Does the MBTI not fit me?

[Darc]

Well I kind of scoff at the whole T/F divide because supposedly it has nothing to do with how emotional a person is, it's just how you make decisions or look at the world. For example, feeling functions are just value based in comparison to thinking, which is different all together (I don't know how to properly define thinking right now?)

But I always come close to it, and I suppose even though I am a passionate and emotional person, I can also be quite detached at times and a little stoic and spend quite a great deal of time thinking about things. I sometimes have in the past (and still do) struggle with repressing my feelings, to think through everything when really it's just an emotional thing wherein thinking does not come into the equation.

It's interesting though, I in fact come close to being an INTJ at times, even though I quite often test as an INFP. There's certain ways I react or look at things that are similar to thinkers I guess. For example, I can be very blunt and prefer honesty most of the time, then simply sparing people's feelings. (I used to) but not as much, unless the person seems really nice or sensitive.
I also test as an INFJ/ENFJ at times, and I find this very interesting. On dominant functions test, I get Fi, but then in a lot of MBTI tests I get XNFJ. I find that I display some Fe traits, and as well do not dwell on my person feelings all that much and can be quite objective.
So I wonder then if perhaps the MBTI either does not work with me, or perhaps I am just a mature and balanced individual? I think that most types (INFP or not) who are educated at all and work on being a bit more rational will not really fit the stereotypes that well. Likewise, I don't think that Fi is just dwelling on personal feelings, which I wonder if perhaps is why I do not always get INFP? I try to use objectivity a lot, but with Fi being sort of my guiding compass sort to speak.


But like, feelings that are kind of removed and almost in a vacuum of yourself seems kind of weird and hard for me to relate to at times; but then likewise, I think that often times I think this is how introverted feeling is perceived when it's not always true or the case (by default almost)

But with the recent passing of Chester Bennington for example in Linkin Park, he has always been quite popular, but has been noted for being a little too "whiny" at times, and whilst I do not think it is always the case, some of their songs are quite metaphorical, I always had a bit of a hard time relating to him because he focuses on his own faults and negative emotions waaaaay tooo much. I mean, the fact that he killed himself. :/ (which is sad, but really? 41 and you threw your like away and leave your wife and kids like that? fuck)

 

[Darc]

( on an unrelated note) I think the reasons why Fi is misunderstood is the same reason often that women are not at times wholly respected either. Lol, I dunno.

I've always related to James Dean and Marlon Brando in a way. I read biographies about both of them, and supposed they are Fi-doms. I am perceived as being feminine at times and as caused much contention as to my sexuality. But how they are, that's how I sort of see Fi in some ways (at least, visually because of their film roles and such) and...I don't see them out right fitting stereotypes though. But ironically enough, I look at the State and world's perception of places like America now, where individual rights are well respected and a part of the culture, and I think that for whatever reason, it's just become a sort of thing to bash all of that stuff as "whiny" "immature" "teenagery-" which in a sense, is kind of gaslighting I think. I think a lot of people must be offended or intimidated by individuality, but I don't think it's selfish. I like Ayn Rand a bit, but I am not necessarily "conservative" but I agree a lot with her philosophies regarding individualism.

Likewise, one of my favorite books of all time is "The outsiders" I mean really it is, it just touches me really deeply. All of that is just a part of who I am.

 

[Ginny]

I too tested as INTJ once or twice. It seems I am pretty borderline on the thinking/feeling dichotomy, although this has nothing to do really with typing. You can never stress enough that it's all about the functions and the way you process information, etc. But you probably know that already. So far I haven't done a test specifically targeting and isolating the dominant function, but then again I am relatively secure in my being an INFJ.
I think it could happen that some functions aren't well developed for whatever reason. Or it might be that there is a lack of self-awareness involved. Not that it specifically applies to you but it might be that you try to find out if that function applies to you by imagining yourself using that function. Most likely, as Jungian enthusiasts put it, you have used all those functions at some point. The difficulty lies in discerning if there is a preference for that function and if that is dominantly utilised or less so or only in specific situations. I think you're going to have to weigh those options to come to a conclusion if it is even possible. Otherwise you'll just have an X standing somewhere. I don't think it is bad, though, it is just the way it is then. So long as you know who you are it should be perfectly fine.

To be honest, I have no idea what you mean about the Fi business. Why would it be associated with femininity? I mean, everyone uses either one or the other feeling function, so why would it be feminin? And why not Fe?

 

[Darc]

I too tested as INTJ once or twice. It seems I am pretty borderline on the thinking/feeling dichotomy, although this has nothing to do really with typing. You can never stress enough that it's all about the functions and the way you process information, etc. But you probably know that already. So far I haven't done a test specifically targeting and isolating the dominant function, but then again I am relatively secure in my being an INFJ.
I think it could happen that some functions aren't well developed for whatever reason. Or it might be that there is a lack of self-awareness involved. Not that it specifically applies to you but it might be that you try to find out if that function applies to you by imagining yourself using that function. Most likely, as Jungian enthusiasts put it, you have used all those functions at some point. The difficulty lies in discerning if there is a preference for that function and if that is dominantly utilised or less so or only in specific situations. I think you're going to have to weigh those options to come to a conclusion if it is even possible. Otherwise you'll just have an X standing somewhere. I don't think it is bad, though, it is just the way it is then. So long as you know who you are it should be perfectly fine.

To be honest, I have no idea what you mean about the Fi business. Why would it be associated with femininity? I mean, everyone uses either one or the other feeling function, so why would it be feminin? And why not Fe?

Well yes Fe can be very feminine as well, and it's often socially expected for women to be sort of mothering or nurturing in this sense.

I can't remember what my tangent about femininity and it's relation to Fi, I was just thinking that a lot of women, even if they are not dominant Fi users (I don't know the statistics, maybe a lot of women are actually) but generally, they are more aware of their personal feelings and how they are effected by things and thus perhaps some of their world view is defined by this as well. Though I've known a lot of women who are not like this at all, and are almost just as insensitive as many men are.

It's just there's kind of an negative stereotype about women that they sort of are prone to flights of fancy, are overly emotional, too sensitive and "don't make any sense thing" I think that most women do, it's just that they speak in a more 'emotional' language in a way, and I think that's what it is, and that is where a lot of negative perceptions of women come from. It's in the same way that a lot of people see Fi particularly as not making any sense or being completely removed from reality and self centered. I had trouble seeing it before, but I can see how Fi just comes across as whining all of the time, even though if it's not exactly at the same time. It's also about emotional repression I guess. It's just the degree that most people repress their emotions, lol.

 

[jyrffw54]

@Darc

I actually wrote an article on here that addresses some of these concerns of yours. Mind you, it really only focuses on Fi and Fe use, but Ti/Te work along a similar vein to these two; Ti being more subjective and relying on what makes sense to then in their thought processes while Te typically is more objective, relying on "what's been proven to be fact/work" in their thinking processes.

 

[Ginny]

Well yes Fe can be very feminine as well, and it's often socially expected for women to be sort of mothering or nurturing in this sense.

I can't remember what my tangent about femininity and it's relation to Fi, I was just thinking that a lot of women, even if they are not dominant Fi users (I don't know the statistics, maybe a lot of women are actually) but generally, they are more aware of their personal feelings and how they are effected by things and thus perhaps some of their world view is defined by this as well. Though I've known a lot of women who are not like this at all, and are almost just as insensitive as many men are.

It's just there's kind of an negative stereotype about women that they sort of are prone to flights of fancy, are overly emotional, too sensitive and "don't make any sense thing" I think that most women do, it's just that they speak in a more 'emotional' language in a way, and I think that's what it is, and that is where a lot of negative perceptions of women come from. It's in the same way that a lot of people see Fi particularly as not making any sense or being completely removed from reality and self centered. I had trouble seeing it before, but I can see how Fi just comes across as whining all of the time, even though if it's not exactly at the same time. It's also about emotional repression I guess. It's just the degree that most people repress their emotions, lol.

If this really is the way you say, then those people don't know how F (and T) work. And provided they know about MBTI and did proper research, it is a very unreasonable thing to assume. If what you wrote were the case, and those stereotypes were anything to go by, then I'd be an Fi user as well, which doesn't make any sense. This is one of those situations where I hate stereotypes. They are just so wrong. Desparingly so. Makes me question their rationality and motives for saying so.

 

[Darc]

Ha ha, I just don't think I fit into how the MBTI is structured itself...

I don't altogether relate to a lot of other INFP's. I also feel this way with feelers in general, a lot of them seem way too herd-minded for me, and sensitive. They annoy me, especially with the whole social justice warrior crusader, which also I find kind of hypocritical a lot of the time as well.

But I have a hard time sometimes getting along with non-dominant feelers though, because talking to them, they feel backwards to me at times.

 

[Darc]

@Darc

I actually wrote an article on here that addresses some of these concerns of yours. Mind you, it really only focuses on Fi and Fe use, but Ti/Te work along a similar vein to these two; Ti being more subjective and relying on what makes sense to then in their thought processes while Te typically is more objective, relying on "what's been proven to be fact/work" in their thinking processes.

That's totally how I see the difference between Ti and Te, but with feelings I think it's a little bit more complex. Of course they have to do with internal and external parameters in the same way, but I think it's a little more complicated then that.

I mean I almost think socionics is kind of true in that sense, wherein INFP's/and INFJ's are the reverse of each other in that.

 

[charlatan]

Well I kind of scoff at the whole T/F divide because supposedly it has nothing to do with how emotional a person is, it's just how you make decisions or look at the world. For example, feeling functions are just value based in comparison to thinking, which is different all together (I don't know how to properly define thinking right now?)

A few things here:

1) The dichotomies/dimensions measured by the test aren't the same as Jungian functions theory by a long shot and this was an unfortunate mixup, caused by Myers having inspiration from Jung but still going her own way to make a more traditional psychometrically validated personality measurement tool, but not acknowledging how far she went from his original theory

2) In these dichotomies/dimensions, F absolutely has to do with the level to which emotions influence judgments

3) In general, even in general functions theory, the idea that F-functions have nothing to do with emotions is a gross exaggeration, although it's understandable because it's an interpretation that had original foundations in the truth. The original idea should have been that F is about value judgment, and that this is not reducible to emotion, in that it involves some directed reflection as well -- that is, it involves genuine cognitive functioning, not just raw visceral reaction (what Jung might call affect rather than feeling).

However, when faced with explaining this, Jung often gave hints that it isn't as simple as there being nothing to do with emotions. He has said quite literally that F judgments are strongly influenced by emotional factors, and that too much reflection vitiates feeling in his collected works.

 

[Darc]

A few things here:

1) The dichotomies/dimensions measured by the test aren't the same as Jungian functions theory by a long shot and this was an unfortunate mixup, caused by Myers having inspiration from Jung but still going her own way to make a more traditional psychometrically validated personality measurement tool, but not acknowledging how far she went from his original theory

2) In these dichotomies/dimensions, F absolutely has to do with the level to which emotions influence judgments

3) In general, even in general functions theory, the idea that F-functions have nothing to do with emotions is a gross exaggeration, although it's understandable because it's an interpretation that had original foundations in the truth. The original idea should have been that F is about value judgment, and that this is not reducible to emotion, in that it involves some directed reflection as well -- that is, it involves genuine cognitive functioning, not just raw visceral reaction (what Jung might call affect rather than feeling).

However, when faced with explaining this, Jung often gave hints that it isn't as simple as there being nothing to do with emotions. He has said quite literally that F judgments are strongly influenced by emotional factors, and that too much reflection vitiates feeling in his collected works.

Don't you mean under exaggeration? lol.


I suppose it has to do with emotions, but in regards to how said emotions effect one's pre-existing and defined values. Though I suppose when defining values it's on the basis of one's mental and emotional reactions to past and present circumstances and knowledge that has been gained.

"value system" I think could also be exchanged for the term "code of ethics" "moral system" as well I think. I think we're all influenced one way or another by our feelings, even if it's the negation of them, though : /


Feelings can be different then emotions though, they are not always altogether the same way. I think feeling can insinuate different and various sensations where as emotions is a strong surge of strong internal reactions to some kind of external stimuli.

So I can that feelings are more liken to physical sensations, wherein emotions can take place afterwards.

Ah a ha ha ha ha.
https://www.thebestbrainpossible.com/whats-the-difference-between-feelings-and-emotions/