Are you really INFJ? ;-) this deeper text by Lenore Thomson will tell you | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

Are you really INFJ? ;-) this deeper text by Lenore Thomson will tell you

sebastian, do you see yourself as INFJ or INTJ? in your post, you're talking about yourself as INTJ, in your portrait, INFJ is mentionned...til now, i haven't met an enneagram-5 that would be INFJ...

My suspicion us that because of psychological trauma in my formative years I regressed into a strongly thinking type out of necessity to make sense of things... And because it wasn't safe or allowed to feel. Now I am eventually evolving to my true self I find myself connecting more and more with my feeling side. I can't say for sure but that's what my intuition tells me.
 
I think Sebastian is an INTJ who is in emotional turmoil right now. I've read that stress can make a person take on the less desirable characteristics of their shadow type, i.e. ESFP, for Sebastian, if he is an INTJ.
 
Tell me what you mean when you say that you are a holistic thinker. how does it show?

Well, I like to look at the larger picture but I do tend to try and explain myself in a linear sort of manner, so that my thoughts can be followed by someone else. When I write essays, it usually takes me forever because I usually am trying to find the right words.
 
Well, I like to look at the larger picture but I do tend to try and explain myself in a linear sort of manner, so that my thoughts can be followed by someone else. When I write essays, it usually takes me forever because I usually am trying to find the right words.

jep, that's how i usually perceive "left brainers". there is this necessity to link the unconscious perception to language. by contrast, INFPs tend to remain in a more fuzzy realm, since their extraverted intuition (secondary function) is also a holistic function which is not necessarily linked to language.

for Ni-firsts, the perception itself is of course not linear. within me, it's like a stream flowing thru me. but it's not very loud - so torrent, the word i used before, is not really adequate. this stream drives to new horizons... never resting.... never at home, never really centered.

how would you describe the times, when your primary function, Ni, is active?
 
sebastian, the mbti-functions do not describe the "true", but the ordinary self. and the "feeling" functions do not mean feelings in the usual sense:

"- When we use Thinking, we organize our behaviors in terms of general, impersonal predictability: rules, laws, principles, logical or numerical sequence, definition, hierarchy, and so forth.
- When we use Feeling, we organize our behaviors in terms of specific, personal criteria: the signs and rituals that convey our shared beliefs, values, moral sensibilities, identification with others, and social relationships." p. 29-30 of my document of thomson's book.

so i don't think that an emotional chaos or a regression has much to do with the feeling function. "feeling" is a rational judging function.

what you say about your feelings and your trauma, I nod with regard to the enneagram 5 and it's trauma with feelings (in the usual sense of the word). so getting in touch with your feelings, as an e5, sounds like a very promising way in the direction of the "true" self. (the enneagram "heart" and "feeling" are completly different concepts than "feeling" in the mbti).
 
Last edited:
I will give $5 to the person who spots the most important piece of information in the article.

*starts beating an old dead horse with the same broken and bent stick as before*

Otherwise, knowledge is power, guard it well.

"... if you are Boing through a transition period, your scores may be too dose" After this, on page 5, I couldn't notice much else.

Does that mean I have to read the whole thing? Ah, the prospect of $5...
 
  • Like
Reactions: grt$5vb
"... if you are Boing through a transition period, your scores may be too dose" After this, on page 5, I couldn't notice much else.

Does that mean I have to read the whole thing? Ah, the prospect of $5...

from what you say i infer that you know what would have been written in the book, if the omnipage 18 ocd had recognized it correctly ;-) if you find more, tell me, i'll correct it step by step. so yes, this means, you have to read the whole thing. the benefits are tremendous. you can find hairs in the soup, you can assimilate the content and the structure of thomson's research.

maybe your e-type is 1-4-9:m131:
 
Last edited:
from what you say i infer that you know what would have been written in the book, if the omnipage 18 ocr had recognized it correctly ;-) if you find more, tell me, i'll correct it step by step.

maybe your e-type is 1-4-9:m131:

LOL, I've often had high scores for e-type 1, actually, and wondered if I were indeed closer to a 1w9 or even 1w2. XD

Don't judge the OCD-ness. ^_^
 
i know it takes some time to assimilate lenore thomson's book - in my case several months (the length and the density of the information shared is unusual for a forum-thread). and i'm still in the process.
so this thread will probably become alive around july 2012 :m090:

nonetheless, i'm interested, after you did some skimming: where can you identify with her INFJ and INFP descriptions (including her analysis of INJ and IFP)? where do you see yourself in another way?
 
Last edited:
jep, that's how i usually perceive "left brainers". there is this necessity to link the unconscious perception to language. by contrast, INFPs tend to remain in a more fuzzy realm, since their extraverted intuition (secondary function) is also a holistic function which is not necessarily linked to language.

for Ni-firsts, the perception itself is of course not linear. within me, it's like a stream flowing thru me. but it's not very loud - so torrent, the word i used before, is not really adequate. this stream drives to new horizons... never resting.... never at home, never really centered.

how would you describe the times, when your primary function, Ni, is active?

The Ni description in the writing by Thompson, and what you just wrote, sound exactly like my default state 90% of the time. I'm pretty sure I'm Ni dominant. I also get really obsessed with finding just the right words, as well.
 
Thomson has a lot of good ideas, but also a few that aren't valid at all. Her assumptions about right and left brained dominance are way off. A quick proof of this is that most INFJs lean right brained, and many are artists, writers, or poets. Both Ne and Ni reside strongly in the Cingulate System, which is neither left or right hemisphere. Te and Fi are more polarized with respect to cerebral hemisphere, but Fe and Ti are less so. Many INFJs score very close to the balanced when testing for hemisphere dominance.

Does the fact that she made faulty assumptions about cognitive function hemisphere associations invalidate the rest of her work? Clearly not.

However, Thomson also very frequently fails to understand Fe, which is not surprising considering that she is not a native Fe user, and most of her experience with Fe comes from SFJs.

Putting these two issues to light creates a situation where Thomson's opinions are a bit off when it comes to INFJs. She's a genius when it comes to Ni, but that's the extent of her expertise.

But, for the record, her description is pretty accurate and spot on in most places.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: grt$5vb
T Both Ne and Ni reside strongly in the Cingulate System, which is neither left or right hemisphere.

However, Thomson also very frequently fails to understand Fe, which is not surprising considering that she is not a native Fe user, and most of her experience with Fe comes from SFJs.

regarding left- and right-brain functions, thomson speaks of tendencies. i would go one step further in relativising the biological dimension (which is far more complex than right- and left-brain) and state that "right- and left-brain" are metaphors which indicate a linear and holistic tendency of a specific function. and it's link to language. interpreting in this way takes away all the biological non-sense implied in the way she handles left- and right-brain.

where i don't agree with thomson - and this sheds some light on your remark, that there are infj-artist who use there "right-brain" intensively and extensively: why on earth should there be any logic in the way the functions are stacked (thomson's "lasagna")? what might the reasons be that a specific person is not a double intuitive, i.e. has as its primary and secondary functions Ni and Ne, or even Ni and Ti? why not double introverts and double extraverts etc. it's like with the enneagram: why should there be only wings or integration and desintegration points? why not say: she's is a e4-e1-e9?

and: in what way does thomson not understand Fe? measuring situation by group-standards (and its internalized corollary: role-expectation) seems quite adequate to me...
 
I sure learned a lot about Star Trek!

Seriously though, I thought it was a good read. After reading this document, and the one from this other thread Andy posted, http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19614 I think I have finally been able to narrow down what type my Wife is.
ESFJ.
 
I love it because she leaves some room for different development pathways within the type. Not all INFJ's choose the same outlets for their skills - art, for example. She sticks pretty closely to describing different ways that we can choose to use functions. This isn't nearly as colored by stereotypes, even if she doesn't give a fabulous explanation of Fe. The bottom line is that not everyone experiences it the same way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grt$5vb
regarding left- and right-brain functions, thomson speaks of tendencies. i would go one step further in relativising the biological dimension (which is far more complex than right- and left-brain) and state that "right- and left-brain" are metaphors which indicate a linear and holistic tendency of a specific function. and it's link to language. interpreting in this way takes away all the biological non-sense implied in the way she handles left- and right-brain.

Fair enough. I would tweak her theory a little and say that the dominant function can't be right or left brained (even according to this interpretation) because it is the source of the person's thought process. Next, I would have to say that the Inverse function of the dominant function is also neutral. For example, Ni users almost universally develop a strong use of Ne, and vice versa. For example in the INJ model, I would put Si into the 'left brain' Opposite.

From what I've seen of people's cognitive function test results, regardless of the test, I am starting to believe the model of the mind looks more like this (assuming the definitions of left and right hemisphere are descriptive and not literal)

View attachment 9429

where i don't agree with thomson - and this sheds some light on your remark, that there are infj-artist who use there "right-brain" intensively and extensively: why on earth should there be any logic in the way the functions are stacked (thomson's "lasagna")? what might the reasons be that a specific person is not a double intuitive, i.e. has as its primary and secondary functions Ni and Ne, or even Ni and Ti? why not double introverts and double extraverts etc. it's like with the enneagram: why should there be only wings or integration and desintegration points? why not say: she's is a e4-e1-e9?

Agreed. The model above would allow for these sorts of configurations. For example, some INFJs (or INTJs) might lean more on their 'right hemisphere' approaches, and therefore favor Se and Ti (or Fi), while others might favor their 'left hemisphere' and favor Fe (or Te) and Si. This slight tweak on the 'lasagna theory' would explain not only the range of cognitive function development in INFJs we've seen on this forum, but also the diversity of cognitive functions in other types.

and: in what way does thomson not understand Fe? measuring situation by group-standards (and its internalized corollary: role-expectation) seems quite adequate to me...

I think Thomson gets a lot of Fe right, and for a non-native, does a great job in fact, but she's only able to really grasp the expressed effects and not the core motivation. As an INTJ, Fe is perhaps the most alien and toxic of the functions (the opposite of the tertiary function, which is the play function and inner child), which means this is likely the most difficult for her to understand. The same is true of Te for INFJs. We will never be able to natively understand Te, and the best we can do is wrap our Ni, Ti, and Se around it to approximate it. Therefore, I don't fault her in any way. Considering the inherent bias, she does a great job.

Fe is just as much an F function as Fi. The distinction in these functions is simply introverted (micro scale) vs. extroverted (macro scale) perspective. Fe is essentially a function based on 'should', where Fi is a function based on "am". Both functions are value judgments. Fi applies them internally and personally. Fe applies them externally and globally. Thomson's model of Fe affability creates a situation where Fe would have difficulty surviving contact with people who felt differently, believed differently, or held differing expectations. That's not how Fe works. When Fe accommodates, it does so because it feels that it should because doing so creates the global environment that it values. Fe is just as able to refuse accommodating because it feels that doing so would be toxic to creating and maintaining a global environment that agrees with its values.

This is why Fe is prone to imposing itself on others, which Fi users pick up on much more clearly and Fe users generally accept as the way people express their feelings - only coming to an impasse when their values oppose one another's, and conflict when they directly oppose one another's. Meanwhile, Fi users can feel very put upon by Fe expectations, and Fe users can feel that Fi users are being needlessly (and even rudely) selfish and obstinate.

Emotional consensus is only a byproduct of Fe's need for expressing (and manifesting) its values globally. When everyone agrees, Fe's values are an outward reality. Without emotional consensus, the outward expression and manifestation of values is difficult and opposed. Just as Te seeks logical consensus, Fe seeks a consensus of values.

Depending on the importance of the value and the integrity of the person, this can take the form of asserting values, compromising, or temporarily surrendering some values in order to maintain the more important values. For example, if harmony is a more important value (as in the case of Enneagram 9s), then Fe will likely abstain from asserting values that are likely to disrupt harmony. An Fe e9 will still assert their values outwardly, and try to manifest them, but are more likely to be patient with them in the interest of harmony. Meanwhile, an Enneagram 8 is far more likely to assert their values because part of their value system includes the sense that they should assert. An Fe e8 will still prefer harmony if possible, but more weight is given to asserting in most cases because the primary function of Fe is to apply values externally. In both cases, the function operates the same way (seeking emotional consensus), but with different values.

Here is a quote I like...

I've frequently seen people reference Lenore Thomson's definitions of Fe, and I feel that I need to clarify something (as Fe is want to do). Lenore Thomson is self assessed INTJ, and from what I've read of her work, I would agree. She's a brilliant INTJ with an amazing amount of insight about cognitive function theory. However, as an INTJ, she has no native understanding of Fe, and therefore can only understand it as an external concept through her observations, and furthermore her filters of Te and Fi. This leaves her in a position where her understanding of Fe comes only from observing Fe in others, usually SFJs, and therefore her descriptions of Fe are not entirely well defined and rather biased as an outsider.

Therefore, I feel compelled to clear up some misconceptions about Fe.

Fe is at its core a system of reasoning based on how it feels things should or should not be.

Let's analyze this statement. Fe is at its core a system of reasoning - meaning that it is in fact a process of analysis, deduction, and assertion. Based on how it feels - denoting an emotional, philosophical, and ideological bias. Things - external concepts, people, places, systems, etc. Should or should not be - denoting an expression and assertion of expectations.

Combine all of these factors, and you now understand Fe. Values and judgments applied to the outer world.

However, all of these factors create very common behaviors. Fe users often have a great deal of emotional investment in people, even strangers. Fe users often have a great deal of expectation in social arenas and emotional interaction. Fe users often engage in what could be called emotional currency. All of these behaviors are the result of Fe being applied to these situations, not Fe itself. This is such an important distinction to make for people who are not native Fe users. Fe is not the sum of its expressions because its expressions are half Fe half situation, and most importantly not all Fe users have the same expressions of Fe.

For example, a stereotypical Fe dominant would use their Fe to adapt to others and create harmony - because they feel that's how things should be. However, another Fe user could just as easily create conflict with others because they feel that the others are not doing things the way they should be done. This proves that Fe is not the 'get along' function so much as the assertion of values function. Fe users often prefer harmony, because they often feel that harmony should exist not because Fe inherently seeks harmony. Fe inherently seeks to exert the individual's values with respect to the external.

A classic example of this is how obnoxious some ENTPs and ESTPs can be because their inferior Fe feels things should be a certain way, as led by how their Ti understands things to work. I've known several ENTPs and ESTPs who very much felt that harmony was a waste of time. However, this is still a manifestation of Fe.

Therefore, as much as Fi is a function of one's internal values. Fe is a function of one's external values. This is evidenced by the fact that most Fe users know exactly how they feel about things, but are often unable to discern how they feel inside. Fe users have strong opinions, but are often a mystery to themselves - assuming they bother to question their own feelings (Fi) because Fe tells them how they should feel. An Fe user can convince themselves that they should feel things or in ways that they simply cannot, and this can cause a great deal of internal emotional conflict. On the other hand, an Fe user can convince themselves that they should feel something and thus be motivated to greatness. For example an ESTP who convinces themselves that they should be tough, fearless, etc. or an ESFJ who convinces themselves that they should be benevolent, kind, and patient. In both cases the individual is applying an external ideal to themselves, and is thus using Fe rather than Fi.

The idea that Fe is inherently based on how others feel is incorrect. Fe can be swayed by the opinions of others, but it is just as capable of bolstering itself against the opinions of others. What matters is whether or not the Fe user feels they should be swayed by the others in question. For example, a religious Fe user would likely feel that they should adapt their views to match their religion, but would not at all feel compelled to adapt their views to match another religion when around people of a different faith. This person may feel compelled to be polite and harmonious, and therefore respect the other faith's right to its traditions, but would feel strongly that they should not also practice while in the presence of it. However, an Fe user who feels antagonistic to another faith might well be disruptive if they felt this was what should be done. Fe is one of the biggest reasons for religious clashes. Clearly, Fe users in wars of ideology are not feeling compelled to be harmonious. In fact, some of the most heated arguments come from two Fe users who have differing views on how things should be.

Therefore, while Fe is usually motivated to be harmonious, and many other things attributed to it, because it is a function of external values, it must be noted that Fe is simply that - a function of external values, and as such it is much more diverse and applicable than most definitions give it credit.


I love it because she leaves some room for different development pathways within the type. Not all INFJ's choose the same outlets for their skills - art, for example. She sticks pretty closely to describing different ways that we can choose to use functions. This isn't nearly as colored by stereotypes, even if she doesn't give a fabulous explanation of Fe. The bottom line is that not everyone experiences it the same way.

Yes, I agree with all of this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: grt$5vb
VH, what do you exactly mean by "source of the thought-process", when talking about functions? same thing about "core motivation"; till now, i cannot see a "motivation" force in the mbti (when "motivation" is defined in a standard way).

and, the rest of your argumentation depends on how you define exaclty Ni, Ne and Fe... could you please do it. same for introversion and extraversion, since you link it to "microscale" and macroscale - which i wouldn't following more jung's definition of the relationship of subject and object.

about thomsons understanding of Fe: what you say about different levels of accomodating, thomson would agree. it depends, which fe-values given by a certain context have more value for a specific person (the values the fe-person is identifying with). according to this he or she will accomodate or not and fe will try to bind fi or not.
what you say about the distinction of the fe-function and the emotions shown, when the fe-values are applied, i agree entirely and so would thomson. so, till now, i do not see, where you are saying something different than thomson (in my former post, the Fe-section of thomson's is now in the second pdf). maybe you could quote some sentences from thomson's fe-analysis (ch. 20) and show me, where you disagree.

and how can you, as a non-native Fe (i consider natives as primary-users since you and i read fe thru ni), say, thomson, as a non-native Fe, cannot grasp Fe? this presupposes that you know something of Fe which transcends non-native talk about it...
and: the mbti is a hypothesis built by semantical conventions. there are no functions in the biological material brain, there are words which try to shed some light on recurrent dynamics we encounter. a function is defined and this creates it (here is a concept, let's try to find out if it's gonna foster scientifical knowledge according to criteria like economy, pertinence, coherence, prediction etc.). and it is defined by different authors differently. imo, all we can get is a clear use of language - but there is no scientific object as a "function", except as a linguistic hypothesis. so native or non-native is not relevant.
 
Last edited:
VH, what do you exactly mean by "source of the thought-process", when talking about functions? same thing about "core motivation"; till now, i cannot see a "motivation" force in the mbti (when "motivation" is defined in a standard way).

Source of the thought process is the cognitive functions themselves - most notably the dominant function, and to diminishing degrees the secondary, tertiary, and inferior functions. Motivations are the compulsions these functions create. For example, Te compels its users to make logical order of the world around them and even put that world into logical order with respect to how they see things relating. Meanwhile Fi compels its users to maintain emotional integrity and autonomy true to themselves. These are motivations, compulsions, and imperatives that stem from the source of the thought process' perspectives.

and, the rest of your argumentation depends on how you define exaclty Ni, Ne and Fe... could you please do it. same for introversion and extraversion, since you link it to "microscale" and macroscale - which i wouldn't following more jung's definition of the relationship of subject and object.

Jung's definition also includes the attention to the large scale and small scale. Keep in mind that cognitive functions are extremely broad in scope and cover a great deal, and no simple definition will be able to contain them as they are the basis through which we create definitions. Subject and Object are also ways to describe the perspectives, but Subject is inclusive and macro scale while Object is exclusive and micro scale. All of these are analogies to imply the abstract concepts that cognitive functions are.

about thomsons understanding of Fe: what you say about different levels of accomodating, thomson would agree. it depends, which fe-values given by a certain context have more value for a specific person (the values the fe-person is identifying with). according to this he or she will accomodate or not and fe will try to bind fi or not.
what you say about the distinction of the fe-function and the emotions shown, when the fe-values are applied, i agree entirely and so would thomson. so, till now, i do not see, where you are saying something different than thomson (in my former post, the Fe-section of thomson's is now in the second pdf). maybe you could quote some sentences from thomson's fe-analysis (ch. 20) and show me, where you disagree.

Yes, Thomson has a very good grasp of Fe. I've never refuted this. My stance is that her definition is a little too limited, and does not address the core of Fe, which is that it is simply an externally focused values system. Without acknowledging this, Thomson was able to focus more on the behaviors and make a few assumptions that are not entirely correct. Fe goes far beyond a focus on people. It applies to people, places, and things just as much as Te. The difference in these functions is logical relation versus values relation. Her examples of Fe being people focused are analogous to how Fe applies to all external judgments, be they objects, places, concepts, etc.

and how can you, as a non-native Fe (i consider natives as primary-users since you and i read fe thru ni), say, thomson, as a non-native Fe, cannot grasp Fe? this presupposes that you know something of Fe which transcends non-native talk about it...

Native Fe users are any type that has Fe as a dominant, secondary, tertiary, or even inferior function. This includes all FJs, as well as all TPs. While these users also have the capacity for Fi, they prefer to weight Fe over Fi in most cases, and tend to give their external value judgements more weight than their internal.

There is a very clear distinction between Fe and Fi users on an emotional / values level. Social dynamics will often polarize people into Fi based factions and Fe based factions because these groups share similar values expectations. Fi users (FPs and TJs) have a lot of difficulty understanding Fe, and vice versa because their values systems are effectively inverted. One group prefers their Fi over Fe, and the other Fe over Fi.

This is where Thomson's moderate misidentification of Fe occurs. She can only report what she sees, not what she internally understands, and since Fi and Fe are functions based on values it is especially difficult to understand the opposite. However, for an Fi user, she does a great job.

and: the mbti is a hypothesis built by semantical conventions. there are no functions in the biological material brain, there are words which try to shed some light on recurrent dynamics we encounter. a function is defined and this creates it (here is a concept, let's try to find out if it's gonna foster scientifical knowledge according to criteria like economy, pertinence, coherence, prediction etc.). and it is defined by different authors differently. imo, all we can get is a clear use of language - but there is no scientific object as a "function", except as a linguistic hypothesis. so native or non-native is not relevant.

Agreed. However, there have been a few studies that are beginning to create associations with cerebral geography and the cognitive functions. It is currently being considered by these studies that Ni and Ne reside primarily in the Cingulate System, while Fi resides strongly in the Limbic system. Other assumptions include the possibility that Fe resides partly in the Limbic and lower Frontal Lobes, while Te resides strongly in the Frontal Lobes. This is all still conjecture, but the studies are showing a pretty compelling correlation. That said, it is highly likely that the various functions actually are associated with cerebral geography, and each person's thought processes are unique but still flow through defined areas, which creates the sense of personality type and cognitive functions.
 
Last edited:
VH, thanks for defining "motivation". i can understand what you said now.

Keep in mind that cognitive functions are extremely broad in scope and cover a great deal, and no simple definition will be able to contain them as they are the basis through which we create definitions.

scientific terms are valid because they have a clear definition. it might be a complex definition, but it is a clear one. because we use our functions to define the terms, the definitions will never be exhaustive, but they will be clear. so it might help to try to define as clear and as economically as possible how we understand the functions. for thomson, Fe is "defined" (paraphrased) like this: "When we use this function, we aren't organizing data sequentially and logically, by way of principles. We're organizing data by relatedness to ourselves. The categories of relationship we maintain in the external world - and the way we maintain them - reflect our values. [...] What distinguishes this function from Extraverted Thinking is the fact that relatedness involves human beings, not impersonal abstractions." (p. 284 of my scan of her book).

i'm not sure if i understand specifically, how you define Fe, because what you wrote about Fe - to me- seems to go with this definition of thomson's. if you could define your way of understanding Fe , the similarity and the contrast with thomson might appear.

and: could you please give me the bibliographical data of the "few studies" you are referring to?

and a totally different questions: what does "retired staff" mean? who is the staff of this board, by whom was it founded, what are it's principal intentions?