Tell me my Type

Just to prattle on for a little more, imo that's something I think socionics handles a little better, and why an INFJ might seem less "J" than an ENFJ. They're really dominant perceivers, which is why, as mentioned, they most closely correlate with INFp in socionics.
 
hush said:
Just to prattle on for a little more, imo that's something I think socionics handles a little better, and why an INFJ might seem less "J" than an ENFJ. They're really dominant perceivers, which is why, as mentioned, they most closely correlate with INFp in socionics.
Click to expand...

I've tested INFJ 11 times out of 12 but the other time the result was INFP.

I can get into INFP mode if the mood lighting is right :)
 
CosmicINFJ said:
I've tested INFJ 11 times out of 12 but the other time the result was INFP.
Click to expand...

So much factors into that too, like which test you were taking, how the test was structured, how they determined the results, the validity and quality of the test. Some online tests are more reliable than others; the 16 Personalities one @Gist mentioned tends to be pretty solid and has gotten good feedback on the forum, for instance.
 
hush said:
So much factors into that too, like which test you were taking, how the test was structured, how they determined the results, the validity and quality of the test. Some online tests are more reliable than others; the 16 Personalities one @Gist mentioned tends to be pretty solid and has gotten good feedback on the forum, for instance.
Click to expand...

I like the 16 personalities website. PS I edited my earlier reply
 
CosmicINFJ said:
I like the 16 personalities website. PS I edited my earlier reply
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that more goes into that. ;) It's more complicated than just straight functions, but a socionics INFp actually isn't really like an MBTI INFP.

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/IEI-INFp/

Their top two functions are Ni and Fe, similar to INFJs, whereas INFPs have Ne and Fi as their top two. Ni+Fe and Ne+Fi act quite differently. Not to keep mentioning people, but @Horatio has some good resources on that in his blog, if you're curious about exploring all that more in-depth.
 
I just realized that it feels weirder to actually talk about typology on this forum than it does to casually talk about p00p... OvO
 
hush said:
Bear in mind that more goes into that. ;) It's more complicated than just straight functions, but a socionics INFp actually isn't really like an MBTI INFP.

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/IEI-INFp/

Their top two functions are Ni and Fe, similar to INFJs, whereas INFPs have Ne and Fi as their top two. Ni+Fe and Ne+Fi act quite differently. Not to keep mentioning people, but @Horatio has some good resources on that in his blog, if you're curious about exploring all that more in-depth.
Click to expand...

I would like to learn more about this. I'm still in the learning by osmosis mode at the moment, which suits me fine. Sometimes I learn like I read books, which is to have about five different books on the go, a wide range of styles and topics etc. About 60% Fiction and 40% Non Fiction.

I don't know but INFP mode to me is to let go of the timetable and being less worried about getting things done, to relax and enjoy, maybe get into a meditative state
and SEE, dream or maybe CREATE. To float a little more freely, to drop something for awhile and pursue something else with plans to circle back when the time is right and not to be too concerned if the time is ever right.
 
Last edited:
Sorry I disappeared from this thread. I kept getting pulled away today.

I will come back and talk about how I relate to Ni/Fe and why I think I don't align with a lot of my forum friends politically. It will make sense, hopefully. I'm fried right now though. I know what I want to say, but I don't have the energy right now. :weary: I had a weird day today.

I am pretty confident I am INFJ but I am still open other ideas. I will be back when I have time to respond.

Thank you for the responses so far. :)
 
I think, plainly, in terms of conversions, Jung's irrational types were much more like Ps than Js in the standard dichotomies MBTI test. The P/J conversion thing was one of Myers' goofier inventions. I think I know what she was doing though, pretty likely -- it turns out J correlates to a dimension called Big 5 Conscientiousness, and there's a tendency for Ps to sort of do as they please vs Conscientious types to be more sympathetic to some set of externally imposed rules (I mean, just think of the idea of going with a plan vs just doing whatever you feel like).
I think Myers might've been over-pattern-matching and decided TJ and FJ should ~ Te and Fe on that basis, and then imposed NiTe/NiFe because she believed in the rule that dom/aux have opposite attitudes (which Jung didn't adopt, and NO, not because he dealt with "abnormal patients" -- this was how he saw regular examples of differentiated types).

They do some weird things to (try too hard to!) get around these issues, e.g. Jung associated Ni-doms with prophets, and I think people try to say NJ~visionary/futuristic plan~prophet or something like that. I prefer just saying, nope, these systems are different, and here's how they overlap, and here's how they don't, and here's how they should if they both were perfect.
There's just no way Ni-doms in Jung were planful in the slightest. Rather, they were characterized (with other irrational types) by an increased acceptance of the accidental/unwillingness to single out things in cognition and simply perceiving the totality.
Far from exactly P, but definitely overlapping with key P ideas. Of course, at bottom, there was a more philosophical idea, namely that any chain of rationalization ends in a brutal fact, which Jung would call the "irrational factor", but the personality traits he ascribed to irrational types nonetheless resembled a bunch of P stuff.
 
Last edited:
And not to keep harping on this, but e/i is really different in socionics. It's not the 'external criteria for value judgment'/group harmony/collective consensus thing anymore.

The basic idea of Aushra was that you could think of information processing sort of in analogy with physics with Ne->Fe->Se->Te corresponding to potential energy, release of energy, force, and work done + viewing the "i/e" dichotomy as analogous to objects vs fields (you can sort of see how this works, because in physics, fields seem more "imposed" by us than particles, which seem more like external objects.) I really hate thinking of Se as genuine forcefulness, but if you think more conceptually, the idea that Se involves some tangible interaction with the external world that changes it in some way is pretty good...e.g. you can't interact with a system in measurement without changing it!
So Fe/Fi is ethics of emotions vs ethics of relations. If you view Te as factual logic and Ti as more what you'd think of as logic proper, i.e. just relations between ideas, you can see how this Fe/Fi definition might make sense. And it's ethics of emotions, not just affect's experience -- that is, the experience of affect isn't a rational function (the old "bu bu F isn't just emotions!" objection).

I'd say the traditional Fe/Fi distinction you're used to is somewhat preserved if you read type 2 enneagram portraits, though. The type 2 reeks of Fe-dom stuff in the traditional sense of considering how others feel/losing track of what one feels oneself.
 
Last edited:
@CindyLou

For the record, I do not think you are a sensor because of your political views. :) I have been on this forum longer than the date on my profile suggests and I have read many of your posts over the years. And my gut always went to ISFJ while reading them, hence, my original response to your type.

I felt the need to put that out there. :)
 
Anywhere But Here said:
@CindyLou

For the record, I do not think you are a sensor because of your political views. :) I have been on this forum longer than the date on my profile suggests and I have read many of your posts over the years. And my gut always went to ISFJ while reading them, hence, my original response to your type.

I felt the need to put that out there. :)
Click to expand...

@CindyLou I think the same as @Anywhere But Here - that's my 'intuition ' and again not based on politics.

INFJ to me are inherently more about honesty/ethics than any political alleigance imho. I have known several ISFJ and they were all very hard working women, dedicated to their families, who pretty much put themselves last in almost every choice. If I was business hiring staff ? (apart from specialist type jobs maybe) I'd take an ISFJ like a shot.

Overall I think the most important thing is to adapt and adjust to your type, whatever that is. INFJ and ISFJ are similar in many regards, except that I would say INFJ have some issues with conflict and authority at times lol, and are more 'ideas' big picture orientated. One of my favourite managers was ISFJ she worked so hard, but sadly at times the top manager exploited this and treated her very badly. She worked many many unpaid hours. It used to really annoy me. I worked late nearly every night, and so did she, but ? She started very early every day as well. At times she looked exhausted and she had two children. I get that same sort of vibe from you, very strong work ethic, possibly at times to your own detriment ?

I could easily be wrong. I have 'mis-typed' several times as INTJ which, although I may be a more 'science' inclinded INFJ, I know that I am not. In a crunch I always do what I 'feel' is right no matter what I think. It's a tussle, but that's how I am.
 
I cannot be a sensor. I understand the vibe I may give here on the forum, but I'm definitely not a sensor. I'm very confident about this and cannot be swayed. I love the ISFJ description, and I'm thrilled you think of me that way James ;) I'd like to admit that I'm hardworking to a fault, but I know that phrase probably isn't going to be how someone who knows me well would describe me, unfortunately.
 
CindyLou said:
I cannot be a sensor. I understand the vibe I may give here on the forum, but I'm definitely not a sensor. I'm very confident about this and cannot be swayed. I love the ISFJ description, and I'm thrilled you think of me that way James ;) I'd like to admit that I'm hardworking to a fault, but I know that phrase probably isn't going to be how someone who knows me well would describe me, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Well nobody knows you, better than you know yourself. I frequently got the intj thing put to me, and it was easier to go along with it. But I knew I was infj. I'd hide or cover my emotional/values responses but they were always there.

Infj are usually very hard working themselves, which I think is why we tend to get along with isfj. I really liked my isfj manager she was a very caring person. I knew two other isfj ladies both very similar temperaments.

I think with the sensor/intuitive thing it's usually the attention to details that are telling. If someone asks me directions, I may know some landmarks but never street names. My sensor step son? He could reel them off like a list. I guess I was always to busy day dreaming and looking at the stars lol.
 
There is an MBTI article...I think it posted here a while back, that "personifies" the functions depending on the position they are at in your stack, that made it easier for me to understand them, and perhaps may serve you just as well. I will find it and link it when I have a free moment.
 
I think we need to separate the systems out now! The MBTI test is tapping into the Big 5 dimensions and isn't terribly Jungian itself. It isn't surprising for someone who scores I+N+F+J consistently to be very good with details.
Part of the reason for that is I'd say being good with details taps into Conscientiousness, the Big 5 dimension corresponding most to J. They're more particular, exacting, etc (than the scatterbrained people like me).

Now, if we want a purely functions-y concept of sensation-intuition, that's a project of its own right to properly define. One of the things is that S-N taps into Big 5 Openness to Experience, yet there's no inconsistency between being a sensation dominant type in a functions-y sense and being high in that factor of Big 5.

One of the interesting things is you can slightly swap and rearrange a lot of things to make a new version of the same system (no different from choosing alternate coordinate axes to generate 4-space or 5-space from). Of course, the conversion between standard MBTI test and Jungian stuff isn't this neat, but the conversion between say, Big 5 and one of its competitors is pretty neat.

In my experience, this sort of rotation is going on between functions and the traditional MBTI. I think, between Js and Ps on the test, Js have a lot more chance of seeming "sensation-ish" -- Jung's disciple described N-S as the former being more flighty, abandoning projects before they were finished, bad with details and mixing up facts, whereas she described the sensation type as great at all this.
A J IN THE TRADITIONAL MBTI TEST sense doesn't typically abandon projects, is conscientious, meticulous, keeps schedules, etc (or at least has a subset of these traits).

All this concerns more life habits. It's not at all strange for someone to be like that but prefer more imaginative, unconventional, out there, theory, etc stuff. How they are in their life habits on a basic level vs what excites their curiosity are two separate things (hence why N-S and J-P are, while sharing a bit of messy intercorrelation, mostly independent factors).
 
Last edited:
Also, in my experience, it's worth noting that sometimes two people differ about someone's type simply because they have different assumptions on what the terms mean. Jung's system is pretty philosophical. It's similar to how two people might define "good" and "right" and "wrong" differently, so it's important in these philosophically charged issues to define one's framework precisely.

That way, we can tease apart what really is behind 2 people analyzing someone's type differently. I say this because what most bothers people about this subject seems to be that it's getting at who they are, and someone telling you otherwise than you see yourself can seem like denying a pretty core thing....and it's a shame because I've found much of the time that the culprit isn't that someone isn't seeing herself clearly so much as there are different ways of analyzing the system at work.
 
@CindyLou - you've got too much of a spunky presence to be an S type :tonguewink: and @Sriracha doesn't count because she's an honorary infj :sunglasses:

I've not had the chance to interact with you so I'm only going on some of the posts I've read. My unconventional gut response is to say that you're an ambivert (does such a thing exist?) - so infj, enfj and also playing around with infp and intj.

Quite keen to know how you got on with the 16personalities questionnaire that Gist posted.

https://www.16personalities.com/
 
@charlatan

great post. I've been thinking if Si could be mistaken as an intuitive function... but I don't know if it bothers me to be called a sensor here on the forum. I don't care. I know that a lot of the people here don't know me very well and only get to use what I've given them here on the forum which isn't much, but I could be mistaking Si for intuition as well. I'm not closed off to that idea like I said I was earlier. I just think it's very unlikely considering I am terrible at remembering faces, dates, events...I don't know if that is the world in my head. I'm really really bad at it. If I'm Si dominant I'm really crappy at it.

I think I want to come across as someone who is the way that @James described, but I don't know if I live up to those kind of awesome standards IRL, especially by default. I happen to really like sensors.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top