• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[MBTI General] Ambiversion

Legion

complete
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,420
MBTI Type
INF
Enneagram
945
That's also part of the process of growing up, integrating the other functions. For me, that I'm younger, Te can be useful during discussions and I got a decent grasp on it, but my primary approach of reasoning is definitely Ti. Te mostly is obvious business to me. Same with Ni, apart that I really rarely use it because my Ne perceives it as too narrow.
But give it a read, I think it can solve most of your problems.

Ne does have a tendency to view Ni as too narrow, and perhaps Ni views Ne as too shallow, but that's why they go well together. Ne diversifies and expands Ni's focus, and Ni unites Ne's disparate abstractions into an underlying philosophy.
 

Vendrah

New forum night mode looks cool!
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,744
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
Here ya go. Got INTP on 16p today actually but very balanced T/F.(93% introversion)

GpdlNHd.jpg


oWYamRI.jpg

Thanks very much.

As it is now, through my conversion is:

S/N
Ne+Ni>Se+Si
Very clear preference for intuition
(matches with 16p)

T/F
Fi+Fe>Te+Ti
Very clear preference for feeling
(error:mismatch. 16P shows no preference)
Although I would say that this error is quite desirable, since in 16p there is an X on this axis and the cognitive function test removes the x.

P/J
Te+Fe+Si+Ni=105 (J)
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne=135 (P)
Clear preference for perceveing
(matches with 16p)

You forgot to post your I/E. The turbulent and assertive thing, as far as I know, its not an MBTI, its just 16P aditional dimension (probably to enrich the system). I am going to predict your I/E, since you said its "I" but I dont know if it is close to 50% or if the introversion is clear. And this is the tricky part because of Ne.

I/E
Ne+Fe+Se+Te=105
Ni+Fi+Ti+Si=135
Clear preference for introverted
(matches with 16p)

Final result: INFP (verus INxP on 16P).

Now it would be the description, but your function stack is quite close to Grant Function Stack, so it would be quite similar to INFP (so there wouldnt be actually significant hybridizing, I would had a text that it would be like 80% INFP). I would even risk saying that you are a Fi and Ne-dom instead, however the difference between Ne and Ni is significantly lower than Fi and Fe. So, it wouldnt be unfair to say Fi-dom with very good secondary Ne. As tertiary (that is secondary in the point of view of double doms) are shared between Ni and Si. Thats a little bit different than GFS INFP, since GFS INFP is supposed to have a preference for intuition, but not a heavy preference for intuition because of tertiary Si alone. I was forgetting the extra:

Fi or Fe
Preference for Fi (as expected for GFS)

Te or Ti
Preference for Ti (GFS is unsure on this one)

Si or Se
Preference for Si (as expected for GFS)

Ne or Ni
Preference for Ne (as expected for GFS)

I say that in this case GFS fits quite good. Also, interesting that there was no ambivalence.
[MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION] I meant that the word rational has one meaning in terms of J and P and other meaning inside MBTI descriptions (NT The rationals, with INTP and ENTP being rational in this term and irrational in the other one).

The other context for support is what, its popularity? The theory looks pretty cool (it does!)? Well, look, maybe you had used it for years and you became attached to it, but I encorage you to get out of it, or at least starting using it very carefully. But I am glad that you are open to alternatives.

There is only one good news although. If this system that I am creating is right, then the function stack you described is one of INFJs variations. Considering all 8 functions, thats only one arrangement out of 40320, so its one INFJ possible in a sea of hundreds of INFJs possibilites (497 in an estimation since the math becomes complex for this calculation, although I could reduce that number because just swaping the 5th and 6th house, for example, wouldnt make much difference). Consider the alternative stack you mentioned, then thats two INFJs in the sea of hundreds INFJs possibilites.

Hmm.. now that I am stopping to thinkk about, Ni reduces the possibilities while Ne expands them, hmm....
 

Legion

complete
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,420
MBTI Type
INF
Enneagram
945
Vendrah said:
@Legion I meant that the word rational has one meaning in terms of J and P and other meaning inside MBTI descriptions (NT The rationals, with INTP and ENTP being rational in this term and irrational in the other one).

You're still mistaken, it gets even more confusing than that. INTP is a Perceiving type, but the dominant function is Ti which is rational, so they're a rational, and rational means judgment, so they're judgers. But a different definition of judger than is meant by J in the type code. And of course INTP is an NT, which is a rational, but INTJ is also an NT, and thus a rational, but the dominant function is a perception function, so they're irrational, but with a different definition, thus they're perceivers, but they're also judgers by a different definition.

The other context for support is what, its popularity? The theory looks pretty cool (it does!)? Well, look, maybe you had used it for years and you became attached to it, but I encorage you to get out of it, or at least starting using it very carefully. But I am glad that you are open to alternatives.

Are you referring to the Grant/Beebe function stack? I was agnostic about that until I learnt to identify function sequences, and that is the support I use for it. Likely there is other support as well, but I just go by whatever is sufficient for me to make up my mind, rather than collating all the evidence together, so it's hard for me to convince others, apart from saying "just look for it in the way I'm referring to, you might be able to see it too!".

There is only one good news although. If this system that I am creating is right, then the function stack you described is one of INFJs variations. Considering all 8 functions, thats only one arrangement out of 40320, so its one INFJ possible in a sea of hundreds of INFJs possibilites (497 in an estimation since the math becomes complex for this calculation, although I could reduce that number because just swaping the 5th and 6th house, for example, wouldnt make much difference). Consider the alternative stack you mentioned, then thats two INFJs in the sea of hundreds INFJs possibilites.

Hmm.. now that I am stopping to thinkk about, Ni reduces the possibilities while Ne expands them, hmm....

Sequences, sequences. The functions just tend to go in an order. If you look for it you'll see it. Dario Nardi used an analogy in his thread about anatomy. It's possible for the human anatomy to be totally different than what it is, but it just so happens that it tends to be the same for everyone, because that's what evolved based on functionality.

So certain orderings of functions (I mean sequential ordering, as well as distance from the "seat of consciousness") just happen to be functional, while others, while possible, are less functional.

Though, there are other contexts you can look at where the functions don't manifest in a set order, but can be used in any order. And there are plenty of variations to the function order even when it does appear in a sequence. But there are regularities to how it manifests, and that's why the Grant/Beebe function order is a useful approximation (and even the word "approximation" sells it short, given that we're talking about essentially discrete processes here).
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
25,215
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
IMPORTANT: I quoted some people not in the intention to involve them on the discussion but rather to just mention them for some reason. I dont know if you got what I said on my post ending. I meant someone tackling the 8 cognitive functions without any specific order stacking and dismissing concepts of "leading", "secondary" and "tertiary function"/ "4th function". Ill give a much longer explanation by using an example in order to be less abstract. After your post I took a look at people results in the two tests that I consider the best ones that uses both cognitive functions and 4-letter code, but it looks like they do the typing using Gran Function Stack (GFS). Actually, I dont think there is a single test in the internet that uses ditchonomies (personality dimensions) and the cognitive functions in paralel or combined. Here it is the TypoC one, managed and created (I believe) by [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION]: New Version of Forum Personality Test And the Dario Nardi test: Cognitive Processes Test (Dario Nardi's 48 Question Test) When I looked the results of several people tests, I saw GFS failing sometimes. More failing than succeding actually. I saw things like INTP with higher Ni´s than Ne (unusual but possible). I saw a lot of people which didnt seem to have any preference between Te or Ti, Ne or Ni, Fi or Fe, Se or Si, actually, thats seems to be common. And in that matter comes an interesting family of cases. Some INFPs displayed a huge preference for Fi over Fe, and, well that it is what it should happen since Fi goes for FP and Fe goes for FJ. But there was some INFPs which didnt seem to have a particular preference between Fi over Fe. And yet, they were still scoring as INFP in a stable manner. This pattern happens in several other types. I even found one INFP that scored preference for Fe over Fi [MENTION=38618]robobot14[/MENTION]). Link: https://www.typologycentral.com/for...on-forum-personality-test-22.html#post3112859 She should be INFJ by Fe-Fi FP-FJ conversion, but then you look a preference for Ne instead of Ni. Ne goes for NP while Ni goes for NJ. So far, you could say that Im actually stating that the cognitive functions are broke, but thats not the case. My point here in this example is this: The Fe-Fi FP-FJ, Ne-Ni-NP-NJ and other alikes conversions would only be valid if GFS was valid either. When you do these conversions (Fi=FP), you are assuming GFS as valid. And my second point here, is that there should be a big difference between the regular INFP which preferes Fi over Fe between the INFP with equal preference for Fi and Fe or the INFP that has a preference for Fe over Fi which is the present case. And yet, they still get the same codes: INFP. Thats what I meant by the potential to expand and make MBTI deeper, since cognitive functions could not only distinct different INFPs but to do the same in every personality type. Note that I am not saying that personality dimensions are wrong because of this, I am actually expanding them. I am giving one example where I am expanding and giving depth and variety for INFPs (I could do it with any type) using cognitive functions, so they arent useless nor direct conversions from the personality dimensions MBTI. But I am claiming that the Fi-->FP and all these kind of conversions are wrong if GFS is wrong, which is the case. Actually, I am already dismissing GFS entirely, because in GFS INFPs should have Fi preference over Fe. I am talking something new here, but this could not be new (am I the first to think and rephrase cognitive functions this way? I am asking because I usually never the one who came with ideas first). Now, ideally it would be nice if we actually had an personality dimensions results either from her and from the other cases, but we dont. So, how the decision of INFP and not INFJ was made here? Well, only [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] could explain from his software side, but Im going to display you my hypothesis - which is that the cognitive functions are free to move without any specific order but they have to obey some restrictions in order to match the personality dimensions preferences. Remember, its an hypothesis, I never had the opportunity to test it. It is neither proven entirely/partially right or wrong, unless you could point me out someone which did the same and tested, which is exactly what I was asking last post. Continuing, these restrictions come from the simple equations I stated above. Just remembering: If someone has preference in Intuition over Sensing, then Ne+Ni>Se+Si. = sign (relatively close) if there is no clear preference. Same for thinking and feeling. For extraversion or introversion, we compare how extraverted functions are compared to introverted functions. In Judging or perceveing functions is what I think there is a possibility that I am wrong, but Fi, Fe, Ti and Te are judging functions while Se, Si, Ne, Ni are perceveing functions. In [MENTION=38618]robobot14[/MENTION] case, I will explain why P and not J by using this principle. In her case, Se+Ne+Ni+Si=7 while Fi+Fe+Ti+Te=-3. So, since the sum or judging functions are -3 and the sum of perceveing funtions are 7 we have a clear preference for perceveing, and, yet we have high Fe over Fi (which should translate by being FJ but it doesnt). Also note that there is no dominant function on this case. I used example so I hope you catch the concept. It doenst matter if she hard these results only that day or if the [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] test made mistakes, it matters the concept which I am trying to explain here. There are literally at least hundreds of possible cases with the same issue in INFP case. So I ask again: Is there anyone on the "functionista nonsense" that have ever thought of this? Wouldnt the "functionista nonsense school" always been tied by dominant and specific order of functions or anyone of them thought a function stack that doesnt follow specific tight patterns? Well, GFS doesnt work but that doesnt mean that it is impossible to make the cognitive functions work. Even if I dont actually dominate the concept between these functions since my sources about it should be poor, I think the system I described could not only bring the cognitive function usefullness but could expand the MBTI system, into something that not only categorizes you but describes your personality (even if it is kind of akward). I didnt noticed any parts where Reynierse stated that the cognitive functions themselves tested and failed. He states that type dynamics and the dynamical interpretation (Dominant and aux, as they appear in table 1) are a mistake, but I didnt see him stating that the functions themselves are a mistake (for example, that Si Sensing Introverted is a mistake in itself).
The simple answer is I changed it to be more dichotomy based. It evaluates functions and it heavily weights introversion vs extraversion in determining type. The reason I did this is to improve accuracy. Evaluating temperament turned out to be more harm than benefit and relying on cognitive function order alone was far too unreliable. That's what the data told me anyway.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
25,215
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
As an aside, I still do believe in functions. I am just not sure a list of questions that determine strength of preference of those functions is a reliable way to determine types. So I dont agree with @reckful about the category mistake and all that. Functions as a concept are very intuitively appealing to me and I believe then to be quite helpful. I just think this stuff is a bit more fluid or possibly hard to test for.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,447
MBTI Type
*NF*
Enneagram
852
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So ENxP CANNOT BE ambivert! ExxP wants to grab the world. YOU WANT TO MOVE IT. MOVE IT. YOU WANT TO MOVE IT.
Ambivert is ExxJ or IxxP. :)

So if you are XNTJ you are ENTJ or if you are xNFP you are INFP. Period. :)


Imagine you wrote "I am ENTP type 7" What you wrote It would sound like "Hello all flat earthers all around the globe" :bye:

To me those are just stereotypes. :bored:


I can understand if we had been knowing enneagramm/mbti since a short while. We probably all made the same mistake, once upon a time...


Would you share where/who you got those info from ?

Why do you think E**J and I**P are the most ambiverts ?


As an example, I am a 7, yes I do have a wing you won't see as you cross my path, and I'm a minimalist. So I may look like a 5....

Let's not forget to take into account the level of integration and so on.
 

Vendrah

New forum night mode looks cool!
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,744
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
You're still mistaken, it gets even more confusing than that. INTP is a Perceiving type, but the dominant function is Ti which is rational, so they're a rational, and rational means judgment, so they're judgers. But a different definition of judger than is meant by J in the type code. And of course INTP is an NT, which is a rational, but INTJ is also an NT, and thus a rational, but the dominant function is a perception function, so they're irrational, but with a different definition, thus they're perceivers, but they're also judgers by a different definition.



Are you referring to the Grant/Beebe function stack? I was agnostic about that until I learnt to identify function sequences, and that is the support I use for it. Likely there is other support as well, but I just go by whatever is sufficient for me to make up my mind, rather than collating all the evidence together, so it's hard for me to convince others, apart from saying "just look for it in the way I'm referring to, you might be able to see it too!".



Sequences, sequences. The functions just tend to go in an order. If you look for it you'll see it. Dario Nardi used an analogy in his thread about anatomy. It's possible for the human anatomy to be totally different than what it is, but it just so happens that it tends to be the same for everyone, because that's what evolved based on functionality.

So certain orderings of functions (I mean sequential ordering, as well as distance from the "seat of consciousness") just happen to be functional, while others, while possible, are less functional.

Though, there are other contexts you can look at where the functions don't manifest in a set order, but can be used in any order. And there are plenty of variations to the function order even when it does appear in a sequence. But there are regularities to how it manifests, and that's why the Grant/Beebe function order is a useful approximation (and even the word "approximation" sells it short, given that we're talking about essentially discrete processes here).

If these specific function stacks order were a good approximation they would be passed the empirical tests.
Well I already said everything I could, at least you are aware of the strong reasons for not using them. Although your vibe seems conceptual, its a lot sentimental. What I have been discussing about reckful althought is that the functions alone themselves (Se, Fe, Ni, etc...) were not been invalidated. So, these concepts of Fe, Fi... all still follows on a sense. What dont follow is a the constrained rule that any type needs to have a specific Dom and Aux, you dont need to be a Ni-dom to be INFJ.

I wont grasp the details, but behind the equations I had "created" most INFJs on the sea of INFJ possibilites are Ni-doms, and there is a tendency for Fe too. INFJs tends to be Ni-doms and have very high preference for Ni, but thats a tendency, not a law, and for the moment thats the most reasonable point of view I can adopt now. I thought about that for the 2nd function, but as [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] stated there were analysis (that did not proceeded empirically) saying that with two functions that doesnt follow (and the same goes to the tertiary and others). I wonder how that translates in terms of real world statistics since not all my possibilites are sunstainable and some of them should be very rare and others more common. What I noticed is that even websites that ignores cognitive functions creates descriptions using the Dom and sometimes the auxiliary, but maybe thats only the parts that the Fe-->FJ and etc.. translation that actually works. Being an INFP shouldnt necessarily translate by being lead by values, but 16P have partial descriptions that are written like they were using cognitive functions. "Mediator [INFP] personalities are true idealists" thats the first line in their INFPs description that actually describe a Fi-dom characteristic. However, you dont really find Fi directly in their basic ISFP description, but it quite pops in the INFP description. So I am suspecting that there are Fi-doms traits that showed up in statistics of INFPs that were included on INFP description (they may have found that the majority of INFPs marked "very me" in the phrase "I am a true idealist").

The simple answer is I changed it to be more dichotomy based. It evaluates functions and it heavily weights introversion vs extraversion in determining type. The reason I did this is to improve accuracy. Evaluating temperament turned out to be more harm than benefit and relying on cognitive function order alone was far too unreliable. That's what the data told me anyway.

So, although it doesnt shows you have numbers for the letters (example: 55% introversion, 45% extroversion)?
The answer which types are more ambiverted and which types are more introverted or extroverted is actually quite foundable by people who create and run tests. I am telling this because its a suggestion I am doing to you for data gathering: Supposing you are counting the numbers in the I-E, S-N, F-T, P-J axis, you can count the average of extraversion in any type. So, you could count the average of extraversion in ENTP, INTP, etc... In that same subject, you could even count which types has the most % of ambiversions. If we define ambiversion as being 45-55% in the axis, you could count, for example, how many people from ENFP, ESFJ, etc.. has 51-55% of extraversion in the axis and compare to the total of ENFP, ESFJs, etc.. You could also do the same to highly extroverteds and highly introverteds (for example, taking as 80% or more of extraversion as highly extroverted and 20% or less of extraversion as highly introverted) and compare to the total. With all these data you could actually build a rank that I would enjoy to see. And there is even a bonus: You can do the same in the S-N, T-F and P-J types. From my very long term "web surfing" the community suspects/thinks these: ENFPs, ENTPs are the less extroverted Es, with some people putting ENTJs on the list in ambiversion. People think the most extroverted types are ESFP and ESFJ; In the other side, I support the not-much popular that ISTJ and ISFJ are the most ambiverted, and some say its INFJ and INTJ. INTPs and ISTPs are supposed as the most introverted, with some people supporting that INTJ is too (there are many people disagreeing about INTJ in this matter). ISFPs and ISTPs are known as the more intuitive S types. Also, in the forum statistics - % of MBTI types, which is "dominated" by intuitives, ISFPs and ISTPs are the first two sensors types that shows up first, and maybe because they are the less S types. As the most concrete Ns, which is barely discussed, its considered ENTJ. In T/F matter, there is no discussion I remember about which F is more like a thinker, but some say the most sentimental thinker are INTJs. In the J/P there is zero discussion on this matter.

Also, as I have been discussing with [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] the functions themselves are not category mistakes and all of that, only the function stacks and concepts as we now Dom, aux, tertiary, etc.. are observed as mistakes as mistakes. That happens even considering only Dom and aux, but, as I stated to [MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION] in this same post the concept of Dom shouldnt be out of the table because the category mistakes article only works with the tight function stacks that required, at minimum, specific 1st and 2nd functions for each type.
 

Legion

complete
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,420
MBTI Type
INF
Enneagram
945
If these specific function stacks order were a good approximation they would be passed the empirical tests.
Well I already said everything I could, at least you are aware of the strong reasons for not using them. Although your vibe seems conceptual, its a lot sentimental. What I have been discussing about reckful althought is that the functions alone themselves (Se, Fe, Ni, etc...) were not been invalidated. So, these concepts of Fe, Fi... all still follows on a sense. What dont follow is a the constrained rule that any type needs to have a specific Dom and Aux, you dont need to be a Ni-dom to be INFJ.

I don't see why the function stack would pass a test based on dichotomies. I don't need to know much about the test to suppose the testing method was invalid for the simple logic that:
- I have seen evidence for the function stacks, so a test that says there is no evidence must therefore be invalid, e.g. not looking in the right place/way.

I don't know what you mean about the sentiment thing. Explain?

--

Also, I think you are defining an INFJ as someone who scores I+N+F+J according to a dichotomy test (questionnaire or some other form of measurement), i.e. you're defining it in terms of dichotomies, and saying that the dichotomies don't correlate one-to-one with functions, when tested according to some measurement.

I'm defining INFJ as being the NiFe etc. function order, and I already explained why I think those function orders are the primary ones that occur.
 

Norexan

Quetzalcoatl
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Messages
2,222
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sp
To me those are just stereotypes. :bored:


I can understand if we had been knowing enneagramm/mbti since a short while. We probably all made the same mistake, once upon a time...


Would you share where/who you got those info from ?

Why do you think E**J and I**P are the most ambiverts ?


As an example, I am a 7, yes I do have a wing you won't see as you cross my path, and I'm a minimalist. So I may look like a 5....

Let's not forget to take into account the level of integration and so on.


Because Ne and Se want to LIVE AND EXPLORE THE WORLD. Ne and Se are always in move and going, they cannot imagine how someone can just stay at home because their mind is always on the move. This is how Ne and Se work, GRAB IT, TAKE IT, CONQUER IT, EXPLORE IT, REACH IT, SENSE IT etc. Now I know Ne in age of internet can think about himself as "introvert" because of internet Ne can explore many things, have debate with people, branstorming things etc but still this offline MOVING is still moving calling CURIOSITY. :)

ExxJ are ambivert to extrovert because they believe they can do anything by themselves. They are lack of moving/exploring (Ne/Se) so they can just hang out with a couple of friends or just be with their family.
IxxP are introvert to ambivert because their Ne/Se are 2nd function so they can be very extroverted , social and easy-going people. After all IP are EXPLORERS. :)
 

Vendrah

New forum night mode looks cool!
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,744
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
[MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION] Its sentimental because you seem too attached to that world vision, and you just cant let it go!
The definition of INFJ is someone who scores I+N+F+J! These function specific orders such as NiFe were tested and failed, Im sorry. And with them goes all the theorys which "harmonizes" and "create these train of thoughts". You are free to try to align your personality with them, yeah, but someone doesnt need Dom-Ni and aux-Fe to be an INFJ.

[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] changed my view a lot, although he didnt made me agree completely with him. I didnt abandoned the cognitive functions. But I have changed my whole view and created an hypothesis. I am going to take a break because I have some other stuff to do and to think of (not because its stressful, these discussion are sometimes cool and this is the case), but when I get back I plan to develop my hypothesis.

But just in short words, my new view is that your cognitive functions order does describe you further than MBTI but you dont need a specific function stack A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H to belong to a specific type. You dont need to be a Ni-dom to be INFJ, although being an INFJ likely, but not forcily, imply that you have a good or excellent use of Ni. For the 2nd function, an INFJ perhaps got good use of Fe. For the third and the others, I now ignore it all together, since I already saw several results with people having very low tertiary functions anyway (the INFP with no Si has an entirely topic). You have to buy my view? No, but I think you should change it when controlled tests says that aspects of it doesnt work.
 

Legion

complete
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,420
MBTI Type
INF
Enneagram
945
[MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION] Its sentimental because you seem too attached to that world vision, and you just cant let it go!
The definition of INFJ is someone who scores I+N+F+J! These function specific orders such as NiFe were tested and failed, Im sorry. And with them goes all the theorys which "harmonizes" and "create these train of thoughts". You are free to try to align your personality with them, yeah, but someone doesnt need Dom-Ni and aux-Fe to be an INFJ.

I'm attached to the typological worldview in general it seems, but any specifics like what the nature of function order is, comes as a result of my investigations. Like I said, I used to be skeptical of function order.

Again, it's a definitions thing. Perhaps I should switch and just use the NiFe terminology, since there seem to be related but differing definitions for "INFJ"etc.

(innately, an NiFe does have I+N+F+J preferences*, but this may not show up in tests)


* However, if the multi-type hypothesis is true, it may actually be the case that an NiFe could have primarily Ts as secondary types, and thus be more T than F overall!
 
Top