INFJ?

[Vianna]

I am still not absolutely sure of my type and I'd really appreciate some help from others.

I was sure about being an NFP for very long, I was typed as INFP mostly, but as I got myself deeper into cognitive functions, I realized I relate far more to Ni than Ne and so it brought me to some doubts about my type. When I first discovered MBTI, I was sure about being an Fi user and I considered myself to be weird Ni+Fi hybrid, but I was really young that time (a teenager). Now when I am over 20, I can see myself using something that seems like a combination of Fi and Fe and I am not sure how to call it.

When it comes to classic 4 dichotomies of MBTI I relate to I , N, F, and P. But I was suspicious weather an Ni user is really a J in the typical means of the letter. I think classic MBTI J types, are more likely SJs and EJs than NJs or IJs. I do have some J-type tendencies and I am clear that my most developed function is intuition, not feeling... I'd really use someone to help me sort this out. In my long way of discovering MBTI I seriously considered myself to be ENFP or INFP. In the back of my mind there are always more options including INFJ, INTJ, ENTP and INTP...Basically any N type.

I do have a strong idea, a vision in my mind, that I aspire to reach and to become. I have a strong desire for change and creation in its abstract and idealistic means. I always try to adapt my style, my image, my behavior, my persona and my surroundings to the ideal I hold strongly in mind. This ideal haven't changed since I was a teenager and I am extremly stubborn, focused and firm about it. When I see someone or something not fitting this, I usually try to change it and when I see the change is not an option, I try my best to reject it from my life. This vision is highly abstract, it's about being and become a better person and changing my surroundings and the society for the better future.

I am very artistic and artistic self-expression is really important for me. I write my poetry and I very much enjoy playing with metaphors, symbols and hidden meanings. I see art as the highest form of humans symbolism and abstraction. I care a lot about whether what I crate gives out the correct idea of myself, my thoughts and my feelings. Even my image is very important for me, because see it as an external symbol of my own individuality, which is very important for me.

I notice a lot of details about people, how they dress, how they act, how they behave and I categorize them based on those observations, I make judgements and put them in my imaginary boxes to know how to deal with them. I am usually right about my observations and know a lot about people even before speaking to them.

I often get hunches, that seem to be true and I learned to rely on them as they usually don't fail me.

I am allergic to everyone and everything who seems to be cheap, shallow, ordinary or empty. I seek for meaning and message in everything and everyone. When I am confronted with someone or something that I see as shallow or cheap, I can turn to a critical, sarcastic and cynical monster.

Because of the fact I express far more criticism and cynicism, than positive feelings, I've been called a cold queen a few times in my life and I think I am ok with it.
I usually adhere to social norms of politeness and kindness and so it's very important for me to keep good image among others in my society. I care a lot about how others perceive.

I can be friendly and even charming, when I feel like it, when I like someone, or simply in a situation when its needed. I can take my feelings aside when I know something more important is coming.

More intimate relationships with people are hard for me. I am individualistic and usually wants things to go my way. I am also reserved, I don't like to let people into my private zone, I do not like to feel emotionally vulnerable, so even in romance, I stay cold and reserved.

When with friends or people I like, I can show my more childlike, playful side. I can be bubbly and energetic when I am in a right company.

I think I appreciate intellect far more than feeling on other people, because I need a lot of intellectual stimulation. I like to explore, analyze and learn. I like to argue about theories and sciences and like to learn from the argued. I like to explore different sides, different ways of thinking and different styles. Even though, I usually stay to one that I believe is right, a good discussion about metaphysics can open many new ways of seeing the issue.

Even though I have visions and goals I need to feel like achieving them, I have an issue with self-control, I often choose leasure over work and then I regret it. I am not really leasury with time, I like people to be on time and to know what to expect, when to expect it and how to prepare for it. However I struggle with being spaced-out too often, I am chronically unaware of my environment and then keeping things in order is extremely hard, also when I daydream a lot, I lose focuse, I can be scattered and unaware of many happeings around me so taking control over happening is often a struggle also.

So INFJ, or not?

 

[charlatan]

I was sure about being an NFP for very long, I was typed as INFP mostly, but as I got myself deeper into cognitive functions, I realized I relate far more to Ni than Ne and so it brought me to some doubts about my type. When I first discovered MBTI, I was sure about being an Fi user and I considered myself to be weird Ni+Fi hybrid, but I was really young that time (a teenager). Now when I am over 20, I can see myself using something that seems like a combination of Fi and Fe and I am not sure how to call it.

I would say that the biggest conceptual mistake (not your fault, but that of closed-minded, not particularly rational theorists) floating around, misleading people is that there's some dogmatic reason you have to use only the combinations of function-attitudes (a function is like, say, intuition, and a function-attitude is something like introverted-intuition) which are provided by the popular model floating around, which in fact isn't the model espoused by the founder/father of functions theory (Jung) or the founder of the MBTI Isabel Myers (although there's mention somewhere she might've converted, whether genuinely or somewhat under pressure, to the popular one at the end of life). It's safer to say the current state after rigorous testing of functions theory is that people get all sorts of combinations.

It's better to average out all those combinations including your own individual peculiarities to find your type than it is to figure out your type based on more ad-hoc means.

You absolutely can identify with introverted intuition and introverted feeling, and in fact this is the MORE accepted view by Jung and his most orthodox followers for how an INF type should look.
This idea that you should determine your extraversion/introversion of function based on the direction of J or P is one of the biggest failures of functions theory.

I would also not look exclusively at functions theory to determine the type, because psychological type is an admixture of more cognitive and less cognitive factors, all of which cluster together to produce certain dispositions and attitudes -- some leading to pronounced differences in the philosophy of information processing, but others relating to other factors.

I would also say that, on average, real and true introverted intuition reminds me more of an INP-orientation than an INJ-orientation, although this is a complicated issue that one can go into more. The idea that J-P only tells you your extraverted functions is pretty much one of the silliest assumptions, making little sense.

Last but not least, you can be an INFx -- someone with preference not stably on either side. There has been rigorous research done into this, and in fact originally Isabel Myers didn't favor forced-choice, and allowed for omissions on her test for when someone didn't seem to have a preference strong enough or, more likely, had mixed results, like being more one side in some ways, and being more another side in other ways.
Contrary to the assertion made by some that this doesn't really help anybody, and makes you a "nobody" it tells you a great deal, namely where you stand in the spectrum of differentiation... to get more specific, you can just classify in what senses you lean one way, and in what senses another.
And in fact, Jung didn't seem to think it was uncommon for people to be so hard to distinguish between their secondary and primary function in certain cases that you more or less felt they were representatives of both those types.

To the extent you relate most to being INFP, but the only issue you worry about is that you think you're introverted intuition > introverted feeling, I'd say just stick with INFP.
On the other hand, if the only reason you chose INFP was that you identify with introverted feeling, I'd say we need to do more discussion of relevant J-P differentiation.

A lot of your post just sounds like you're pretty typically INF, and don't do well with ES.
My vote though is INFP based on your statement here

When it comes to classic 4 dichotomies of MBTI I relate to I , N, F, and P. But I was suspicious weather an Ni user is really a J in the typical means of the letter.

And like I said, I agree identifying introverted intuition orientation with J was always a bad idea. On the other hand, the dichotomies don't end with the test -- the test is just the most simple stuff about them. There's tons more information to fish out there about them about the philosophies of the different types.
That is, J doesn't end with keeping your room neat.

J relates with a more structured, systematic attitude towards many different things, and that includes the style of acquiring knowledge. It's a very large general orientation difference between keeping one's eyes open vs making a definite selection among things. The idea behind this is that defining one's agenda too closely (whether it be one's philosophy, or one's timetable) is ultimately prone to futility since new stuff keeps coming up anyway, and we don't know how it does or doesn't fit into the agenda. The Ps see it that way at least.
The Js are bothered by this because they feel it leaves too much to chance, so they tend to exclude that which doesn't fit in a structured self-imposed protocol.

My instinct is that you're correct on the introverted-intuition+introverted-feeling being your top two modes.

I care a lot about whether what I crate gives out the correct idea of myself, my thoughts and my feelings.

Typical enneagram 4 stuff.

This vision is highly abstract, it's about being and become a better person and changing my surroundings and the society for the better future.

That's more or less quintessential NF right there. Wouldn't doubt that part of your type. Note that NF just means that those most closely define you, not that you don't enjoy aspects of the other themes too. And it's natural, many Ns think that overall N is their strongest preference.

I often note that many attributes are more the result of combining more than 1 of the 4 scales of personality, whence it's often the case that someone overwhelmingly strong on one scale sees things involving this scale as interesting, even if they involve other preferences than their main one (so e.g. a NF may have some NT-typical interests because N is their strongest, or a NF who is not as strong on N-S as on F-T may involve themselves in things which trigger the heart most of all, even if some aren't as abstract or idealistic, and are more down-to-earth types of loving and nurturing).

 

[charlatan]

If you'd like more separate input on understanding any of introverted intuition, feeling, etc, go ahead and ask of course.
I would say the dichotomies are the way you can "type" yourself in the sense that you can choose where your average falls. But in terms of pinning you down more individually, you can of course try to describe every aspect there is.

 

[Vianna]

I would say that the biggest conceptual mistake (not your fault, but that of closed-minded, not particularly rational theorists) floating around, misleading people is that there's some dogmatic reason you have to use only the combinations of function-attitudes (a function is like, say, intuition, and a function-attitude is something like introverted-intuition) which are provided by the popular model floating around, which in fact isn't the model espoused by the founder/father of functions theory (Jung) or the founder of the MBTI Isabel Myers (although there's mention somewhere she might've converted, whether genuinely or somewhat under pressure, to the popular one at the end of life). It's safer to say the current state after rigorous testing of functions theory is that people get all sorts of combinations.

It's better to average out all those combinations including your own individual peculiarities to find your type than it is to figure out your type based on more ad-hoc means.

You absolutely can identify with introverted intuition and introverted feeling, and in fact this is the MORE accepted view by Jung and his most orthodox followers for how an INF type should look.
This idea that you should determine your extraversion/introversion of function based on the direction of J or P is one of the biggest failures of functions theory.

I would also not look exclusively at functions theory to determine the type, because psychological type is an admixture of more cognitive and less cognitive factors, all of which cluster together to produce certain dispositions and attitudes -- some leading to pronounced differences in the philosophy of information processing, but others relating to other factors.

I would also say that, on average, real and true introverted intuition reminds me more of an INP-orientation than an INJ-orientation, although this is a complicated issue that one can go into more. The idea that J-P only tells you your extraverted functions is pretty much one of the silliest assumptions, making little sense.

Last but not least, you can be an INFx -- someone with preference not stably on either side. There has been rigorous research done into this, and in fact originally Isabel Myers didn't favor forced-choice, and allowed for omissions on her test for when someone didn't seem to have a preference strong enough or, more likely, had mixed results, like being more one side in some ways, and being more another side in other ways.
Contrary to the assertion made by some that this doesn't really help anybody, and makes you a "nobody" it tells you a great deal, namely where you stand in the spectrum of differentiation... to get more specific, you can just classify in what senses you lean one way, and in what senses another.
And in fact, Jung didn't seem to think it was uncommon for people to be so hard to distinguish between their secondary and primary function in certain cases that you more or less felt they were representatives of both those types.

To the extent you relate most to being INFP, but the only issue you worry about is that you think you're introverted intuition > introverted feeling, I'd say just stick with INFP.
On the other hand, if the only reason you chose INFP was that you identify with introverted feeling, I'd say we need to do more discussion of relevant J-P differentiation.

A lot of your post just sounds like you're pretty typically INF, and don't do well with ES.
My vote though is INFP based on your statement here



And like I said, I agree identifying introverted intuition orientation with J was always a bad idea. On the other hand, the dichotomies don't end with the test -- the test is just the most simple stuff about them. There's tons more information to fish out there about them about the philosophies of the different types.
That is, J doesn't end with keeping your room neat.

J relates with a more structured, systematic attitude towards many different things, and that includes the style of acquiring knowledge. It's a very large general orientation difference between keeping one's eyes open vs making a definite selection among things. The idea behind this is that defining one's agenda too closely (whether it be one's philosophy, or one's timetable) is ultimately prone to futility since new stuff keeps coming up anyway, and we don't know how it does or doesn't fit into the agenda. The Ps see it that way at least.
The Js are bothered by this because they feel it leaves too much to chance, so they tend to exclude that which doesn't fit in a structured self-imposed protocol.

My instinct is that you're correct on the introverted-intuition+introverted-feeling being your top two modes.



Typical enneagram 4 stuff.



That's more or less quintessential NF right there. Wouldn't doubt that part of your type. Note that NF just means that those most closely define you, not that you don't enjoy aspects of the other themes too. And it's natural, many Ns think that overall N is their strongest preference.

I often note that many attributes are more the result of combining more than 1 of the 4 scales of personality, whence it's often the case that someone overwhelmingly strong on one scale sees things involving this scale as interesting, even if they involve other preferences than their main one (so e.g. a NF may have some NT-typical interests because N is their strongest, or a NF who is not as strong on N-S as on F-T may involve themselves in things which trigger the heart most of all, even if some aren't as abstract or idealistic, and are more down-to-earth types of loving and nurturing).

Maybe you call me close-minded, but I do believe the function theory is right. I relate to Ni and Fi, but as I said, the older I get, the more I use something that seems like weird hybrid of Fe/Fi and the more I doubt being really an Fi user, because I don't really care about morality or creating my own value system, but I am highly aware of my internal feelings and like to explore them to their depth, not sure whether I fit all the sides of introverted feeling. On the other hand, I care a lot about harmonious atmosphere with me and people and so I am usually polite and nice, sometimes I adapt myself to the needs of others and forget about my own and then I feel guilty, but I always want everyone just to be fine. I am not really a helper or a care giver at all, I am more of a passive compromiser.

When it comes to J and P... I decribed it here:

Even though I have visions and goals I need to feel like achieving them, I have an issue with self-control, I often choose leasure over work and then I regret it. I am not really leasury with time, I like people to be on time and to know what to expect, when to expect it and how to prepare for it. However I struggle with being spaced-out too often, I am chronically unaware of my environment and then keeping things in order is extremely hard, also when I daydream a lot, I lose focuse, I can be scattered and unaware of many happeings around me so taking control over happening is often a struggle also.

 

[charlatan]

[MENTION=14172]Vianna[/MENTION] - there's nothing, first of all, that says you can't have Ni/Fi-Fe identification. However, what I'm saying is, to the extent you want to try arguing that everyone should fit such a pattern (of having to choose EITHER Ni+Fe OR Ne+Fi), I can certainly show beyond reasonable doubt that doesn't work. There's also no "the functions theory" given there's multiple functions theories by prominent authors around -- just the one most prominently adapted in the MBTI community is this one that tries to enforce alternating E/I for everyone.

I'd be just as closed-minded/dogmatic if I suggested you cannot have any Fe going on.

However, I don't think much of the definitions that suggest Fe is about harmony, and Fi is about having one's personal value system, because really, how does that even relate to extraversion and introversion meaningfully? Because seeking harmony involves looking "outside" vs one's personal value system is about looking "inside"? There's a lot wrong with that way of seeing things (again, this isn't your fault, but I think the fault of not very careful theorizing).
Really it is more correct to say any F type on average cares more about a harmonious atmosphere around them than the average T type, dichotomies-wise, and there's good evidence this was the original take on feeling and thinking types too. Think about it: how do we cognitively detect disharmony? For example, in a painting? It tends to be through a keen sense of feeling to some extent.

I would also say analyzing further, one's "personal value system" could easily have more of a thinking-function flavor than a feeling-function flavor -- unless the value system evaluates strongly through depth of feeling. Lots of ethical theories are developed by prominent thinking > feeling types, aiming at a coherent logical framework of value judgment.
So I don't tend to find that is the most solid way of distinguishing F types from T types.
Of course it's likely a T type's value system for personal use will be formulated in more impersonal terminology/concepts (depending on what you mean by personal).

As a general note, a lot of sources conflate various personality dimensions into one, and I think an oft-seen conflation is introversion with egocentricity. Having a personal value system that you adhere to, which basically says "what I think matters, what others say doesn't matter nearly as much and/or seeking harmony with them is compromising myself" is more of an egocentric leaning than an introverted one... vs striving for harmony with others is the less egocentric leaning. I don't tend to think much of descriptions that conflate multiple aspects of personality, and too many Fi descriptions more or less portray it as egocentric in slant, when that doesn't have to be true of an introverted orientation towards feeling.
In fact, I'd say what you expressed as wanting to remain polite, in harmony with others, in a somewhat passive way rather than a more involved one is perfectly typical for an introverted orientation. I'd say a INF type typically has a strong introspective focus on their feelings, but the point is they DO seek harmony with others typically. E.g. seeking people who accept them for who they are. The types that really have a "I adjust my feelings to belong" orientation are more the ESF types. But being polite and seeking a non-abrasive atmosphere really has nothing to do with either whether you have a strong sense of self/focus on your feelings introspectively, or whether you have a strongly defined personal value system. I'd say both those can be true of F types and T types, in different ways.

In general, if it's true that your aforementioned introspective sense of abstract idealism leads you to seek greater harmony with others, then that isn't compromising yourself by looking outside, so much as realizing through introspection that your sense of self is ABOUT (in part) such harmony-seeking.

In particular

I am not really a helper or a care giver at all, I am more of a passive compromiser.

This is just a typical thing IF-y people say as contrasted with their more EF-y counterparts.



My input isn't going to stick to the established trend, but I've read all those theories and more for a lengthy time before synthesizing the picture I have. Just to let you know what to expect.

 

[Dutchie]

INFP- low percentage P with some J tendencies I think. Just curious, are you right or left handed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vianna]

INFP- low percentage P with some J tendencies I think. Just curious, are you right or left handed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am right handed