[nu4nce]

So I am either an ENFP or an INFP, I have tested as both. I can make conversation with strangers, but sometimes I don't want to. I can be very crazy with my friends, but sometimes I really don't want to draw attention to myself. Sometimes I want to be friends with everyone in a crowded room, sometimes I feel so so alone in a crowded room. Sometimes I crave company, sometimes I need to be in my room alone. I have no idea if I'm an introvert or an extrovert. But I identify as an ENFP because of my Cognitive Functions. I have done multiple Cognitive function tests recently and I have come to the conclusion that my top 4 functions are Ne-Fe-Ni-Si or Ne-Ni-Fe-Si.
My first and fourth almost always match the "normal" ENFP first and fourth traits (Ne-Fi-Te-Si) so that's my reasoning. I don't usually test very high for Fi, which is INFP's dominant function. So I don't think I could be a 'true' INFP.
Is there such a thing as a kind of introverted ENFP? Could I be one?
Why do you think I test so high for Fe and Ni when those aren't even "supposed" to be in my top 4?
Do you believe that Cognitive Functions play a strong role in determining MBTI type?
What are your cognitive functions in relation to your MBTI type?

 

[MuChApArAdOx]

I test high in all of the introverted functions, Fi < Ni Ti and Si. Ti and Te were only a few points away, same as Ne-Ni, Se and Fe were quite lower than Si and Fi. Now I may not have an accurate reading on Se, however I love this function and how it relates to me in real life. I assume it has something to do with being grounded in reality, I feel for myself I'm quite grounded in Se, I love nature, the smell of flowers, walking in the grass, fresh sheets on my bed, candles, and very intune with my sexuality etc. And to be honest If I had to choose another type I would want to be a sensor leading with Se.

I feel everything you just wrote relates to me as an ENFP. Are we introverted , well I don't think so, butttttt....we have so many extroverted stereotypes that people assume we have a lot of mental energy. Not true, we are exactly like INFP , the only difference is we rely on our intuition to guide us before making judgments through our Fi. ENFP I believe are a bit more observant than INFP, INFP often have to back peddle because they don't trust their intuition enough to wait before making final judgments. This is the only reason I type myself as ENFP, I know I use Ne before Fi.

Here is how I see myself using cognitive functions in order : Ne, Fi, Te, Ni, Si, Ti, Se, Fe.

I do consider myself an introverted ENFP.

 

[Highway Nights]

The way I see it, there are three ways of determining your type:
1. Purely based off cognitive functions
2. Purely based off letter dichotomies
3. A mixture of the two, in the attempt to find the "best fit"
I think most people on here do three. The letter dichotomies are set up to represent the cognitive functions, so in interpretation 1. the letters are just a code. The problem is, they don't always do it flawlessly, especially where J/P is involved. Most people here seem to use three, although there are people who prefer 1. (which I guess is the most "purely" jungian) and there are people who prefer method 2.

Personally, I don't believe the "cognitive functions" really exist. I think they're abstract concepts that can describe certain sets of behaviors, but will never match up perfectly with theory. Sure, you can say "oh, well the function interactions create a pseudo Xe function" but at some point it just becomes an attempt to rationalize what you believe. I use and talk about functions because if I'm going to play this game, I might as well try to play by the rules. But the rules are over one hundred years old and open to so much debate and interpretation so as to be almost meaningless. Which school of thought you choose is up to you.

To answer your questions

Is there such a thing as a kind of introverted ENFP? Could I be one?

I've seen ENFPs as well as ENTPs and ENTJs called the "most introverted extroverts" or "the ambiverts" so it's not unusual. Personally, I'm an ESTP and I consider myself more of an ambivert. None of these are black and white absolutes.

Why do you think I test so high for Fe and Ni when those aren't even "supposed" to be in my top 4?

It just means that you have traits associated with those two functions.

What are your cognitive functions in relation to your MBTI type?

I usually score the highest on Te, Se and either Fe or Ti, wildly varying heights on Ni, average or slightly below average on Ne, Si is usually pretty low and Fi is almost nonexistent.

It might help to make a thread in this What's my personality type? section.

 

[Highway Nights]

Double post. My bad.

 

[Harizu]

As other users have stated before me, ENFPs can be pretty introverted at times, it's not uncommon for them. My best friend is still trying to determine whether she is an INFP or an ENFP for the same reason.
If you have troubles typing yourself, consider enneagram as well: it plays a role in it. For example, a type 7 INFP is gonna look more extroverted than a type 4 INFP.

What are your cognitive functions in relation to your MBTI type?

I usually score high on Ne, Se, Ti and Ni, in a range from average to high on Te and low on Fe, Fi and Si.

 

[nu4nce]

I test high in all of the introverted functions, Fi < Ni Ti and Si. Ti and Te were only a few points away, same as Ne-Ni, Se and Fe were quite lower than Si and Fi. Now I may not have an accurate reading on Se, however I love this function and how it relates to me in real life. I assume it has something to do with being grounded in reality, I feel for myself I'm quite grounded in Se, I love nature, the smell of flowers, walking in the grass, fresh sheets on my bed, candles, and very intune with my sexuality etc. And to be honest If I had to choose another type I would want to be a sensor leading with Se.

I feel everything you just wrote relates to me as an ENFP. Are we introverted , well I don't think so, butttttt....we have so many extroverted stereotypes that people assume we have a lot of mental energy. Not true, we are exactly like INFP , the only difference is we rely on our intuition to guide us before making judgments through our Fi. ENFP I believe are a bit more observant than INFP, INFP often have to back peddle because they don't trust their intuition enough to wait before making final judgments. This is the only reason I type myself as ENFP, I know I use Ne before Fi.

Here is how I see myself using cognitive functions in order : Ne, Fi, Te, Ni, Si, Ti, Se, Fe.

I do consider myself an introverted ENFP.

I love Se! I score about the same for Se and Fi most of the time. I think I have more developed Si because I have a freaky good memory. Like I don't even use bookmarks in books because I can remember the page number I was on. I can describe the entire plot and characters of books I read in third grade. I remember the exact floor plan of the house I moved out of when I was barely 3 years old. But I tend to zone out from reality a lot. I have to REALLY focus to truly appreciate all of the sensory details of a moment. And when I do appreciate all sensory details of a moment, I will usually remember that moment forever. I love my physical pleasures like you do though hahaha. I have heard that INFPs are THE most introverted types, do you think this true? Because if it is there is NO WAY I am an INFP. I guess introveredish ENFPs exist!
This is unrelated, but do you love your favorite songs because the lyrics have great meaning to you, or because the music is catchy? I think NF types value lyrics more, and SFs value beats. My ESFP/ESFJ friends tend to be very into dubstep while I like songs with complex lyrics more. I think this might tie in with developed NE vs developed Se

 

[kiriosa]

Online tests aren't really reliable. They rather ask you if you do something, not why you do it. MBTI and the cognitive functions in particular are mostly about motivations. I always have a quite high score on Ni, too.
If you truly believe you're using Fi-Ne/Ne-Fi, it's ok. But if you aren't sure or don't know how they work, I'd suggest you should read a bit about them first. They can be quite confusing at first, but it's essential to understand them.

In mbti being an extrovert or being an introvert is determined by your strongest function (the dominant). Xe doms need their surrounding to make their dominant work, Xi's on the other hand don't. That's why introverts feel exhausted when they spend too much time with other people and extroverts when they've been alone for too long. But since our second function, which is also quite strong but never as strong as the dominant, is extraverted in introverts and introverted in extroverts, we could all be considered as ambiverts, really. It depends on how much your second function is developed, probably.

Ne is extroverted but it's the most introverted extroverted function there is, since it also needs some space to work properly.
Si isn't really about having a good memory. It's more about noticing changes and patterns.

 

[electricky]

How much of a role do letters play in determining the alphabet?

If you consistently identify with Ne and don't identify with Fi that much that just doesn't line up with INFP at all. No matter how introverted you may seem. Leading with an extraverted function is extraversion, not going to parties or libraries or talking a lot or anything like that.

 

[Tom Soy Sauce]

A pretty big one in my opinion. Which is why I get mad when I see someone asking whether they're two types that share no functions whatsoever (INFP and INFJ, INTP and INTJ, etc.). While the dichotomous method (I/E, N/S, T/F, P/J) is useful for categorization and general traits, it's way too broad. The difference between two letters is not always as simple as "abstract vs concrete" or "organized vs unorganized". For instance, the differences between an INFP and INFJ are not merely in the realm of organization, procrastination and punctuality. The cognitive functions seem to lead us more to the why, rather than the what, which is what I think you get with the dichotomous approach.

The dichotomous approach is great for getting a general feel for what type you are, but I think the cognitive functions can help you know pretty much for certain. For instance, it took me a while to figure out I'm an extrovert, because when compared to typical extrovert standards I'm not whatsoever. However, I can readily identify Ne as my lead function. I can trace it back to my childhood and it really explains a lot of why I am the way I am.

 

[periwinklepromise]

I'm of the JCF camp where I think the functions and their attitudes should determine your type completely. The dichotomies are okay - and MB Step II shows some interesting potential - but the types are based on the functions. You probably won't figure out your type based on online tests alone, but they can make great starting points. I suggest doing some more research on the functions and how they present; if you treat the functions like they're personality type test results, you won't get very far (ie tests tend to only test for the most basic uses that literally everyone and anyone can do, I can remember sensory detail just fine and notice how things are different from what they once were, but I don't give a damn about Si because I consider it irrelevant to my life, Si isn't memory and Te isn't about being organized, etc).

I also make a big deal about making sure the test is accurate for how I understand the functional-attitudes. For example, Fi is a major weakness of mine. When I receive high marks for Fi-usage, simply because I have intrapersonal intelligence, I trust the test less; I know myself and what I believe in, but I do not use personal evaluative standards to make my decisions. When the test assumes that leap, I get peevish.

 

[Ninjaws]

The functions are much more defined than the letters. For instance, the functions show a clear difference between Fi and Fe users. Not all Fs are warm and open, that's mainly Fe users. Fi users will be far more withdrawn, protective of their inner world.

With the letters this distinction is impossible to see.

 

[bigstupidgrin]

There's also such a thing as outgoing INFPs . Enneagram 7s. We just need to control our interactions...

The issue with the function tests to me (only my experience here) is that they get influenced by activity too much. Because I work with people so much, my Fi, Ne, Ni, and Fe all test high, higher than my supposed third (Si) and forth (Te) functions. I just know that when the chips are down, my Fi is steering the ship, hence INFP (and because INFP descriptions fit my life to an uncanny degree).

 

[TimeWaster]

Depends on who you ask.

MBTI figures claim that JCF is personality and personality is JCF, whereas others, chiefly David Keirsey, reject the functions as being purely speculative (He rejects them for another reason too, but that subject deserves a thread of it's own).

I find myself in the latter camp. If you want my advice, go to the Keirsey website (or buy his book) and look over the xNFP descriptions. After reading them, you will quickly realize which one you are.

 

[reckful]

@nu4nce —

It's not hard to find MBTI forum posters who'll tell you that Jungian/MBTI type is basically all about the functions, and that the dichotomies mostly just deal with superficial stuff, and that you should think of them primarily as "letter codes" that need to be decoded to lead you to the deeper stuff.

But reckful's here to tell you that those people have been taken for a ride. Not even Jung himself prioritized the so-called "cognitive functions" in the way that a lot of those confused forumites do. In fact, Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about the things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together; and in the Foreword to a 1934 edition of the book, he bemoaned the fact that too many people were inclined to view Chapter 10 (his function descriptions) as the essence of the book, while noting that he'd stuck those at the back of the book for a reason.

And in any event, and regardless of what Jung's perspective was, it's been close to 100 years since Psychological Types was published, and a lot of studies have been done since then — and it shouldn't surprise you to hear that the modern MBTI reflects countless adjustments and improvements to Jung's original concepts.

As further discussed in the posts linked to at the end of this one, the current, reality-based take on the situation is that the so-called "cognitive functions" have turned out to be what James Reynierse has called a "category mistake." And that doesn't mean that an NFP isn't reasonably likely to relate to typical modern "Ne" and "Fi" descriptions, but that's because typical modern function descriptions, rather than reflecting Jung's original concepts, are jerry-rigged sets designed to match up reasonably well with the corresponding MBTI types — with the result that "Ne" descriptions typically describe stuff that's characteristic of MBTI NPs and "Fi" descriptions typically describe stuff that's characteristic of MBTI FPs.

And so... you might expect typical "cognitive function" tests to work reasonably well — but as you've discovered, they often fail pretty miserably. Dario Nardi's test is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test, but as further discussed in the spoiler in this post, INTJs typically get high Te scores and high Ti scores (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test, and they similarly get high Ni scores and high Ne scores (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne). INFJs often get Fi scores that are as high or higher than their Fe scores. And all the IN types tend to relate pretty strongly to Ti. As I understand it, there has never been a cognitive functions test where the results come anywhere close to lining up with the Harold Grant model expectations, where INTJs are supposedly Ni-Te-Fi-Se and INTPs are supposedly Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. (And FYI, that Harold Grant function stack is inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.)

I've been participating in online type-me exercises for over five years now, and I'd say the test that most often gives the correct result is the official "Step I" MBTI — and if you're interested, there's a link to that here.

For a little more discussion of how and why the dichotomies supplanted the functions, see this post.

And if you're ever up for a heavier-dutier dose of cognitive function deprogramming, you'll find it in the collection of posts linked to in this post.

 

[Tellus]

@nu4nce —

It's not hard to find MBTI forum posters who'll tell you that Jungian/MBTI type is basically all about the functions, and that the dichotomies mostly just deal with superficial stuff, and that you should think of them primarily as "letter codes" that need to be decoded to lead you to the deeper stuff.

But reckful's here to tell you that those people have been taken for a ride. Not even Jung himself prioritized the so-called "cognitive functions" in the way that a lot of those confused forumites do. In fact, Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about the things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together; and in the Foreword to a 1934 edition of the book, he bemoaned the fact that too many people were inclined to view Chapter 10 (his function descriptions) as the essence of the book, while noting that he'd stuck those at the back of the book for a reason.

And in any event, and regardless of what Jung's perspective was, it's been close to 100 years since Psychological Types was published, and a lot of studies have been done since then — and it shouldn't surprise you to hear that the modern MBTI reflects countless adjustments and improvements to Jung's original concepts.

As further discussed in the posts linked to at the end of this one, the current, reality-based take on the situation is that the so-called "cognitive functions" have turned out to be what James Reynierse has called a "category mistake." And that doesn't mean that an NFP isn't reasonably likely to relate to typical modern "Ne" and "Fi" descriptions, but that's because typical modern function descriptions, rather than reflecting Jung's original concepts, are jerry-rigged sets designed to match up reasonably well with the corresponding MBTI types — with the result that "Ne" descriptions typically describe stuff that's characteristic of MBTI NPs and "Fi" descriptions typically describe stuff that's characteristic of MBTI FPs.

And so... you might expect typical "cognitive function" tests to work reasonably well — but as you've discovered, they often fail pretty miserably. Dario Nardi's test is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test, but as further discussed in the spoiler in this post, INTJs typically get high Te scores and high Ti scores (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test, and they similarly get high Ni scores and high Ne scores (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne). INFJs often get Fi scores that are as high or higher than their Fe scores. And all the IN types tend to relate pretty strongly to Ti. As I understand it, there has never been a cognitive functions test where the results come anywhere close to lining up with the Harold Grant model expectations, where INTJs are supposedly Ni-Te-Fi-Se and INTPs are supposedly Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. (And FYI, that Harold Grant function stack is inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.)

I've been participating in online type-me exercises for over five years now, and I'd say the test that most often gives the correct result is the official "Step I" MBTI — and if you're interested, there's a link to that here.

For a little more discussion of how and why the dichotomies supplanted the functions, see this post.

And if you're ever up for a heavier-dutier dose of cognitive function deprogramming, you'll find it in the collection of posts linked to in this post.

Okay reckful, you have got my attention. Do you have any more sources besides this one?

http://www.capt.org/research/article/JPT_Vol69_0109.pdf

"Type dynamics is a category mistake" This is the main argument, right? What is your interpretation of this part of the article? Especially from "The 16 types identified... " to "Both issues are addressed in greater detail below".

 

[reckful]

Okay reckful, you have got my attention. Do you have any more sources besides this one?

http://www.capt.org/research/article/JPT_Vol69_0109.pdf

"Type dynamics is a category mistake" This is the main argument, right? What is your interpretation of this part of the article? Especially from "The 16 types identified... " to "Both issues are addressed in greater detail below".

You've quoted a post from April. The latest set of posts I'm tending to point people to for cognitive-function-deprogramming purposes are this post, this post, and the posts they link to.

The first three posts listed in that second linked post include a lot of discussion of the bogosity of the Harold Grant function stack and its associated "tandems." And the fact that the correlational patterns corresponding to the purported "tertiary function" in that model virtually never show up is a good example of the failure to find data support that has led Reynierse to his "category mistake" verdict.

Reynierse's "preference multidimensionality" model says that the relevant preferences and preference combinations for INFPs and ESTJs look like this:

INFP = I + N + F + P + IN + IF + IP + NF + NP + FP + INF + INP + IFP + NFP + INFP

ESTJ = E + S + T + J + ES + ET + EJ + ST + SJ + TJ + EST + ESJ + ETJ + STJ + ESTJ

And assuming that model (which I refer to in my linked posts as the "Real MBTI Model") is your model, you'll expect INFPs and ESTJs to have no MBTI-related aspects of personality in common.

By contrast, the Harold Grant function stack looks like this ...

INFP = Fi-Ne-Si-Te

ESTJ = Te-Si-Ne-Fi

... and it predicts that INFPs and ESTJs will have significant MBTI-related aspects of personality in common because they're both "Fi/Te types" and "Ne/Si types."

Buuut if you focus on the Ne/Si side of that, for example, it turns out that anytime you've got an MBTI data pool where the S/N and J/P dimensions are the ones making the major correlational contributions, if the SJs are at one end of the correlational spectrum, the NPs are out at the other end. You virtually never find the SJs and NPs (the supposed "Ne/Si types") on one side of the spectrum and the SPs and NJs (the supposed "Ni/Se types") on the other.

And in fact, as Reynierse notes, in every case where a "cognitive functions" framing corresponds to correlational patterns that are inconsistent with (or go beyond) the patterns corresponding to simple additive dichotomy effects (what I call the Real MBTI Model), those function-associated patterns reliably fail to show up. The only validity the so-called "cognitive functions" ever find in the data is the piggybacked validity they get when, for example, an "Si" description is largely comprised of things that SJs tend to have in common and so, as a result, correlational patterns involving "Si" and MBTI SJs show up.

And there's more in those linked posts.

 

[Atarah Derek]

That's like asking how much of a role hydrogen and oxygen play in determining what is and is not water. Myers and Briggs based their work on Carl Jung's theories. MBTI was born of Jungian theory, not the other way around.

 

[Tellus]

You've quoted a post from April. The latest set of posts I'm tending to point people to for cognitive-function-deprogramming purposes are this post, this post, and the posts they link to.

The first three posts listed in that second linked post include a lot of discussion of the bogosity of the Harold Grant function stack and its associated "tandems." And the fact that the correlational patterns corresponding to the purported "tertiary function" in that model virtually never show up is a good example of the failure to find data support that has led Reynierse to his "category mistake" verdict.

Reynierse's "preference multidimensionality" model says that the relevant preferences and preference combinations for INFPs and ESTJs look like this:

INFP = I + N + F + P + IN + IF + IP + NF + NP + FP + INF + INP + IFP + NFP + INFP

ESTJ = E + S + T + J + ES + ET + EJ + ST + SJ + TJ + EST + ESJ + ETJ + STJ + ESTJ

And assuming that model (which I refer to in my linked posts as the "Real MBTI Model") is your model, you'll expect INFPs and ESTJs to have no MBTI-related aspects of personality in common.

By contrast, the Harold Grant function stack looks like this ...

INFP = Fi-Ne-Si-Te

ESTJ = Te-Si-Ne-Fi

... and it predicts that INFPs and ESTJs will have significant MBTI-related aspects of personality in common because they're both "Fi/Te types" and "Ne/Si types."

Buuut if you focus on the Ne/Si side of that, for example, it turns out that anytime you've got an MBTI data pool where the S/N and J/P dimensions are the ones making the major correlational contributions, if the SJs are at one end of the correlational spectrum, the NPs are out at the other end. You virtually never find the SJs and NPs (the supposed "Ne/Si types") on one side of the spectrum and the SPs and NJs (the supposed "Ni/Se types") on the other.

And in fact, as Reynierse notes, in every case where a "cognitive functions" framing corresponds to correlational patterns that are inconsistent with (or go beyond) the patterns corresponding to simple additive dichotomy effects (what I call the Real MBTI Model), those function-associated patterns reliably fail to show up. The only validity the so-called "cognitive functions" ever find in the data is the piggybacked validity they get when, for example, an "Si" description is largely comprised of things that SJs tend to have in common and so, as a result, correlational patterns involving "Si" and MBTI SJs show up.

And there's more in those linked posts.

I will read all of your comments regarding this but I need to know the "facts" (i.e. sources) upon which you base your arguments. Can you post links to all articles?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have two objections:

a) He seems to argue that Harold Grant's function stack is the one and only way to order the functions. Does he consider other models?

b) You (or he) are talking about "Ne/Si types" as if there were eight types with strong Ne and Si. Linda Berens, Dario Nardi and John Beebe agree (nowadays) that each type has all eight functions. And none of these typologists claims that Si is stronger and more evident than Ni in ENTP.

 

[reckful]

I will read all of your comments regarding this but I need to know the "facts" (i.e. sources) upon which you base your arguments. Can you post links to all articles?

What sources I considered most relevant are already linked or cited in those posts (and the posts they link to). Let me know if there are particular issues you're hoping for more sources on.

 

[reckful]

You (or he) are talking about "Ne/Si types" as if there were eight types with strong Ne and Si. Linda Berens, Dario Nardi and John Beebe agree (nowadays) that each type has all eight functions. And none of these typologists claims that Si is stronger and more evident than Ni in ENTP.

You're confused. Berens and Nardi both subscribe to the Harold Grant function stack, including the notion that the tertiary and inferior functions in that particular stack (e.g., Fe and Si in an ENTP) tend to play a more significant role (at least once they're appropriately "developed") than the four functions that are not in their "top four."

Here's a bit of what Mr. Nardi had to say in his "Ask Me Anything" appearance at reddit in February 2013:

With regard to the functions, I believe a healthy adult needs at least two functions in play most of the time. Why? Because we're all pretty much tasked to do extraverting and introverting, perceiving and judging. We need a minimum of two functions to cover those bases. For example, Ni with Te. (Those happen to be my preferences, represented as INTJ).

After those two, my research suggests that the second most common pattern is our near-opposite personality type, say ISFP for INTJ. That's Fi + Se. As I look at the brain activity of midlife adults now in my lab, and not just college students, I see this more than ever. I've had two midlife INFJs. Could hardly tell if they are INFJ or ISTP.

How HaroldGrantastic is that, eh? Looking at the brain scans of middle-aged INFJs — with, you know, their third and fourth functions more developed than when they were young — Nardi's saying he saw almost as much of their tertiary Ti and inferior Se in play as their Ni-Fe.