that the way you perceive and process information is the S- concrete, sensing kind.

I have noticed that high N tends to be a bit... Well, less anecdotal, by preference (meaning they can be, but they tend not to be if given the choice otherwise). They tend to speak in a lot of hypotheticals, generalities, and universal concepts (especially Js). There is the sense of "This is the concept of how X works, and if ABC happens, the result would be Y." - quite conceptual, at worst endlessly, brain-numbingly lofty or theoretical, and I have tended to notice them take a bit of a pause to recall more specific anecdotes when asked, unless they are fresh in the N's mind. What people say about N individuals generally working in the abstract, applies here. Keep in mind that this is strong N- more balanced people aren't this extreme.

However, this is only one aspect of how you process information (concrete 'evidence' (anecdotes) over theoretical, conceptual ideas). There are many others that usually come together that point to either S or N for a person, but again, I'm getting a stronger read of your judging functions, not your perceiving ones- not too surprised however, since if you are I--J (and I am sure you are), you lead with introverted perceiving (Si or Ni), and the introverted perceiving functions are said to be the most 'invisible' functions since they are strongly processed internally after all, and Si and Ni both can tend to be quite strongly subjective, which can make it even harder to clearly see, especially when not strongly differentiated.

All in all; there are few indications of what your perceiving function is, but what few is there, it's all S. Right now the scale is S > N and for all I know one day you will find more traces/evidence of N that may tip the scale more strongly to N over S, who knows. However, if you were to hold a gun to my head demanding a finalised type right now, ISFJ is what I will give you, along with strong 9w1 of the sp/so variant, as well as 3 and 6 fix.

ISFJ, 936 (9w1, 3w2, 6w7) sp/so.
- w2 since while there might be some 'reactive' cues from you, what is there points to 6 more than 4, and I don't see that reflexive 'trusting yourself more than the external' that 4/w4 can be prone to doing. w2s 'balance' between themselves and outside expectations more, which seems to be what your style of 3 is.
- w7 over w5 because you seem to want to try make a judgement in the moment and there is little 'sitting around conceptualising' that I've seen, and you are quite attuned to the external).

Since all three are attachment it can almost go either way if it weren't for you displaying more 3 traits than 6, and knowing that 9 also disintegrates to 6- making 9 first, 6 second just too much for you. 9 first 3 second accounts for who you as a whole (or from what I've seen) better.


However, if you want to dig into it more, you did say this:

Also: Identifying as an INFJ was an experience in itself. Everyone was doubting my type and I felt like I had to "prove" to others that I am not mistyped. This definitely helped with my frustration.

What was the experience, what type did people doubt you were, and what about INFJ did you relate to, and how did it help with your frustration?

 

[Iceblueblossom]

This is not what asexuality is. Asexual people can do this, but so can allosexuals- someone being an asexual doesn't give them a higher chance of being essentially a cheating arse. This is a potentially bigoted and definitely ignorant way of thought, but this is why I am telling you this so you will know and understand it better. Asexual people simply do not get 'aroused' from seeing somebody that is 'hot' (or get aroused from people, period). Think about it- how many people are that way to you? Your mother, father, siblings if any, good friend? Are you more likely to cheat them, hurt them, use them, just because you are not sexually attracted to them? Can you understand how harmful and painful that assumption is to an asexual?

That is how it is for asexuals- just because they are not sexually attracted, it does not mean they are not committed. And the more people understand asexuality, the better they can discover what is up with them and communicate that to their partners.

That being said, if your asexual friend lies and cheats their partner, they were a lying, cheating arse to begin with. Asexuality has nothing to do with it. Some people use the excuse, "Asexuals don't know how important sexual attraction is, that's why they cheat!" but the same argument can be made against allosexuals: they know how important it is, and that's why they desire it so much to the point of cheating. Some could even say "Asexuals don't find sex important, so they are not likely to cheat!" (not necessarily true, but see how any kind of assumptions can be made like this?). See how it can go both ways- see how the point is that they were a cheating bastard to begin with- not that they are asexual, or allosexual.

OKAY, before I start with everything else I feel like I need to address this since I think there is a huge misunderstanding happening here. My friend is not an asexual. I am the asexual in the friendship and my friend is allo. Me being uncomfortable therefore does not come from the fact they are ace - but me as an ace not being able to understand this feeling of "they are hot, I want to hook up" and they are very open about the fact they sleep with people only for the looks. They once texted with someone they deemed as "crazy" just because they were attractive and planned on just going to bed with them and then leave them. It's not USUALLY what he plans but this outlook makes me really uncomfy. I appreciate you advocating and making sure people get the right idea about asexuality though. I am just afraid you might have used that time on someone already who was already aware :"D. Sorry if I triggered you in any way.

All that being said, I was still observing the things you have said for typology cues. The only thing missing for your MBTI is the N/S divide. Yours is not a strong divide- some have a very strong one, but I do think you are more likely S than N. Let me explain, with the disclaimer that I tend to be better at Enneagram than MBTI, but perhaps something to chew on/consider;

This is interesting as you would think that as a Ne inferior me having less inuitive qualities would be more obvious. Honestly funny enough I always saw myself as an (at least party) intuitive person even though I always knew my Si is pretty strong.

I have noticed that high N tends to be a bit... Well, less anecdotal, by preference (meaning they can be, but they tend not to be if given the choice otherwise). They tend to speak in a lot of hypotheticals, generalities, and universal concepts (especially Js). There is the sense of "This is the concept of how X works, and if ABC happens, the result would be Y." - quite conceptual, at worst endlessly, brain-numbingly lofty or theoretical, and I have tended to notice them take a bit of a pause to recall more specific anecdotes when asked, unless they are fresh in the N's mind. What people say about N individuals generally working in the abstract, applies here. Keep in mind that this is strong N- more balanced people aren't this extreme.

I think in my case it tends to be very interesting. I tend to be pretty precise when it comes to explaining my thoughts or relating to people "I think x is y because xy happened in the past" or " I relate to you, because situation z". But in therapy for example I was told very often that it's hard for people to imagine what I am talking about because I am not giving descriptions or details. "I tend to be overemotional" and can't give examples of me being overemotional - or describing overall dynamics between me and others without going into detail. Often I also realise that I tend to overgeneralize, talking about "this person" or "the type of person that". Again, in therapy I was asked once to describe how a person I talk about looks and I was very uncomfortable and didn't even know if I could remember enough of it. Doesn't 100% debunk your explanation, just wanted to throw it there. But I agree in the way that I am not really metaphorical or abstract in my speech. And people even IRL tend to tell me my way of speaking is very exact and to the point (even if I tend to go on tangents).

ISFJ, 936 (9w1, 3w2, 6w7) sp/so.
- w2 since while there might be some 'reactive' cues from you, what is there points to 6 more than 4, and I don't see that reflexive 'trusting yourself more than the external' that 4/w4 can be prone to doing. w2s 'balance' between themselves and outside expectations more, which seems to be what your style of 3 is.
- w7 over w5 because you seem to want to try make a judgement in the moment and there is little 'sitting around conceptualising' that I've seen, and you are quite attuned to the external).

While still not 100% sure on the 3 wing (I would need to do more research on it) I agree about everything else!

I still have a few questions though (mostly stereotypes I want to get rid of) so maybe you can listen to this and have a statement about it:
- I heard that Si doms usually don't struggle with productivity or having a regulated life. I struggle with both. I NEED schedule and route but suck and maintaining it. I might tell myself to get to a routine, get bored by it after a few weeks or (if it goes really well) months and go back to do whatever. With productivity... usually when I start something new I tend to be super organised and work hard, but after awhile I (without really trying to) do a challenge for myself "how much less can I work for a similar result". So I end up doing rushed work in 30 minutes, stressing myself out, getting anxious and regretting my life choices.
- I don't see myself being in tune with reality or the world around me all too much. I don't notice when people are wearing something different, I am not looking what is happening around me when I go somewhere, I tend me need ALOT of time to find something that is right infront of me, I don't care about the things I wear or what other people wear, and 90% of my thoughts are about my interests and what I am gonna do next or some imaginery scenarios (self-inserting into my favorite shows). While I DO constrast with my past alot I don't think I go there 24/7 and it mainly comes up in interactions. Honestly, me not being focused of what needs to be done at the moment or what is happening around me can cause me huge problems. Though I guess alot of this can come down to people describing Si as if it's Se and mixing it up?
- There is more but I can't think of it right now... might write it down in the future.

Since all three are attachment it can almost go either way if it weren't for you displaying more 3 traits than 6, and knowing that 9 also disintegrates to 6- making 9 first, 6 second just too much for you. 9 first 3 second accounts for who you as a whole (or from what I've seen) better.

Funny you are saying this as I often question whether I am a 6 and people on a discord server (that are very well read on enneagram) were convinced a couple times I could be a 6. I think you thinking otherwise might come down to the nature of a forum as it's easy to present myself in a structured way here and make myself more polished. Anxiety is a huge part of my life and is a huge reason why I am still stuck with a life I am unhappy with. Though, fairly enough, I didn't type myself as a 3 fix for very long. And I am definitely seeing more qualities of it than I did before. Maybe I will see even more of it as I go on.

What was the experience, what type did people doubt you were, and what about INFJ did you relate to, and how did it help with your frustration?

Okay, I mistyped: "It DIDN'T help with my frustration". But yeah, after I got typed as an INFJ by the person I talked you about, I changed my type on a discord server and I went to the corresponding channel to talk to people of the same (or similar type) and have a great time. However, after seeing I changed from an INFP to an INFJ people wanted to know why and instead of trusting my judgement they were starting to type me all over - even if I didn't ask anymore. I think they instantly assumed they would need to help me from being mistyped. Either that, or prove, that I am actually an INFJ. Some people were certain I use Ne over Ni in the way I communicated and was able to "keep up with fast and random Ne speech" and understand it. Also I already knew that apprently most people who are INFJs are mistyped so I instantly doubted my type... again. Also seeing other "real" INFJs made me question my type to, as they were talking about not being understood, and people being shocked about their insights that were obvious them. I couldn't relate to it. After talking to one INFJ in private she said "you just need someone to listen to your ideas and insights" and I instantly thought "I have literally no insights". I felt like I had to fake my speech in order to sound like a "real INFJ" (I talked like I do to you now, just in an actual fast moving chat, it was tiring because I just wanted to have a fun time). I changed my type back to INFP and felt better, because people don't usually question INFPs (though people questioned me having Fi in the past, but not many). After being in another server that was more layed back and talking to the people there in a way that was more fun, I was told by a person "Interesting, I was on that other server with you, and you gave off huge INFJ vibes but now I get huge INFP / Ne vibes from you). I in general feel like whenever I go into "explanation" or "description mode" I talk like this. But whenever I am talking to a person on a friendship-level and am casual (without tension) with them, I send 20 messages, fragmented thoughts, being more "random" too.

What I related to INFJ... hard to pinpoint. I was watching alot of videos about common INFJ experiences (memes but also descriptions), the ways the functions work, the way the type supposedly reacts to things. I related to inferior Se because of me being oblivious about my surroundings, Ni because of me being in my head all the time (and also a Ni descrition I read on a pretty good website). I related to the Ni-Ti loop as I struggle with analysis paralysis regulary. I related to the more "lowkey" manifestation of Fe in INFJs. Observing and guiding people rather than baking cookies (bad ISFJ stereotype... it makes me mad). Also I guess for some odd reason I wanted to be an INFJ - which also made me think I am not one, because "real INFJs don't want to be their type". I think the type is just everything I would like to view myself as. I can't even pinpoint why. Maybe I want to be seen as wise and intelligent, having complex thoughts and just overall being special in a way. For a similar reason I was debating if I could be a thinker (INTP) but I think this also comes down to "I want to be logical and smart, because this is worth so much more in my head than talking to people well... because that is something that is expected either way from you. You don't get a cookie for smiling at others and it's not something I can be proud of with myself". Well... writing it out like that makes me feel like I understand why you go with 3 over 6 all of the sudden