Personality Cafe banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi guys, I'm new!

So I've taken a ridiculous number of tests (including cognitive function based ones) over the years, which consistently turn out as ENFP with super weak E, but I'm not so sure of this anymore. (Warning: this could start to sound typist. I have nothing against INFPs and think they're awesome, I just think a lot of INFP characteristics are things I wish I could change about myself personally)

I like to think of myself as an ENFP, extroverted, funny, with tons of ideas and connections, but I can't always reconcile that with my actual self-image. I'm generally a fairly outgoing person and love meeting new people, but I tend to have a fairly small support group and was a really shy child. I don't gain or lose energy from socializing -- I can't stand being around people for too long (mostly this happens when I'm around the same few people for a long period of time -- I can deal with variety), but I also can't stand being by myself for too long.

How does ambiversion work with MBTI anyway? ahgklda;jghkla;hfjk

Function-wise, I have a lot of trouble, because I identify with Fi, but also with Ni and Fe (what?!). I used to think I was like, the champion of Ne, but now I don't know if I'm even competent in using it (anyone know anything about self-confidence and Ne?).

I'm recently identifying more and more with descriptions of INFPs as opposed to ENFPs. I don't know how much of this results from my recent major drop in self-confidence (e.g. I'm terrified to share my ideas because I can't understand how they'll benefit discussion, I decide what I think is inferior to everyone else's thoughts before I can even get a word out, I think I'm un-funny and think other people don't like me, so I don't put myself out there as much when I'm not in the mood).

Anyway, the main point of this thread: I have a nagging suspicion that I'm not an ENFP like I always thought, but an INFP. This reaffirms a lot of aspects of myself that I wish didn't exist, and I find myself really, really wishing I was more extroverted or better with Ne. The more tests I take, the more I feel like I'm answering biased towards extroversion. Knowing that no type is actually better than another, how much is what I value in myself reflective of type, or is type simply a fact about ourselves that we have to come to terms with and decide to be okay about? To tie this back to Harry Potter (wheeeee) and Dumbledore's wisdom, to what degree are we defined by our choices and values? If anyone knows of old threads that address this, links would be awesome (I couldn't find any)
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
Knowing that no type is actually better than another, how much is what I value in myself reflective of type, or is type simply a fact about ourselves that we have to come to terms with and decide to be okay about?
It's not really either. And its a really long explanation that gets at the core of Jungian psychology which you can explore more at http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...k-guide-understanding-jungian-psychology.html , but essentially the more conscious a function is, the more 'you' it is. So the reason we can safely call say an ENFP and Extraverted Intuitive is because they lead with dominant Extraverted Intuition. It's their default way of processing and dealing with the world and themselves. Now mind you this doesn't mean all ENPs will behave or act the same way. Quite the contrary people have all kinds of personas and social roles they adapt separate from their type. What type tells us is habituated preference. A way of processing that has become comfortable for us. The question you're asking isn't one that MBTI can really answer, but if you maybe get your feet slightly wet with Jung, you'll realize the greater implications of what he was going for when he wrote Psychological Types. Psychological Types - Wikisocion . In order to really understand it you sort of have to understand how he built the psyche and the role the functions play (and that the functions are not the sum total of personality, just one aspect of it).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,780 Posts
It's not really either. And its a really long explanation that gets at the core of Jungian psychology which you can explore more at http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...k-guide-understanding-jungian-psychology.html , but essentially the more conscious a function is, the more 'you' it is. So the reason we can safely call say an ENFP and Extraverted Intuitive is because they lead with dominant Extraverted Intuition. It's their default way of processing and dealing with the world and themselves. Now mind you this doesn't mean all ENPs will behave or act the same way. Quite the contrary people have all kinds of personas and social roles they adapt separate from their type. What type tells us is habituated preference. A way of processing that has become comfortable for us. The question you're asking isn't one that MBTI can really answer, but if you maybe get your feet slightly wet with Jung, you'll realize the greater implications of what he was going for when he wrote Psychological Types. Psychological Types - Wikisocion . In order to really understand it you sort of have to understand how he built the psyche and the role the functions play (and that the functions are not the sum total of personality, just one aspect of it).
There is but one problem with "understanding functions"...well its mainly my problem. I can't trust my understanding of it until I see examples and it is difficult to see to what % those ways of processing are actually mine. Stuff like this is a guess at best supported by scattered facts that keep changing/are not stable features.

All in all it is a highly problematic and inaccurate way of going about this...sadly we don't know any other ways -.- which is why after more then a year I'm still just maskarading as INFP and have no actual clue as to what type I actually am. My gut feeling just keeps telling me something is wrong with this theory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,704 Posts
There is but one problem with "understanding functions"...well its mainly my problem. I can't trust my understanding of it until I see examples and it is difficult to see to what % those ways of processing are actually mine. Stuff like this is a guess at best supported by scattered facts that keep changing/are not stable features.

All in all it is a highly problematic and inaccurate way of going about this...sadly we don't know any other ways -.- which is why after more then a year I'm still just maskarading as INFP and have no actual clue as to what type I actually am. My gut feeling just keeps telling me something is wrong with this theory.
Don't blame your issue to find your type on the theory.
In all cases I've seen, it's lack of understanding of Jung's typology theory and MBTI that leads to a person being mistyped.

According to Jung, you got 4 functions.
S, N, T and F. These functions can either be subjective (directed inward) or objective (directed outward)

Fi is for example the subjective counterpart to Fe, which is objective.
Because of that, he didn't believe that you got 8 functions, but rather 1 of each of the 4 functions (subjective or objective).
The 4 other functions were called "shadow functions" because they are the functions that you can't express, but they exist in the world.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,780 Posts
Don't blame your issue to find your type on the theory.
In all cases I've seen, it's lack of understanding of Jung's typology theory and MBTI that leads to a person being mistyped.

According to Jung, you got 4 functions.
S, N, T and F. These functions can either be subjective (directed inward) or objective (directed outward)

Fi is for example the subjective counterpart to Fe, which is objective.
Because of that, he didn't believe that you got 8 functions, but rather 1 of each of the 4 functions (subjective or objective).
The 4 other functions were called "shadow functions" because they are the functions that you can't express, but they exist in the world.
Yes, I understood that it in the beginning (also read books on this subject), but there is a difference between understanding and actually knowing from experience.

Let me explain a bit better what I'm trying to get at: You learn a new mathematical principle right? You understand it, but you don't really know it until you apply it in practice and see for yourself how it goes. The more you apply it them better you know it.

<.< how can people "know their type" by understanding functions? It is a guess at best, maybe wishful thinking or delusion until they see what they themselves use day to day (which for me at least depends on the situation).

There can be a huge difference between what somebody thinks they are and what they actually are. Most people don't see how and what they are...they are just blind to reality (in denial sometimes, especially regarding the negative bits). Imo this is because we have no realistically objective way of measuring function use. Discerning type probably takes months/years of introspection and self analysis. Tests just suck and stereotypes are worse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,704 Posts
Yea, that's why you need someone else that knows the typology theories very well and know you very well, so they can type you.
The irony of that is that they then got their own opinion of you, which can throw them off and ultimately lead to them mistyping you (and same thing when you type yourself).

Generally it's just "luck" that you can find a type that you really fit into and feel like you belong there... or mistyping :p

Personally, when I understood the functions, I could see how I acted upon some of them more frequently than others and that lead me to my type.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top