Personality Cafe banner

I'm an INFP who apparently uses no Si. What does this mean?

2K views 13 replies 12 participants last post by  Daeva 
#1 ·
Hi everyone. As the title says, I'm an INFP. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Something that is interesting to me though is that I seem to have no Si. I've taken several function tests, all of which rank Si as pretty low, or even unused. Besides those tests, I also can't really see it in myself at all. Fi, Ne, and Te are all developed well enough where I can very clearly recognize my usage of them. Is it just underdeveloped somehow, or does it suggest anything else?
 
#2 ·
Interesting little problem that is easily explained by the simple fact that preferring I, N, F and P in dichotomy indicates in no way whatsoever that you would have "Si". If INFP is accurate by dichotomy just pick that. It all depends on the model you want to follow. If you think that your "Si" is non-existent and more "inferior" than your "Te" then you could think about ENFP. This is using those forced function-stacks of course. There are many issues with this approach as well.

It could be underdeveloped but what is "it" I wonder because "Si" varies so much depending on where you look.

In MBTI it is basically a combination of S and J (SJ) which means it is of course somehow, Judging. This means that "Si" is rational and decides things. It takes on many characteristics that have nothing to do with Sensation at all now. The J means SJ and therefore "Si" is now about planning, quick decisions, not taking in too much information, closure that kind of thing and let us not forget how it is also "traditional" and "memory" for no reason that makes any sense.

From a Jungian perspective, "Si" does not actually exist as a function it exists as a type. It tells you someone has leanings towards introversion (I) and prefers Sensation (S). As it is indicating a type and not a function from this perspective it does not make sense that an INFP would have "Si" (arguably Sensation would be extroverted in an INFP following Jungs theories and also be their inferior function).

It is basically up to you about this. You pick the model that you like the most and go from there. I am assuming you are talking about alternate typings when you ask "does it suggest anything else" maybe I am wrong to assume this. Either way it can not hurt to develop aspects of yourself that you identify as being bad or underdeveloped no matter what type you are.
 
#3 ·
"As Si develops and matures, INXPs enjoy using it to a great degree. They may find joy in revisiting favorite places, watching favorite old movies, and re-listening to their favorite songs over and over. They may grow interested in their family history, their cultural history, and researching the past. They may collect memorabilia and find comfort in familiarity and routine. They will enjoy accessing their vivid storehouse of memories and recalling favorite experiences in detail."

You don't relate to this description of tertiary usage of Si at all? You generally do not revisit any fond memories and such?

I actually prefer the method mentioned above more than the cognitive function stack method, but I do think that even if you are an N, you would still use S sometimes. Purely using N all the time would be impossible. So, to an extent, cognitive function stack theory is useful.
 
#4 ·
I actually prefer the method mentioned above more than the cognitive function stack method, but I do think that even if you are an N, you would still use S sometimes. Purely using N all the time would be impossible. So, to an extent, cognitive function stack theory is useful.
I disagree because N in dichotomy does not necessarily refer to pure N or all N. N in dichotomy can be slightly more N than S, even for types that supposedly lead with N in the so-called function stacks. What about for example an INFJ that is only 1% more N than S? So much for "dominant Ni" and "inferior Se" then.
 
#7 ·
INFPs filter everything sensory through Si. If you feel you don't have it it's probably because you don't understand it, which is possible given that it's a lower function for you.

For instance, try explaining Fe to an IxTP and there's a chance they'll recoil in disgust saying ''Hell no, that's not me!'' and they'll probably gravitate more towards Fi.
 
#9 ·
The notion that if you're an "Ne type," you're also a "Si type" — and ditto for the Ni/Se, Fi/Te and Fe/Ti pairs (the so-called "function axes," or "tandems") — is a by-product of the Harold Grant function stack, which is the forum-famous model that says that INFPs are Fi-Ne-Si-Te, and INFJs are Ni-Fe-Ti-Se, and ZOMG, INFPs and INFJs have no functions in common!

And just so you know, that model is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. More importantly, and unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, the Grant function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and should probably be considered all but disproven at this point.

Here on Planet Reality, the fact is that the four dichotomies, not the functions, are the real, underlying (and substantially genetic) components of your MBTI type — and despite some Jungian lip service, Myers understood that, based on her years of data-gathering and psychometric analysis. And she also understood that dichotomy combinations were associated with many noteworthy aspects of personality, but that there was nothing particularly special about the combinations that are purportedly associated with the "cognitive functions." In fact, Myers thought of NF/NT/SF/ST as the most significant dichotomy combinations — and it's worth noting that that's a carve-up of the types where each group is a type foursome with (assuming you believe in the functions at all) four different dominant functions.

And you will search in vain for any passage in Myers where she says that, if you start with a type foursome that shares two preferences (e.g., the SJs), and you flip both preferences, you'll end up with a foursome (in this example, the NPs) that has more in common with the original group — when it comes to some or all of the stuff affected by those preferences — than if you'd only flipped one preference. And the reason you won't find any such passage is that Myers didn't subscribe to that notion at all. Myers understood that if there's an aspect of personality where the SJs are the types with the most of it, you should expect the NPs to be the types with the least of it.

And Myers was right. The HaroldGrantian double-flip — the goofball geometry underlying the so-called "function axes" — has no basis in reality, and that's why it's found no respectable validation in over 50 years of MBTI data pools, correlating the types with everything under the sun. The notion that an INFP has "tertiary Si," and will therefore tend (probabilistically speaking) to have "Si" aspects of personality in common with a typical ISTJ that ISTPs tend not to exhibit, is a typological assertion that — like all assertions that crosscut the dichotomies in that counterintuitive way — has no more validity than the notion that two people born at around the same time will tend to have aspects of personality in common because they're both Capricorns.

In case you're in the mood for a hefty helping of input on the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability — not to mention the unbearable bogosity of the Grant function stack — you can find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this post and the posts it links to.

The final link at the end of that linked post is no longer functional (since the owner has taken INTJforum private), but you can find a long replacement excerpt from the INTJforum post — describing the dichotomy-centric history of the MBTI — in the spoiler in this post.
 
#10 ·
Everyone uses all 8 to some extent. It's just this 4 function stack to have been popularized for some reason and it kind of made everyone forget about the other 4, which are significant and used by everyone too. Tests are highly imperfect as well.

Hard to imagine one not using Si.
 
#11 · (Edited)
I think the Grant stack is true— or at least the axis of Ne to Si and Se to Ni. I think that I see it in others. I also think the information in neuroscience shows varying degrees of the Grant stack as well, although we can train our brains to do all sorts of tasks.

This being said, why do you think you have Fi first? Even your message (above) reads to me like Ne- first. ENFP is something to consider. I often feel like extroversion and introversion gets confused with word count, shyness, etc. I MBTI test as only 1% extrovert due to questions about social extroversion, but really it means to me that I do slightly more Ne than Fi and am more into my outside world than an INFP. I am married to an INFP btw. His Si is not suppressed like mine. His Te is very suppressed. Yep, to me that’s the best way to figure out an ENFP from an INFP is actually not the extroversion (he talks as much or more than me when we are alone) but by the 3rd and 4th functions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReliK and Allana
#13 ·
If you're an INFP that means you use Si every time you structure information, every time you observe your surroundings and every time you recall something from memory. It's not like Si is some kind of superpower that only Si-dominants have. It's just a normal function of your brain that you use all the time.

For an INFP it's lower in your function stack which means that you have less control over it. It can also be stressful to use it in some situations. Younger INFPs often dislike structure and planning because it's not as natural to them. They can have trouble noticing details and recalling specific information. On the other hand, they can sometimes recall information on specific topics with eerie accuracy (for example, I have an ENFP friend who is like an encyclopedia for animal facts but who doesn't even notice it when he has picked up an object and is fidgeting with it). That's what I mean by not having control over it. It's there and you use it, but it's often hard to use it as a tool. It improves with age though.

All of that said, it's different from person to person. This is just an approximation for how you generally use your brain and our brains are complicated enough that it's impossible to say how things work for any specific person. Our brains are hundreds of small interconnected subsystems and it's not clear how all of that even relates to the cognitive functions.
My point is to not be too quick to tell yourself that you don't use a function just because some test doesn't recognize it in the checklist. As humans we're incredibly more complex than an internet test can describe.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top