Type me video! >.<

[BlackCat]

I realize my response was very cryptic. I'll go back and watch it, and point out what screams Ni to me in regards to you.

 

[beloiseau]

I realize my response was very cryptic. I'll go back and watch it, and point out what screams Ni to me in regards to you.

Lol, thanks

I'd really like to know what says Fi-Ne

 

[Turi]

Lol, thanks I'd really like to know what says Fi-Ne

This makes no sense, he clearly said INFP via dichotomy, which makes perfect sense.
You don't vibe J.
I've done significantly more research since my last post here (and have altered my own type to INTJ, not INFJ) and I think INFP is your best fit type by dichotomy and cognitive functions.

Interesting to note is you forgot to turn the camera on right, forgetfulness is stereotypically linked to Ne types - inferior Si.
Different to my situation I spoke of in which I didn't have the camera set to see my hands - this is inferior Se. Different.
If I were you I'd do some research into Ne and Fi because the two can appear like Ni, I can completely understand this.
Also you just look like and come across as an xNFP. I've found out the mbti type of a couple of people I know who have similar mannerisms to you, one is an INFP the other an ENFP, this is actually why I'm in this thread again, your video popped in my head and I thought oh shit, xNFP?
J types should communicate like J types, even Pi doms - first extraverted function is judging, this will come through in a video, definitely doesn't in your video.

 

[Forever]

kudos for this thread going.

 

[beloiseau]

This makes no sense, he clearly said INFP via dichotomy, which makes perfect sense.
You don't vibe J.
I've done significantly more research since my last post here (and have altered my own type to INTJ, not INFJ) and I think INFP is your best fit type by dichotomy and cognitive functions.

Interesting to note is you forgot to turn the camera on right, forgetfulness is stereotypically linked to Ne types - inferior Si.
Different to my situation I spoke of in which I didn't have the camera set to see my hands - this is inferior Se. Different.
If I were you I'd do some research into Ne and Fi because the two can appear like Ni, I can completely understand this.
Also you just look like and come across as an xNFP. I've found out the mbti type of a couple of people I know who have similar mannerisms to you, one is an INFP the other an ENFP, this is actually why I'm in this thread again, your video popped in my head and I thought oh shit, xNFP?
J types should communicate like J types, even Pi doms - first extraverted function is judging, this will come through in a video, definitely doesn't in your video.

Well, that was quite unnecessary. Considering in my original post I asked for a "dichotomy" typing based off of Jung's cognitive functions, I assumed there was rationale that involved cognitive function observation when determining their typing of me.

I don't see Fi dominance as an option for me. J types might communicate in a very "J" type of way, but you have to think about how different talking to a camera is from talking when people are actually present when Fe is in the auxiliary position (implying that it is for myself--still up for debate). Fi and Ne are the first functions I ever started researching (years ago) because I always tested as and believed I was an INFP. It never "fit" and learning about the functions made me realize why. Am I saying for sure that I'm an INFJ? No. But I am saying that I know a lot about and have done a great amount of research on cognitive function theory to say with certainty that I'm not an FP. I respect your opinion but can provide you with insight and a better understanding by telling you that much. Feel free to ask questions if you are curious.

 

[Turi]

Well, that was quite unnecessary. Considering in my original post I asked for a "dichotomy" typing based off of Jung's cognitive functions, I assumed there was rationale that involved cognitive function observation when determining their typing of me.

I don't see Fi dominance as an option for me. J types might communicate in a very "J" type of way, but you have to think about how different talking to a camera is from talking when people are actually present when Fe is in the auxiliary position (implying that it is for myself--still up for debate). Fi and Ne are the first functions I ever started researching (years ago) because I always tested as and believed I was an INFP. It never "fit" and learning about the functions made me realize why. Am I saying for sure that I'm an INFJ? No. But I am saying that I know a lot about and have done a great amount of research on cognitive function theory to say with certainty that I'm not an FP. I respect your opinion but can provide you with insight and a better understanding by telling you that much. Feel free to ask questions if you are curious.

What was unnecessary?

If you've done a 'great amount of research on cognitive function theory', what function is just 'you'?
One you don't have to think about, it's just your default.

Some people are just naturally harmonious and helpful and you can tell that's just their natural Fe state.
Some people just have a natural drive to put things in order (i.e make sure the remote controls are where they're supposed to be etc) and that's just their natural Te state.
You get the gist.

I haven't read the entire thread, so my apologies if it's been covered - why are you certain you're not an Fi dominant?
What is your understanding of Fi? I want to know why it doesn't fit you.

 

[Catullus]

When the auxiliary is poorly developed due to youth or inexperience (teens or younger), it is common for a person to believe that it is pointed in the opposite direction because it is completely overshadowed by the looming and overextended dominant function. For example, INTJs will think that Ni-Te resembles Ti or ESFPs will think Se-Fi resembles Fe.

This might be the case for you- namely, you think that your auxiliary Ne is actually dominant Ni or that your Fe is Fi. Additionally, if you're still a little unsure of your type, it would be helpful to research grip behaviors and consider loops in your analysis.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

When the auxiliary is poorly developed due to youth or inexperience (teens or younger), it is common for a person to believe that it is pointed in the opposite direction because it is completely overshadowed by the looming and overextended dominant function. For example, INTJs will think that Ni-Te resembles Ti or ESFPs will think Se-Fi resembles Fe.

This might be the case for you- namely, you think that your auxiliary Ne is actually dominant Ni or that your Fe is Fi. Additionally, if you're still a little unsure of your type, it would be helpful to research grip behaviors and consider loops in your analysis.

How presumptuous.

 

[Catullus]

It supports her possible NFP and NFJ.

 

[beloiseau]

How presumptuous.

sigh

 

[highlander]

sigh

Can you take this test, let me know the type it gives you as well as the function order and when you took it? I'll look at the raw scores and provide some opinions.

Typologycentral Keirsey and Jung Test

 

[beloiseau]

Can you take this test, let me know the type it gives you as well as the function order and when you took it? I'll look at the raw scores and provide some opinions.

Typologycentral Keirsey and Jung Test

INFJ

Ni>Fe>Ne>Ti>Te>Fi=Si>Se

 

[highlander]

INFJ

Ni>Fe>Ne>Ti>Te>Fi=Si>Se

When did you take it?

 

[beloiseau]

When did you take it?

Immediately prior to having told you what results I received.

 

[highlander]

Immediately prior to having told you what results I received.

Ok here are your raw results

NF=3;NT=4;SP=0;SJ=-7

Te=-1;Ti=0; T = -1
Fe=5;Fi=-4; F = 1
Ne=2;Ni=8; N = 8
Se=-6;Si=-4; S = -10

That's really interesting. You definitely come out as an intuitive which I think you know. You are very close between F/T on overall score but Fe is your highest score by far on the feeling/thinking spectrum so that aligns with NFJ. Also, you come out very high on Ni which is your highest score by a long shot. However, NT is slightly higher than NF which is interesting.

If I were to guess, I'd say you are an INFJ Enneagram 5

 

[beloiseau]

Ok here are your raw results

NF=3;NT=4;SP=0;SJ=-7

Te=-1;Ti=0; T = -1
Fe=5;Fi=-4; F = 1
Ne=2;Ni=8; N = 8
Se=-6;Si=-4; S = -10

That's really interesting. You definitely come out as an intuitive which I think you know. You are very close between F/T on overall score but Fe is your highest score by far on the feeling/thinking spectrum so that aligns with NFJ. Also, you come out very high on Ni which is your highest score by a long shot. However, NT is slightly higher than NF which is interesting.

If I were to guess, I'd say you are an INFJ Enneagram 5

Enneagram 5 and INFJ are what most people seem to type me as and what I'd, at this point, type myself as. As per the video, what did you take into consideration from that in conjunction with my results?

Do you run that website?

 

[highlander]

Enneagram 5 and INFJ are what most people seem to type me as and what I'd, at this point, type myself as. As per the video, what did you take into consideration from that in conjunction with my results?

Do you run that website?

There was a part where you said you were very critical about inconsistencies and poking holes in things. That seemed very 5ish.

Uh I run this one and did develop the test . Enhancing it is on the list of things to do cause I don't think it is accurate enough at this point in terms of how it calculates the results...

 

[beloiseau]

What was unnecessary?

If you've done a 'great amount of research on cognitive function theory', what function is just 'you'?
One you don't have to think about, it's just your default.

Some people are just naturally harmonious and helpful and you can tell that's just their natural Fe state.
Some people just have a natural drive to put things in order (i.e make sure the remote controls are where they're supposed to be etc) and that's just their natural Te state.
You get the gist.

I haven't read the entire thread, so my apologies if it's been covered - why are you certain you're not an Fi dominant?
What is your understanding of Fi? I want to know why it doesn't fit you.

I have a harder time examining myself in relation to cognitive function theory than I do examining others and understanding the theory as a whole. There is no function that is just "me".

I'm fairly positive Fi isn't my dominant or auxiliary function because I hardly have a focus on my reactions to things around me. I have no solid sense of "right and wrong" that I've created for myself. I examine cultural and societal moral standings to understand them and why they have developed into what they are; not to see if they "sit well" with me. I don't make decisions based on whether it is in line with my beliefs and/or who I am as a person. I feel like who I am as a person isn't even solid--as if my identity is simply my present perception and method of translating the world (a lens that is always changing).

Fi is basically an internal machine which sorts information (events, new data, etc) that has been absorbed into a pre-existing working framework. An Fi framework is comprised of all beliefs formed and all emotions having been experienced, causing it to be very reactionary. An Fi dom will have a reaction to everything, whether they show it or not, because of the automatic ride through their individualized mental framework that the Fi "machine" takes information. The framework will only expand/adjust once they've experienced a new emotion (the intake of information so unique that it doesn't fit anywhere into the current framework, a new and authentic facet and, therefore, reaction being synthesized). Until that shift, they will relate emotions that they personally have experienced to the experiences of others.

They can be, and are known to be, very empathetic because of this. An Fi user seeing a person experiencing a deep emotion or hearing about/seeing a situation that would cause a deep emotional reaction will automatically sort this information into their framework, then triggering a true emotional response based on a process of "relation" from the Fi user. Another way of looking at it is by way of what I like to call the "blender effect". Fi doms are often stereotyped as being depressing and highly emotional. It isn't uncommon for them to be HSP. Because they relate to the world through how they react to it, absorbing the feelings of others will trigger a reaction in the Fi user. They have to fit the emotions of others, just like everything else, into their framework of "reactions". They will relate the person's emotions to their own and in the process end up accidentally "blending in" the observed emotions with their own emotions. It's like putting blueberries and strawberries into a blender to make a smoothie. The blueberries are the Fi user's personal emotions, the strawberries are the emotions perceived to be the other person's, and the blender is the ride through the framework which results in a reaction (where the strawberries and blueberries MUST fit). Once you blend it up you are left with a blue/purple smoothie that is reminiscent of the blueberries (Fi user's emotions). Even though the smoothie has strawberries in it, the blueberries have taken over the entire "aesthetic" and immediate perception of the smoothie. Take a sip of the smoothie and you can tell it has strawberries in it but it is too far past the point of being able to separate the strawberries from the blueberries. I've observed this in my Fi dom sister. There is little to no separation between her own emotions and her emotional reaction to observed emotions. They are so quick to lend their personal emotions to observed emotions because that's just how they operate. Again, there is a personalized (though not consciously synthesized) internal reaction to EVERYTHING for an Fi dom.

Though I've talked about Fi in terms of emotions, I know it isn't purely emotion based. I like to believe it's reactionary based (hence my excessive use of variations of the word "reaction"). Fi is complex and fascinating in the way that nearly anything is possible with it due to its subjective nature. Even though Fi frameworks can vary unimaginably from user to user, it is incredibly easy for me to spot dom/aux Fi because the way the Fi "machine" functions stays the same. If you understand the process of development well enough then you can identify both an elephant and a clown fish as Fi, both being completely different animals but with the same cellular foundation (Fi). The fickleness of resolution in Fi frameworks in the dom and even aux positions form such unique people. "No two Fis are the same." Ti creates a framework based on absorbed data and conclusive information. It is based purely on informational exposure and little is left to chance when it comes to how something may be processed. There is only so much individualization you can have going on with Ti. Every Ti dom's mental framework would end up looking VERY similar if all exposed to the same exact information. Fi user mental frameworks, on the other hand, would all look wildly different--even when exposed to identical information. Like Si, which perceives the world through a lens of what has already been experienced, Fi judges information from the world in relation to how it has already judged and reacted to previous information (to fit into built framework). It's much harder for the opinions of an Fi user to adjust to logic than the Ti user because the Ti framework is welded together with logic and facts and is designed in a way to create a smooth sorting of unique incoming information. The structure of the Fi framework is welded together with circumstantial reactions that will only budge when a circumstance arises that no already existing reaction will suit. Ti framework is much more likely to continue constant evolution throughout life whereas an Fi framework will undergo changes only for the need for a new reaction to an experience/information...or with the individual's conscious effort of fine-tuning. This conscious effort of fine-tuning goes against the very nature of Fi, though, because Fi is an authentic process and typically held close to the user as such. Forcing a change in the framework that wouldn't come about naturally may be viewed as "wrong" because of how much Fi in itself will value the natural formation of an individualized/experience-based mentality, but a mature Fi user will usually come to realize that one must allow intentional adjustments in order to fulfill an existing value (such as remaining open-minded and accepting), to attain harmony in a relationship, or to successfully avoid the "blender effect" in a healthy manner (if blender effect is ever recognized as the core of emotional problems). There are many other reasons for a user to attempt conscious "fine tuning" of their unique Fi framework, of course.

Sorry, I rambled on a bit because things started jumping to me. I hope I don't sound pretentious. Also, I'm not great with immediate responses so I apologize for taking a couple of days. Hopefully that was an adequate response.

*edited for paragraphs*

 

[beloiseau]

There was a part where you said you were very critical about inconsistencies and poking holes in things. That seemed very 5ish.

Uh I run this one and did develop the test . Enhancing it is on the list of things to do cause I don't think it is accurate enough at this point in terms of how it calculates the results...

Yeah, I feel more comfortable "identifying" as a 5 than I do an INFJ considering how much bias and other stupid shit there is surrounding the type. It's actually frustrating for me.

Are you open to feedback on it, coming from a different perspective? Or, are you content with where it's at? I DO think highly of it. I have taken so many dichotomy based and function based tests. Sigh. I'm interested in creating my own function based test eventually. I have a few thoughts on yours that I would like to share with you if you're interested in hearing.

 

[highlander]

Yeah, I feel more comfortable "identifying" as a 5 than I do an INFJ considering how much bias and other stupid shit there is surrounding the type. It's actually frustrating for me.

Are you open to feedback on it, coming from a different perspective? Or, are you content with where it's at? I DO think highly of it. I have taken so many dichotomy based and function based tests. Sigh. I'm interested in creating my own function based test eventually. I have a few thoughts on yours that I would like to share with you if you're interested in hearing.

I am very interested and open to feedback. I've had to do much of it on my own without a lot of assistance.