Well, you could really hate something (which I don't think is quite your case anyway) and still not be blind to it, if this makes sense.
Well, you could really hate something (which I don't think is quite your case anyway) and still not be blind to it, if this makes sense.
D
Deleted member 16771
I don't 'hate' Fe, I guess
It's just a bit of a meme at this point that I do.
Pft you curse every time you go emo. It's an angry curse too! You hate it.I don't 'hate' Fe, I guess
D
Deleted member 16771
Min, I think that if we had to choose your 'best-fit' type between INTJ and INFJ, then INTJ suits you much better in my opinion. I think what's throwing you are the incorrect stereotypes floating around about the emotionality of INTJs, in addition to the way you have been socialised as a woman and what you are comfortable with expressing. I also think that your professed wish to be labelled as 'INFJ' is causing the actual INFJs here a deal of discomfort which they need to ameliorate by agreeing with you. This kind of disagreement against your wishes is uncomfortable to them regardless of what the 'truth' is. Indeed, if you were to look at my own type journey, I was surrounded by INFJs here who wanted to reassure me that I was INFJ because the idea of being 'INTJ' - a type I wasn't particularly fond of, and didn't seem to capture my emotionality - was obviously uncomfortable to me.
I think if you take even a cursory look at your blog, it quickly becomes clear that you don't seem to function as an INFJ would, either emotionally or intellectually.
In terms of how you process things intellectually, you are attracted to systems, and especially mutually-reinforcing systems with lots of synergy and feedback flow, attested by the hypothesis of your masters (masters, right?) thesis where you make an analogy between organic systems and the 'function' of cities. That you are drawn to the 'patterns' of analogies like this is a clear sign of Ni-Te processing.
It's also worth noting that you possess a high level of objectivity in your approach to ideas, where you aren't particularly attached to one idea or another as distinct from either their truth-value of systemic 'elegance' - this is Te rather than Ti. Notably, it's also very hard to 'offend' you.
Rounding out the picture, though, is the way your emotions work, which is overwhelmingly in the style of Fi, and in particular, Tertiary Fi. I say 'in particular', because Tertiary Fi can have a very 'childlike' and 'pure' quality quite distinct from the more mature and complex Fi of INFPs, for example. It makes you highly idealistic and sometimes despondent in the face of seemingly insurmountable corruption. The pure idealism of Tertiary Fi is also seen in the faith ISTJs have in tradition, but it is also notable in that it drives a significant will to action in the form of Te. In the case of an INTJ, there will be a lot of theorising (Ni) about how (Te) the corruption or incompetence we see can be ended (Fi), and 'strong-Fi' INTJs are often typed as Enneagram 1s for this reason: their marriage of high idealism with a will to action, coupled with a perfectionism borne of the same functional stack.
I don't think it's a coincidence, for example, that your workplace struggle is analogous to my own, with highly similar external problems and internal ruminations (about ethics and strategy).
Apart from this, though, the way you love is also highly indicative of Tertiary Fi, which exhibits an intense personal loyalty; a 'for ever' kind of loving ability. Simple, pure, undying.
By contrast, 'Fe' love is actually much more impersonal, powered by universal values. It's less intensely focused on individuals, and concerned more with a universal expression of agape. The kind of 'love' you express is not typically this. Rather, you have the kind of intense loyalty, consistent love and forgiveness characteristic of INTJs, which I think is seen in how you regard your mentor. An INFJ would be more prone to brutally cut out that person from their lives (the infamous 'door slam'), whereas for an INTJ this kind of thing is simply not a natural impulse, even though we might have to force ourselves to do it from necessity. (If you ask @Asa how her husband doesn't cut people out who he probably should, I think she'd agree with me). For Tertiary Fi, the bonds never break; they are always there. Bonds do not die and can't be killed, only hidden away and buried at most... but they always inevitably resurface. Only betrayal, or some other serious moral transgression (Fi), can break bonds for us.
Now, the only confounding factor to me is how you relate to authority. Fe-users have a 'natural respect' for authority because they intuitively understand how hierarchies work, and how to work within them. They are much better at navigating social realities of authority in this sense. By contrast, I don't think Fi-users have much of a natural respect for authority, which can sometimes lead them to intellectualise and theorise about 'systems of power' in a very impersonal and objective way. With you, however, I sometimes get the sense that you do harbour this 'natural respect' for authority, though I also think this is something cultural that's throwing me off. The way we engage with 'authority' is quite conscious and unemotional, typically through this intellectual prism of 'power'. And if, by some unfortunate circumstance, the competence and worthiness of individuals does not match their allotment of 'power', then this can make us very uncomfortable indeed because 1) It's irrational for the proper functioning of the system of which we are part (Ni-Te), and 2) It's wrong/unfair/immoral (Fi).
Indeed, your distaste for incompetence is very distinctive, in proportion to how much power the incompetent or corrupt person actually has. I think a characteristic emotion of INTJs can be a sense of punitive wrath against the incompetent and corrupt, because the sheer injustice of that combination really gets under our skin.
Now, a little thought experiment:
I hinted before at the INFJs here who are inclined to agree with your self-typing for Fe reasons, but do you notice how they're willing to settle on Enneagram 1w2 when these 'personal biases' are absent? In this case, there is no-one to upset.
This should be puzzling, because a 1w2 INFJ is a fairly rare occurrence, and fairly common for INTJs (and I think very common for INTJs with developed Fi). So I'd like you to consider this:
Take me, a 1w2 INTJ. Sentimental, loving, but INTJ nonetheless. How would I express these functions if I were born a woman, and socialised as one? Maybe in the Philippines, even! Less testosterone, yeah, and everything that goes with it, but also less of a cultural hesitancy about expressing my feely side; much more social reinforcement for doing the same. Well, you know what? I reckon I'd probably look a lot like you.
I think if you take even a cursory look at your blog, it quickly becomes clear that you don't seem to function as an INFJ would, either emotionally or intellectually.
In terms of how you process things intellectually, you are attracted to systems, and especially mutually-reinforcing systems with lots of synergy and feedback flow, attested by the hypothesis of your masters (masters, right?) thesis where you make an analogy between organic systems and the 'function' of cities. That you are drawn to the 'patterns' of analogies like this is a clear sign of Ni-Te processing.
It's also worth noting that you possess a high level of objectivity in your approach to ideas, where you aren't particularly attached to one idea or another as distinct from either their truth-value of systemic 'elegance' - this is Te rather than Ti. Notably, it's also very hard to 'offend' you.
Rounding out the picture, though, is the way your emotions work, which is overwhelmingly in the style of Fi, and in particular, Tertiary Fi. I say 'in particular', because Tertiary Fi can have a very 'childlike' and 'pure' quality quite distinct from the more mature and complex Fi of INFPs, for example. It makes you highly idealistic and sometimes despondent in the face of seemingly insurmountable corruption. The pure idealism of Tertiary Fi is also seen in the faith ISTJs have in tradition, but it is also notable in that it drives a significant will to action in the form of Te. In the case of an INTJ, there will be a lot of theorising (Ni) about how (Te) the corruption or incompetence we see can be ended (Fi), and 'strong-Fi' INTJs are often typed as Enneagram 1s for this reason: their marriage of high idealism with a will to action, coupled with a perfectionism borne of the same functional stack.
I don't think it's a coincidence, for example, that your workplace struggle is analogous to my own, with highly similar external problems and internal ruminations (about ethics and strategy).
Apart from this, though, the way you love is also highly indicative of Tertiary Fi, which exhibits an intense personal loyalty; a 'for ever' kind of loving ability. Simple, pure, undying.
By contrast, 'Fe' love is actually much more impersonal, powered by universal values. It's less intensely focused on individuals, and concerned more with a universal expression of agape. The kind of 'love' you express is not typically this. Rather, you have the kind of intense loyalty, consistent love and forgiveness characteristic of INTJs, which I think is seen in how you regard your mentor. An INFJ would be more prone to brutally cut out that person from their lives (the infamous 'door slam'), whereas for an INTJ this kind of thing is simply not a natural impulse, even though we might have to force ourselves to do it from necessity. (If you ask @Asa how her husband doesn't cut people out who he probably should, I think she'd agree with me). For Tertiary Fi, the bonds never break; they are always there. Bonds do not die and can't be killed, only hidden away and buried at most... but they always inevitably resurface. Only betrayal, or some other serious moral transgression (Fi), can break bonds for us.
Now, the only confounding factor to me is how you relate to authority. Fe-users have a 'natural respect' for authority because they intuitively understand how hierarchies work, and how to work within them. They are much better at navigating social realities of authority in this sense. By contrast, I don't think Fi-users have much of a natural respect for authority, which can sometimes lead them to intellectualise and theorise about 'systems of power' in a very impersonal and objective way. With you, however, I sometimes get the sense that you do harbour this 'natural respect' for authority, though I also think this is something cultural that's throwing me off. The way we engage with 'authority' is quite conscious and unemotional, typically through this intellectual prism of 'power'. And if, by some unfortunate circumstance, the competence and worthiness of individuals does not match their allotment of 'power', then this can make us very uncomfortable indeed because 1) It's irrational for the proper functioning of the system of which we are part (Ni-Te), and 2) It's wrong/unfair/immoral (Fi).
Indeed, your distaste for incompetence is very distinctive, in proportion to how much power the incompetent or corrupt person actually has. I think a characteristic emotion of INTJs can be a sense of punitive wrath against the incompetent and corrupt, because the sheer injustice of that combination really gets under our skin.
Now, a little thought experiment:
I hinted before at the INFJs here who are inclined to agree with your self-typing for Fe reasons, but do you notice how they're willing to settle on Enneagram 1w2 when these 'personal biases' are absent? In this case, there is no-one to upset.
This should be puzzling, because a 1w2 INFJ is a fairly rare occurrence, and fairly common for INTJs (and I think very common for INTJs with developed Fi). So I'd like you to consider this:
Take me, a 1w2 INTJ. Sentimental, loving, but INTJ nonetheless. How would I express these functions if I were born a woman, and socialised as one? Maybe in the Philippines, even! Less testosterone, yeah, and everything that goes with it, but also less of a cultural hesitancy about expressing my feely side; much more social reinforcement for doing the same. Well, you know what? I reckon I'd probably look a lot like you.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 16771
This is the kind of delivery that made me doubt at the time whether I might be really INFP.
Just my two cents, but I think it would be better to give her the freedom to interpret the information rather that already spin it in the direction you want it to be interpreted. Having experienced it in the past, I can say it was very troubling. I think this is partly because we on the forum here tend to already perceive what you say and think as very authoritative by nature (and so influential).
You once described my writing as 'literally dripping with Fi', which confused me for a long time, so I'm always a bit suspicious when you opt for these superlatives in a post. It's better to leave room for the possibility that you might be wrong. (Note to self: do the same
)Other than that, it's a thought-provoking post! By the way, I think INFJ 1w2 is quite common.
This would be honestly very hard to imagine. Even factoring gender and culture into the equation, you guys seem extremely different.
Min is a lot warmer (though not kinder) and far more conciliatory. I don't think she could sustain a conflictual exchange here for very long. You manifest Te to us, though it is directed by Fi; which is why it often seems hard, albeit motivated by kindness and justice. I've never seen Min directing her thinking to me, to be honest, with the exception of a few instances, and usually it was her who gave way and went back into feeling first. Sure, you could say it's because of gender and culture, but I can't find this very convincing for some reason.
I'm deliberately opting for a more 'common sense' approach because at the level of a more analytical argument, I don't think I could write anything better than your post, nor do I think any resolution could be reached in that way.
D
Deleted member 16771
This is the kind of delivery that made me doubt at the time whether I might be really INFP.
Just my two cents, but I think it would be better to give her the freedom to interpret the information rather that already spin it in the direction you want it to be interpreted. Having experienced it in the past, I can say it was very troubling. I think this is partly because we on the forum here tend to already perceive what you say and think as very authoritative by nature (and so influential).
You once described my writing as 'literally dripping with Fi', which confused me for a long time, so I'm always a bit suspicious when you opt for these superlatives in a post. It's better to leave room for the possibility that you might be wrong. (Note to self: do the same
Other than that, it's a thought-provoking post! By the way, I think INFJ 1w2 is quite common.
I tried, Ren!
You might be right, there, though I'm going by memory of that MBTI/Enneagram grid @John K reposted recently.
I tried, Ren!
You might be right, there, though I'm going by memory of that MBTI/Enneagram grid @John K reposted recently.
Maybe it's just the Deleted member 16771 effect. Something close to the word of God. Be cautious with your power!
D
Deleted member 16771
It's responses like this that pointed me in the direction of Fi dominant for you, too, since I noted that your first instinct was often to respond emotionally. However, Fe can do the same thing, but for different reasons.This is the kind of delivery that made me doubt at the time whether I might be really INFP.
Just my two cents, but I think it would be better to give her the freedom to interpret the information rather that already spin it in the direction you want it to be interpreted. Having experienced it in the past, I can say it was very troubling. I think this is partly because we on the forum here tend to already perceive what you say and think as very authoritative by nature (and so influential).
You once described my writing as 'literally dripping with Fi', which confused me for a long time, so I'm always a bit suspicious when you opt for these superlatives in a post. It's better to leave room for the possibility that you might be wrong. (Note to self: do the same
Other than that, it's a thought-provoking post! By the way, I think INFJ 1w2 is quite common.
In this case, your objection is to my style and my delivery, matched with an emotional suspicion of the same. You don't want min to be 'bamboozled' like you almost were, and since the argumentation is difficult to dismantle, you feel the need to attack what I've written by casting doubt on me or my style instead. You're trusting your intuition/gut feeling/instinct that I'm wrong (Ni?), and vectoring that through Fe.
Reflection:
Now, I'll stop there because this is perhaps an interesting example of that INTJ 'Fe blindspot' that's been discussed here earlier. I obviously shifted into an analytical mode to make that post, and this carried through to how I replied to you in this post, where the default is to try to dismantle everything and explain why certain things are functioning the way that they do (including your response to me).
This can come off as insensitive because it's so impersonal and has that disconcerting quality of speaking about individuals and their minds in a way that doesn't actually take their feelings into consideration.
This blindspot came out earlier this year in that thread about charisma, and I think it's just happened again. The potential is there for my Te and your Fe to clash here again.
I think it's interesting to note, and to have seen that happen in real-time, but I'm going to pre-emptively apologise if the post above this 'reflection' section is actually offensive or upsetting in any way.
D
Deleted member 16771
@Ren About you being an INFP, I should say that I was veering towards INTP for you at first (since I thought your philosophy was an Ne construct), until sass convinced me of INFP. I think she has the same kind of argumentative power which is difficult to resist.
Hm, I see where you are coming from but I don't think this is very fair. I made it quite clear that your post was thought-provoking and full of substance. Also, whilst you pretend that you're going for a very unemotional/insensitive approach here, it seems to be that it very much driven by feeling, i.e. having felt attacked by my previous post; warranting a response only whose surface is 'rational'. I could be wrong about this, but I have come to develop some familiarity with the way in which 'hard insensitive Te' is all the harder and insensitive when supporting a bothered Fi.
I honestly don't think that the argumentation is difficult to dismantle. It's very easy to dismantle; the problem is that it would be equally easy for you to dismantle whatever I (or anyone else) proposes instead. This is what I meant when I said that I didn't think that this would be the way to reach a resolution. There have been plenty of educated back-and-forths of that kind on the forum before, and in my experience they never were what eventually settled a matter of that sort.
As for your style, yes, I do think that at times it can be a little too emphatic and superlative, and I admit that this is primarily emotionally driven in the sense that I am merely extrapolating from my own (emotional) experience. But hey, I am feeler at the end of the day
Yes, I think this is exactly right!
Last edited:
Very difficult to resist maybe, but still wrong.
This is the essential part you're omitting here, and this ties in with the 'suspicion' I think everyone should have regarding brilliant and elaborate analyses. They can still be wrong. And sometimes simple common sense is the key to realising that they're wrong.
I think this is key to understanding the difference between Fi and Fe. Yes, Fi is intensive while Fe is extensive.
One consequence of Fe relating to individuals through the prism of the universal is that Fe seems to trust more easily and to be less discriminate in who one likes, but the idea of 'undying loyalty' is somewhat foreign to it (with the exception of loved ones, of course). I think Fe is actually uncomfortable personalising feeling too much; while to my knowledge, this is extremely important to Fi.
I think this is most striking with Fe-doms. If you go to them for advice, they will usually find it difficult to put themselves precisely in your shoes; what they will tend to do is motivate you with the kinds of encouragement they would give to anyone coming to them. (INFJs are a bit more subtle than that, on average, but they have similar tendencies.) This can actually be very annoying to an Fi-dom, even hurtful. Sometimes Fi-doms don't even want to be told anything; they would prefer feeling that they are being heard, not impersonally but in recognition of their individuality.
This is partly why Fe users usually appear warmer, I think. They simply don't feel like they have to know a great deal about the other person to 'engage in feeling activity'. To some this will seem like a superficial kind of warmth, while to others this will appear as being friendly without any preconceptions about x or y person. I think that in certain environments (like a new workplace, for example) having a strong Fe user around can be a source of great comfort.
@mintoots — this might be a useful way of figuring out which one you relate to more.
But what does your gut tell you?I tried, Ren!
You might be right, there, though I'm going by memory of that MBTI/Enneagram grid @John K reposted recently.
D
Deleted member 16771
Eat less bread for the next fortnight.
Me today: “totally following Hos’s advice and not eating bread”
Me tomorrow: “omg such a good baguette”
D
Deleted member 16771
Do you actually eat baguettes?Me today: “totally following Hos’s advice and not eating bread”
Me tomorrow: “omg such a good baguette”
Almost every day when I’m in France, but not so often here. The Irish make sub-par baguettes.
[QUOTE
Astrology? Oh boy. Let me try to illustrate the process of how I arrived there: I'm probably flat out on the couch, skimming an article about functions on my phone. Then I read the sentence "seventh function is the blindspot". Suddenly I'm actually reading the words, because something about that feels true. Se -> Ni. Now I need to know if it can be true, so I test it against the knowledge I have gathered via Fe (people). Se -> Ni -> Fe. If it still can be true, I will need to know if it actually can be true. I know that I want it to be true, that's why I have to do everything in my power to prove myself wrong (that's where encountering counter-examples is the only job (almost)) - because if I accept something as true when it isn't - it might become that rotten building block (very OCD-y), and I can never afford that... So if it survives that, it's something that I feel sure enough to say out loud. Se -> Ni -> Fe -> Ti -> Se. When I have said it out loud, my own statement gets reabsorbed as external information and must go through a similar process again, but with via Fe. If it's still alive after that, It's true enough for me. Convincing others however, that's a question of motivation and priority.
I think you can be very well compensated for the blindspot function. My brother and I was shooting arrows the other day. The bow was the cheap toy kind, with a useless aiming thing (no idea what's that called in English). I was outshooting him at first, but that was because he was more motivated to figure out how to use the aiming thing, than hitting the target - once he figured it out, they were all bullseye. He was shooting like an ISTP without using Se. But when we were going to look for the lost arrows... a blind man would actually have found them faster. There are lots of examples of blind spot compensations if you think about it. INTJs have Fe blindspot, but they understand the human mind so well that they've found a way to make new and better humans (that of course will destroy us all, but they don't see that because blind Fe). I can't see how it's possible to type without thinking about the relationship between positives and negatives.
Astrology? Oh boy.
Let me try to illustrate the process of how I arrived there: I'm probably flat out on the couch, skimming an article about functions on my phone. Then I read the sentence "seventh function is the blindspot". Suddenly I'm actually reading the words, because something about that feels true. Se -> Ni. Now I need to know if it can be true, so I test it against the knowledge I have gathered via Fe (people). Se -> Ni -> Fe. If it still can be true, I will need to know if it actually can be true. I know that I want it to be true, that's why I have to do everything in my power to prove myself wrong (that's where encountering counter-examples is the only job (almost)) - because if I accept something as true when it isn't - it might become that rotten building block (very OCD-y), and I can never afford that... So if it survives that, it's something that I feel sure enough to say out loud. Se -> Ni -> Fe -> Ti -> Se. When I have said it out loud, my own statement gets reabsorbed as external information and must go through a similar process again, but with via Fe. If it's still alive after that, It's true enough for me. Convincing others however, that's a question of motivation and priority. I think you can be very well compensated for the blindspot function. My brother and I was shooting arrows the other day. The bow was the cheap toy kind, with a useless aiming thing (no idea what's that called in English). I was outshooting him at first, but that was because he was more motivated to figure out how to use the aiming thing, than hitting the target - once he figured it out, they were all bullseye. He was shooting like an ISTP without using Se. But when we were going to look for the lost arrows... a blind man would actually have found them faster. There are lots of examples of blind spot compensations if you think about it. INTJs have Fe blindspot, but they understand the human mind so well that they've found a way to make new and better humans (that of course will destroy us all, but they don't see that because blind Fe). I can't see how it's possible to type without thinking about the relationship between positives and negatives.