Hello all, I would like some clarification of my preferred type. I have thought of myself as an INFJ for months based on cognitive functions. Recently I have been wondering if I am actually INFP after paying for a test created by Dr. Drenth. It came out at a slight preference (53%) INFP.

I don't relate much to how well they apparently know what they are feeling, but is this because I do it subconsciously? I don't care about being rare INFJ as many INFP mistypes do so I am open to any questions or statements on what you think my real type may be.

I am very analytical and relate to Ti a lot; is this from Fi? I was quite creative as a child and still enjoy creating things and such. Efficiency is extremely important to me and at the farm where I currently feed cows, I try new things and lay out the whole most efficient process in my mind. I am curious as to what functions this is tied to? I am good at problem solving and am in college for web developing.

I am definitely an Introvert, very intuitive and a mix of feeling vs thinking. I am most likely a feeler but I don't understand why I am so analytical and strive for efficiency. I am 18 years old if that helps determine where my function strengths are. Any and all help is appreciated and if you think I am a completely different type, I am open to suggestions. Thanks to those who help.
First things first, it's important to note there are various systems that are often assumed to be getting at the same thing, but really aren't; the MBTI test is, while reminsicent in spirit of the Jungian functions theory, not particularly direct a representation of it and converges much better with the Big 5 personality model that's popular in modern personality research.
Then there are differences between more modern versions of functions theory (socionics, MBTI) and the original (Jung).
Contrary to what some assume, one of these isn't obviously superior, because a lot of the extra nuance some ascribe to functions theories really is a straightforward consequence of observing there are some extra personality qualities which fall in the region of intercorrelation of two dimensions -- so e.g. there are things about TJ that aren't reducible to T or to J, and this is really what people get at when they think there's something more they're learning by studying things like Te than was covered by ordinary T/F and J/P.
Beyond that, the only difference is the functions theory is more philosophical and less about cut and dry descriptive personality research based on factor-analytic research.

So I think it's very important to go into this knowing it's not a matter of cut and dry empiricism and that there's real philosophical work to do to decide what model you fit/what the implications are. I have figured out what I think is one of the best interpretations of the functions theory/abide by it, but I also give data on the Big 5 and such.

So some general notes:

- from the perspective of the Big5 interp, being curious for intellectual knowledge is very consistent with having a high N score.
- N in this sense is actually not easily identifiable with "intuition" as I'd conceive of it in a functions theory. For instance, having a penchant for vivid, novel sensations is consistent with N, not negatively correlated with it
- in the original Jungian theory, the classic scientist combo was more sensation-thinking than NT, whereas a majority of scientists conducting research for its own sake are dichotomies Ns. It's imortant to note this, because it's almost as if the N-bias of the dichotomies somewhat flips to a S-bias, as more speculative intuitive thinking is often valued less than a more empirical approach
- In the dimensional/dichotomies/Big 5 take, the idea that you have to pick between F and T is not consistent with a majority of what personality psychology predicts, which is that most of these dimensions show a spread of percentiles, not discrete types
(the common objection that this means you just have no personality is wrong, because a given dimension can be subdivided into smaller subcomponents on which you may have strong preferences, causing you to balance out overall)

- Feeling/Thinking here is akin to the purely logical fact/value judgment distinction, where at least psychologically, if not philosophically, some component of one's attributing to values is always from one's feelings/subjective reactions, but not exclusively emotional and definitively involving reflection (e.g. I feel disgust at person X; I reflect on why I feel disgust/my other feelings/values; I then realize my feeling of disgust betrays a valuative response that is inconsistent with other values of mine; I change my value judgment; then I replace the original feeling of disgust with a new one.). Notice this involved reflection, but it was specifically targeted to decide what you ought to feel/subjectively attribute value.

F-doms are pros at this and do this all the time and in a lot of complexity (what others may term "wow that person has a lot of feelings/appeals to them a lot!" naively). Obviously the above process was not inconsistent with invoking some T judgment, but the point is the end result sought is a value judgment, even if there may have been at least some T-judgments intermediate to it. This may be termed the principle of the T function operating subordinate to that of F.

Based on this background, if you share some reactions, I can comment further!
Thank you for your response...

Very interesting! I apologize for not responding sooner as I am busy with college and need to make sure my priorities are in the right places. I will have to give your information more thought, but I can definitely see that it is well thought out. Do you have an existing example of what a T-judgement would look like while being influence by F? Perhaps the same example rethought out?

I see your point when you say it is hard to distinguish certain characteristics of functions from others and if you have more information on this, I would be interested to hear it.

Based on your answer, I am curious if you consider yourself any of the 16 types? Also, what are your thoughts on the Enneagram system? I don't know much about Jung's actual functions, are they different enough from the MBTI proposed functions that I should look into them? Maybe Socionics is a better system altogether?

My updated type discovery:
Interestingly, in online Socionics tests I normally get INTj, many say this is INTP although I don't know enough about it. Enneagram I am consistently a 5w4. Maybe I am INTP in MBTI? I never considered it although the hardest part of "leaving" INFJ was honestly the Ti. I assumed that since I didn't emote much outwardly and prefer to figure out my emotions by myself, I couldn't be using Fe. Could I be using lower Fe and higher Ti? (INTP) Maybe I am just wasting my time with this personality is just too interesting to leave though...

I appreciate you taking time to respond to me and hope I haven't put you off by my delay in a return post.
Howdy! Well I think I sort of spent a lot of time comparing/contrasting the various versions of the systems, and currently I just go with some version of NeTi as my type...with emphasis on the Ne (I think there are subtypes you can loosely talk of that emphasize how balanced you are between the top two ... I'm heavily skewed to the Ne/tend to have a scatterbrained intuitive tying together of tons of schools of thought going on compared to T-doms). I think fundamentally, socionics adds too many bells and whistles, so I think just the core ideas of it are good (without getting into VI or the intertype relations or quadras too religiously). But as far as structure, model A appeals to me more than any of the others -- I just have my own interpretation of it based on reading about many systems and synthesizing what I think is the best version.That should be kept in mind when I say stuff like "F-doms are like this" ... there really is no authority on these things, but I think I've thought them through to a high enough degree to have at least one viable take that a lot of people might find useful.

Part of the issue with the emoting/etc is that the original intent was never that a Ti type uses Fe more readily so much as Fe colored the unconscious of the Ti dom type. It's far from difficult to imagine a Ti-dom being outwardly pretty stoic. On the other hand, a Ti-aux might not have much trouble with this (the so-called inferior function is the one people tend to struggle with -- and is often a good way of picking out the dominant type, as it's often readily apparent...mine is obviously sensation).

Any judgment will have to involve some F, including T because e.g. if you're choosing a logical model to work with, you could simply keep imagining possible ones, and won't really get down to any given one if you don't make a value judgment at some point of which one is ideal. The key, though, is "ideal" tends to be more dry and functional when it comes to F subordinate to T (extreme example is value being measured in a monetary way--there is still a tiny hint of human valuation in this, since after all supply/demand do relate to human needs and preferences....but you can see how this is the least genuinely value-based value judgment), and less about so-called intrinsic value (which is more F for F's sake), which involves a more intimately human, subjective reaction.

An analogous issue is a store-vendor who is extremely down to earth and practical may be an S-dom, but may still envision the future, e.g. to see what he should replenish stock of in his store. But you can see how this is hardly an intrinsic envisioning of possibilities so much as just doing what is necessary to keep the store functioning as it is. Nobody can function in a dry way without all 4 functions, but it's possible to keep to invoking less of a given one.

Side-note about this: not all S-doms are practical to the same degree, e.g. a biologist S-dom may love to study flowers and animals, which are quite down to earth things, in touch with the world, but may not be practical in that this pursuit may not be the most financially rewarding. Lots of scientists are like this -- they aren't interested in imagining fantastic possibilities so much as in studying nature as it is, in all its richness and complexity, and there's still a S sentiment here, but it is much less practical than the sentiment of a businessman who is interested only in money, not knowledge for its own sake.

Unlike in some versions of thought, a functions theory one doesn't necessitate Fs being more gentle than Ts. After all, judgments of the heart can be quite harsh.
Last edited: