How acutely aware are you of your Ni?

[Ginny]

@Ginny, what is the IEI in your MBTI

It's the designation for INFp (equiv. to INFJ in MBTI) from the socionics model. I have supercharged Fe, so I am an Fe-subtype.

 

[John K]

Sure, but it's difficult to say exactly what is the part Ni played since I believe the experience is universal. Who hasn't been madly infatuated? But I can nevertheless imagine why Ni dominants might be more prone to it. The weakness (and strength) of the function is that it doesn't really have anything to limit it. When introverted intuition goes rampant, it means jumping to conclusions without a shred of evidence. That's why it needs other functions, other forms of thinking to support it. The INFJ description often refers to the function by saying "They are usually right and they know it.". This is mere flattery*. I can only imagine how annoying we can be when young, being very certain of our opinions that were formed with a huge amount of intuition and little else. Since Ni is the first function to develop, there's always a temptation to overuse it while neglecting the limiting factors that keep us grounded in reality.

Anyway, you're talking about first impressions, and those are hard to change for any type. In my relationships there has always been a sense of ease from the very first moment. It also works in the other direction. Sometimes I immediately get the impression that someone is not my type. For some reason this judgment happens immediately after they speak. Just seeing someone is never enough, but hearing how they talk (and of course the kind of things they talk about) I can get a clearer impression. Sometimes the positive impression was wrong, and we don't really get along after all, but it seems to happen less as I grow older. Maybe I've become more cautious with age. In these cases I simply think it was physical attraction that made me think there was something deeper.

*It also occurred to me that this same attitude causes our relationships with INTJs to be so complex. Because both are using intuition, we can have fascinating discussions, but since the function stack is different, it's easier for us to see the negative side of Ni since the arguments they use to support the intuition come from a different place. When talking with INTJs I often feel like they make a ton of assumptions and call it absolutely rational thinking, disregarding anything that doesn't support their thesis. I bet they think the same about us. So we can find common ground, being interested in the same things, but can also annoy each other to no end, both feeling that the Ni the other one is using is jumping to conclusions because the Fe/Ti way of finding evidence is very different from the Te/Fi way.

I'm glad you brought us back to this question. I've never had instant infatuations at all, despite the usual physical attraction that pulls us all in - quite the opposite. As I got to know my girlfriend (as she was then) I saw beyond the surface to places she didn't even see herself, and that was a very important part of falling in love for me. It wasn't instant, it took as long as any of the other Ni examples in this thread where you "know" something in a lump pretty quickly but it needs feeding over time and even then I have to process it into something conscious. I'm analysing this in cold logic for the thread with a lot of hindsight, but of course it just happened naturally as part of our unfolding relationship over several months. For some reason, I've never jumped in to a relationship just on an Ni/Se impulse - cowardice and instinctive wisdom in an unholy alliance perhaps? We've been married for 45 years so it worked for us! My wife is probable INTJ, so we have a glorious time when both our Se's get overloaded simultaneously. She's much more hard minded than I am so keeps a clear view when I get all conflicted with other people's feelings, bears grudges fairly but without mercy where they are deserved and can do a "doorslam" louder than any INFJ I suspect. Her Fi is pretty impressive - she is a 125% absolute, loyal supporter and champion of Richard III and has been since she was a child. What she doesn't know or feel about about him isn't worth knowing or feeling.

 

[hauteur]

This is another question to fellow INFJs, has the Ni ever played out much in choosing your spouse or partner or when meeting significant important people in your life? Do you ever meet people and say, "ah this one is going to mark a dent in my life for sure" without much proof? Were you ever mistaken as in nothing came out of the hunch?

Sorry, I missed this one. You know, I don't think so. Or maybe I don't know. I met my wife twenty years ago, so I haven't been on the market for a while. I do think we do get a sense of chemistry or attraction right away, though. I think we can often even see that in other people. If I were single, I think I would get worried if that was too strong - I have a theory that we are most strongly attracted to people with our equal and opposite level of dysfunction. As an extreme example, controllers are attracted to victims and vice versa (i.e. https://howwelove.com/love-style-quiz/) without realizing it, but I don't think that's an INFJ thing. Just my own opinion, but I think we all do that.

 

[hauteur]

The INFJ description often refers to the function by saying "They are usually right and they know it.". This is mere flattery*. I can only imagine how annoying we can be when young, being very certain of our opinions that were formed with a huge amount of intuition and little else. Since Ni is the first function to develop, there's always a temptation to overuse it while neglecting the limiting factors that keep us grounded in reality.

True story.

So we can find common ground, being interested in the same things, but can also annoy each other to no end, both feeling that the Ni the other one is using is jumping to conclusions because the Fe/Ti way of finding evidence is very different from the Te/Fi way.

That's an interesting point. I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on that. How do you see the differences in Fe/Ti and Te/Fi?

 

[John K]

I like to use the NiTe example to illustrate this -- a reason why Ni might go with Te at all is simply that the unconscious nature of its working may result in needing to see it only through a "what works" POV, not one that you can a priori define as Ti may be more prone to want to do.

Similar remarks apply with respect to Fe vs Fi -- Fi types are more likely to really sort of fix their point of view in value judgment/it's less in dynamic interaction with the outside.

Going back to the NiT example, I like the 8-function pov of socionics loosely (not even close to the letter), and I think of the idea that ILI has *superstrong Ti* as saying this: that ultimately, they resist an external-first point of view by saying that you can define things/adopt premises almost any way to save a view you may wish to hold to, and in this sense they acknowledge the power of Ti.
However, how they decide their views in practice won't be this way, and will invoke intuition supported by Te.

@Ginny , @charlatan,

Don't want to hijack the thread, but I know very little about socionics. Do you have any interesting links or book recommendations to take away outside this discussion?

 

[Ginny]

How do you see the differences in Fe/Ti and Te/Fi?

I'm not @Fidicen, but I think the difference is that Fe uses the knowledge of Ni to synthesise all the possible perspectives one can have (probably with a specific moral perspective in mind) and tries to seek a reasonable consensus by applying Ti. Te would synthesise all possible logical effects (caused by the information in Ni) and select one solution based on their Fi.

@Ginny , @charlatan,

Don't want to hijack the thread, but I know very little about socionics. Do you have any interesting links or book recommendations to take away outside this discussion?

I watched lots of youtube videos, and formed my own concept of how it works. The descriptions aren't that well done with socionics alone, but the general framework is easily translated into the MBTI system.

Spoiler

@charlatan will probably have better sources, but I have found these rather enlightening for me:
http://www.sociotype.com/
https://typevolution.com/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6LNCcMzybvNuABUKmOF9zg
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmDcT_Pujk8vOcxk_IcnxtQ

The youtubers also have a background in MBTI, so they know how to frame the information in such a form that it is easily digestible for the likes of us.

The wikipedia page on the matter also isn't that bad, but to be taken in with caution.

 

[Fidicen]

How do you see the differences in Fe/Ti and Te/Fi?

I'm not @Fidicen, but I think the difference is that Fe uses the knowledge of Ni to synthesise all the possible perspectives one can have (probably with a specific moral perspective in mind) and tries to seek a reasonable consensus by applying Ti. Te would synthesise all possible logical effects (caused by the information in Ni) and select one solution based on their Fi.

Yes, something like this. Because the third function is relatively weak, a young person perhaps doesn't notice where this process can go wrong. For example, an INTJ might have a strong value system influenced by gut emotional reactions, and yet insist that the arguments are simply logical and not influenced by subjective views. This happens if the INTJ is very confident in the use of the first two functions (Ni and Te). But just because the other two functions are ignored doesn't mean that they're not present. Similarly, an INFJ might look at someone's problems and explore different perspectives, but fail to use Ti to make the arguments consistent. In both cases the Ni users will appear arrogant and stubborn, the INTJ denying subjectiveness and the INFJ insisting the argument is coherent when it's not, and both claiming that they're only being logical. Because they both use Ni to approach the problem, they probably can agree on the topic easily, and for that very reason see through each other's failures: the Te user will notice the wishy-washy nature of the weak Ti argument, and Fe can notice the hidden Fi agenda behind the rationalization.

 

[Ginny]

Because the third function is relatively weak, a young person perhaps doesn't notice where this process can go wrong.

There are also different ways it can go wrong, for example in tertiary loops or similarly in a repression of the auxiliary function. In both cases, the Ni-user has this blindness towards their subjectivity and claim to be objective, even though they are not and miss something very crucial in their process, or even (un)consciously misuse it.

The reason the other type will be able to discern that they use Ti or Fi respectively is because they are well-developed (for shadow functions) but countervalued functions. [This is where socionics/MBTI comes in handy, for example.] The conclusions drawn with those introverted judging functions will not easily be adopted by the other type because of their unfavouredness in their own stack. Someone who has worked towards developing/integrating the shadow will probably be less likely to vehemently disregard the conclusions based on the use of the function, even though they will also notice the mistake and see the flawed thinking.

 

[Fidicen]

There are also different ways it can go wrong, for example in tertiary loops or similarly in a repression of the auxiliary function.

I was actually thinking of tertiary loops as well, but I refrained from writing about them because I was afraid my message would become incoherent . I'm more familiar with the idea of the tertiary loop than the weak third function because in my own life it's been easier to identify the loop since it manifests as unhealthy behaviour, whereas not using Ti adequately doesn't seem that serious (it can be just as serious, but not appear that way). I guess it's easier to identify a problem like the loop than a continous weakness in the way we process information.

Anyway, the reason why I didn't mention loops was that I realized that it's difficult to differentiate between false objectivity caused by repressing the second or the third function. This difficulty makes me a bit uneasy. If the Fi of an INTJ is undeveloped, the solution it finds based on the other functions is crude, no matter how sophisticated the thinking has been, for example elaborate conspiracy theories. But if the Fi is strong and Te is repressed, the theories can be just as outrageous because the strength of conviction is used to justify the weak logic. How would we know the difference?

Similarly an INFJ in the tertiary loop might enjoy splendid isolation, endlessly thinking about philosophical possibilities and how coherent they are while still dreaming that it all proves to be significant. The Fe element still is there, even if repressed, but its relative weakness means that the theorizing doesn't seem to have any clear direction. Yet this sounds a lot like having such weak Ti that coherence isn't found. The difference is somewhat clear (lack of coherence vs. lack of direction), but I feel uncertain thinking about how we might practically see which one is the case.

 

[John K]

How easy is it to see these sorts of thing "in the wild"? Is it a bit like the weather systems you see on a weather map which are so affected by the overall dynamics of broader synoptic context that they often look even at best like very distorted versions of what it shows you in the textbook.

A very crude but simple example - I am a "cradle Catholic" and have been brought up with all the values of the Church since infancy. I use them quite instinctively, in the same way I do my native language, and I suspect that this is true for anyone who has stayed with the Church, regardless of their type. It acts as a very easily accessed synthetic Fi, in a sense. I suspect kind of internalisation is quite type independent, based on the wide range of personality types I meet in the Church.

I expect that the same sort of thing happens with our other social contexts – our work environment, our circles of friends, our hobby communities. Do these drown out the pure type behaviour to such an extent that it cannot be disentangled easily. I have certainly “layered” myself on the outside according to the prevailing culture in my work environment while trying to protect my inner authenticity deep down inside – though not deliberately, and at significant cost. Only hindsight tells me this.

I wonder if these sort of things make it very difficult for anyone outside a really competent analyst, and a lot of time and trouble, to find out what is really going on.

 

[Ginny]

How easy is it to see these sorts of thing "in the wild"? Is it a bit like the weather systems you see on a weather map which are so affected by the overall dynamics of broader synoptic context that they often look even at best like very distorted versions of what it shows you in the textbook.

A very crude but simple example - I am a "cradle Catholic" and have been brought up with all the values of the Church since infancy. I use them quite instinctively, in the same way I do my native language, and I suspect that this is true for anyone who has stayed with the Church, regardless of their type. It acts as a very easily accessed synthetic Fi, in a sense. I suspect kind of internalisation is quite type independent, based on the wide range of personality types I meet in the Church.

I expect that the same sort of thing happens with our other social contexts – our work environment, our circles of friends, our hobby communities. Do these drown out the pure type behaviour to such an extent that it cannot be disentangled easily. I have certainly “layered” myself on the outside according to the prevailing culture in my work environment while trying to protect my inner authenticity deep down inside – though not deliberately, and at significant cost. Only hindsight tells me this.

I wonder if these sort of things make it very difficult for anyone outside a really competent analyst, and a lot of time and trouble, to find out what is really going on.

Once you have got it down, it's very simple. But going out into the wild to type is something that isn't encouraged. Due to the variety there is a lot to get wrong, unless they are people who literally put themselves out there, with their hearts on their sleeves. (Oof, serious deja vu here). Also, not everyone acts like their archetype, there are fluctuations in stength and control over the functions.

About this last part, are you still talking about typing, or rather decyphering the mysteries of the history of humanity, past and present?

 

[John K]

Sorry, I wasn't really precise enough in what I asked. What I'm wondering is whether I become so "magnetised" by the cultural context I'm in that it clouds any hope of establishing my intrinsic type easily even when I'm taken out of the actual day to day, minute to minute dynamics. I think it took me several years of retirement to dry out from the culture of the company I worked for so that I lost the instinctive use of the " face to meet the faces that you meet" that went with the job.

So the last part was about actual typing.

Though thinking about it .... deciphering the mysteries of life the universe and everything sounds even more interesting to chase after .....

 

[hauteur]

There are also different ways it can go wrong, for example in tertiary loops or similarly in a repression of the auxiliary function. In both cases, the Ni-user has this blindness towards their subjectivity and claim to be objective, even though they are not and miss something very crucial in their process, or even (un)consciously misuse it.

So that raises a huge question for me. Do you guys have any resources on what it looks like for an INFJ who has suppressed his auxiliary function? Asking for a friend...

Seriously, though. I think that is the reason I took so long to look at INFJ with any seriousness. I used to be able to relate to INTJ in a big way (years ago), so it makes me wonder if the auxiliary is repressed and the tertiary Ti is amped up, might it look/feel like Te to other people? A lot has happened over the past few years, and I really don't relate to INTJ or Te at all anymore. Is that even possible?

 

[Ginny]

So that raises a huge question for me. Do you guys have any resources on what it looks like for an INFJ who has suppressed his auxiliary function? Asking for a friend...

Seriously, though. I think that is the reason I took so long to look at INFJ with any seriousness. I used to be able to relate to INTJ in a big way (years ago), so it makes me wonder if the auxiliary is repressed and the tertiary Ti is amped up, might it look/feel like Te to other people? A lot has happened over the past few years, and I really don't relate to INTJ or Te at all anymore. Is that even possible?

Let's say I know someone...

Honestly, I think it would look like some INTJ-INTP hybrid. Putting that thought aside for a moment, if you were able to synthesise Ne, and combined it with Ti, it might look like you used Te. (Perhaps it also works with Se-Ti, it is still doubtful.) But as Te is the PoLR function of the INFJ, the blind spot, it is unlikely. It is more likely that you related to them on the Fe-suppression level, as Fe is their blind spot. So you probably acted like them in terms of values, as Fi is also naturally high-developed, but didn't really think like them.

 

[Fidicen]

Do you guys have any resources on what it looks like for an INFJ who has suppressed his auxiliary function?

There's some discussion on personalitycafe, here are the best bits:

Massive self-doubt and highly critical of everything and everyone. Highly suspicious and paranoid. Well, just imagine this: Ni is giving you all this information, you then totally ignore Fe, and go with the nit-picking Ti function which will debate every single proposition that Ni has developed. It's like having your very own INTP in your head, constantly nagging how that is not making any logical sense.

Example:

Ni: I wonder if I should go to the party this Saturday.

Fe: Yes, you should!

Ti: Shut up Fe, NO, don't go. There'll probably be stupid morons doing stupid stuff. Waste of time.

Se: But..but...but...I want to get the f**kin out of here. I'm bored here! C'mon! *does the macarena*

ISTP/INFJ: Ti/Ni or Ni/Ti--Schizoid Personality Disorder. These types are socially incompetent for lack of trying, because they see little to no value in significant interaction with others. They live in their own abstract worlds, constantly second-guessing themselves as Ti poses a framework for a problem and Ni shoots it down as too definitionally precise. Without any real external input, these two functions will dream up all sorts of elaborate systems and implications for them, only to repeat their own self-defeating behavior, never bothering to emphasize putting any of its intense ideas into practice. Frequent disregard for rules, laws and other forms of behavioral standards is common, as no function provides any significant sense of external influence. If Se/Fe were doing its job, the user would recognize the value of connecting with others and of paying attention to their needs, preferences, habits and appearances.

The second bit is from a longer text that deals with how different types might be related to particular personality disorders. There's not much to add. Basically it means eschewing social contact, preferring to study whatever you're interested in. Te users tend to be good at analyzing and organizing phenomena whereas Ti is better at analyzing concepts and finding multiple interpretations. So they're very different beasts, and an INFJ trying to be like a Te user wouldn't be very good at it. If you're familiar with philosophy, imagine Derrida trying to write a guidebook on syllogisms.

Here's a similar description of the INTJ:

ISFP/INTJ: Fi/Ni or Ni/Fi--Paranoid Personality Disorder. These types are your typical conspiracy theorists; they cling deeply to their personal values and can find a conspiracy to assault or attack those values everywhere they look. Chronically distrustful of others' intentions for no legitimate reason, these types are certain they are the only ones who really know "the truth." The inferior function, Te or Se, can sometimes lead to an unconscious desire to attract the attention of or lead/organize others in efforts to expose the nefarious conspiracies they invariably see everywhere. If Te/Se were doing its job, these types would be able to look around them and observe empirical evidence that most of their theories are probably not reflected in reality, but as they rely almost entirely on internal validation, Ni will go to any lengths to justify Fi's emotion-based suspicions. (I mentioned Dale Gribble from King of the Hill in a previous article--he's a perfect example.) There's also this guy Victor on typologycentral who's such a perfect example of this it's absolutely ridiculous.

Of course these are caricatures or worst case scenarios of what might happen if repressing the auxiliary function went into extremes, but maybe you get an idea of how different the types might be if focused on two functions alone.

 

[hauteur]

Thanks, @Ginny, @Fidicen. Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread.

I guess what I'm wondering is if it could look like Te from the outside. My understanding of Te folks is that they seem to really like structure and organization. They like tables and graphs and statistics and the like. They like to organize people and/or things, and aren't shy about imposing order when it's lacking.

I've been accused of being that way many, many times - especially when I feel like my Fe was much less developed. Only problem is that I hate to organize stuff unless I have to do it. I like for things to be organized so I don't have to deal with all the icky details, and I'll organize it myself if I have to go into the details to find stuff too often. But, and it's a big but(t), I rarely push into imposing order onto other people. I can do it, but I'm not very good at it. I'd rather not do it if I can get away from it.

But, still, people seem to see me as very analytical and organized and structured. I've been accused of wanting a predefined process or a "right" way to do things, but that's not how I feel in my head at all. Go the f*ck away with your process and let me figure it out (unless I'm on completely unfamiliar ground). I see people facilitate conversations, and start drawing tables and charts, and I think, "Wow that would have been easier. Why didn't I think to do that?" Instead, I'm more apt to draw boxes and other shapes with connections between them.

A good friend of mine thought I was all structured and process oriented until he helped me put together a TV mount. I didn't pick up the directions until I did it wrong, and had to go back to find my error. It drove him insane...

On the Fe side, I'm not what I would call an extraverted introvert as so many of the type descriptions would say INFJs are. I would just assume not talk to people. I'm not afraid to, I'd just rather not. I'm also often more interested in what I've got going on than what they do. With that said, I can relate to so much of what is said about Fe - I'm just not particularly socially oriented. I'm a software architect by trade, only I'm starting to believe that requires a lot more Te than I have, and I'd really like to do something else.

Any of that nonsense make sense?

 

[Ginny]

Thanks, @Ginny, @Fidicen. Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread.

I guess what I'm wondering is if it could look like Te from the outside. My understanding of Te folks is that they seem to really like structure and organization. They like tables and graphs and statistics and the like. They like to organize people and/or things, and aren't shy about imposing order when it's lacking.

I've been accused of being that way many, many times - especially when I feel like my Fe was much less developed. Only problem is that I hate to organize stuff unless I have to do it. I like for things to be organized so I don't have to deal with all the icky details, and I'll organize it myself if I have to go into the details to find stuff too often. But, and it's a big but(t), I rarely push into imposing order onto other people. I can do it, but I'm not very good at it. I'd rather not do it if I can get away from it.

But, still, people seem to see me as very analytical and organized and structured. I've been accused of wanting a predefined process or a "right" way to do things, but that's not how I feel in my head at all. Go the f*ck away with your process and let me figure it out (unless I'm on completely unfamiliar ground). I see people facilitate conversations, and start drawing tables and charts, and I think, "Wow that would have been easier. Why didn't I think to do that?" Instead, I'm more apt to draw boxes and other shapes with connections between them.

A good friend of mine thought I was all structured and process oriented until he helped me put together a TV mount. I didn't pick up the directions until I did it wrong, and had to go back to find my error. It drove him insane...

On the Fe side, I'm not what I would call an extraverted introvert as so many of the type descriptions would say INFJs are. I would just assume not talk to people. I'm not afraid to, I'd just rather not. I'm also often more interested in what I've got going on than what they do. With that said, I can relate to so much of what is said about Fe - I'm just not particularly socially oriented. I'm a software architect by trade, only I'm starting to believe that requires a lot more Te than I have, and I'd really like to do something else.

Any of that nonsense make sense?

I think I see what's going on. You still operate under the assumption that using a specific function dictates our behaviour. It doesn't, and if so, it's mostly by coincidence. Just because you assumed some useful work habits to ease your way, that is by no means a definite indicator of you using Te. It is more likely that you use any other function, except perhaps Se, which I think is what you did when trying to assemble the TV mount (after the motto being "do first - fix later", as we are almost unable to do anything of the Se-sort).

I'm also not socially oriented, I don't just talk to anyone. It's serious work to merely say thank you, even online.

But I'm also not saying that you never use Te. However, you will probably have to use Fe in combination with Ti to emulate Te.

 

[hauteur]

@Ginny

I appreciate your thoughts.

Yeah, I totally agree that I'm still looking too much to behavior. All of the online descriptions (and even many books) are full of that because it's observable. The trouble with that is that it makes it really hard to a good picture of the functions.

Speaking of Se - I do have several Se hobbies, believe it or not. Cooking, woodworking, etc. I just make lots of mistakes, lol.

 

[John K]

I think I see what's going on. You still operate under the assumption that using a specific function dictates our behaviour. It doesn't, and if so, it's mostly by coincidence. Just because you assumed some useful work habits to ease your way, that is by no means a definite indicator of you using Te. It is more likely that you use any other function, except perhaps Se, which I think is what you did when trying to assemble the TV mount (after the motto being "do first - fix later", as we are almost unable to do anything of the Se-sort).

I'm also not socially oriented, I don't just talk to anyone. It's serious work to merely say thank you, even online.

But I'm also not saying that you never use Te. However, you will probably have to use Fe in combination with Ti to emulate Te.

Gosh, this thread is getting pretty deep in! I'm really grateful to you @Ginny and also @Fidicen for all the input - there's a lot to digest. I have the same sort of issues as @hauteur who has raised some of my own questions much better than I could have done.

Like you, I find socialising pretty tiring - I find the online Forum even more demanding in a way than face to face because there isn't the instant feedback you get when you are talking to someone. Every time I post a comment, it's like leaving one of my sons at school on his very first day, wondering if he will be OK, and if everyone will be OK with them, and have they upset anyone and will the teacher like him and it's all going to be a disaster and .......
Then there's all the Se stuff pouring in from a new rich info source and the old Ni processing chugging away with it. I'm going to have to take a break from the Forum for a few days soon I think to refuel.

I need to have a good read of your comments again tomorrow - I've still haven't got to the bottom of the Te/Fe thing for myself. I think it's very hard to experience the difference between secondary preference and simple technical facility in a function. I did a maths degree and got a pretty good one - I've never really thought about before but it seems to me likely that maths needs lots of Ti, Te and Si; it also needs Fi for the love and dedication needed by the lucky people who reach the stratosphere of achievement with it. I certainly didn't use feeling judgement at work when sorting out how to forecast our capital budget for the next 3 years (mind you the 3rd year was really Ni wing and prayer) and allocating it to the various demands. Or analysing the user requirements in one of our labs, except to scrounge a coffee and biscuit off them.

But if I don't have that kind of forced framework of decision making I think I gravitate naturally to Fe - will they like what I've done, how can I get this guy to do me a favour, I need to cultivate this guy because he'll be useful to me in the future and I can do him favours too. Oh God I've upset someone and I'll be awake half the night worrying! As a service provider, I sometimes used to get into a kind of hell channelling conflicts between a narky users and a take it or leave it back end service - I hate conflict, especially mediating someone else's.

 

[Reverist]

My understanding of Te folks is that they seem to really like structure and organization. They like tables and graphs and statistics and the like. They like to organize people and/or things, and aren't shy about imposing order when it's lacking.

To me, this sounds like a mix of Ti (tables, graphs, statistics), Te (organizing people & things) and maybe even Si (really liking structure and organization). As I understand it, Ti is most interested in parsing out what is logically true and relies on deductive reasoning to logically narrow down the field of possible answers until a single one remains. Te is results driven and most interested in finding the most effective solution; it relies on inductive reasoning to identify specific details that support a general conclusion. Si is interested in creating a reliable framework or template based on past experiences against which future experiences can be measured to provide direction. Typically introverted functions are used to organize information, while extraverted functions are used to gather information. So I see Te less as a function to be used in organizing or structuring data, and more as a way to gather the data and solicit feedback on the conclusions.

I don't consider myself an expert, but this is how I understand these functions, and I hope it helps.

But I'm also not saying that you never use Te. However, you will probably have to use Fe in combination with Ti to emulate Te.

I think the use of Ni, in addition to Fe and Ti, could result looking like Te in an INFJ type. I could see using Fe to gather feedback and info, then using Ti help help organize the info and try to focus on what is factual, then having Ni be able to identify the best path forward, (or at least the path most likely to lead to success). Fe would then be used to communicate out the decision.

I watched an INFJ youtube video the other day and the guy said that INFJs don't really plan things since Te is a shadow function, yet since they are a J, they like to have a plan and they need to know what is coming next, so since they aren't typically good at planning - they get others to do it for them. That surprised me, but I realized that's what I do. I like the idea of having a plan, but I'm terribly indecisive, and I realized I am always gathering other people's input before I make a big decision or can really plan something out.

I also think Te is highly valued in American culture, so people may see it more readily than other functions.