INDEX
ABOUT
FAQ
GLOSSARY
MBTI TYPINGS
MBTI RELATIONS
DISCORD
PHOTOGRAPHY
GENERAL
DIFFERENCES
TYPING
FUNCTIONS
TABLES
LISTS
WORKS
VARIOUS
NAMES
MEMES
MORE
#thanksformerlyvlseid (05.12.19)
formerlyvlseid said: I am amazed with the work you’ve done! Thank you for replying to my post and making me discover it. I will follow you for new updates, take care xx.
ヽ(ﾟｰﾟ*ヽ) ヽ(*ﾟｰﾟ*)ﾉ (ﾉ*ﾟｰﾟ)ﾉ Thank you for everything :)
Anonymous said: I’ve been scrolling through your blog since midnight yesterday and this all finally makes sense. I see it now. I had so many problems with the eiei ieie stuff and how much it gave me unrealistic expectations for myself and others. You have great content!
Thank you so much for your message °˖✧◝(⁰▿⁰)◜✧˖°
Anonymous said: Hi, What are your thoughts on whether or not X1 interacts with X3, or X2 with X4? Would it have to do with differentiation?
Hi :) They can’t interact because they have different attitudes (E-I) and different rhythms (J-P). I mentioned this in post #51. You need at least one common aspect for any kind of interrelation. X1 doesn’t even “know” that X3 exists, and vice versa. The same with X2 and X4. The functions in those locations belong to completely unrelated “realms”, and there isn’t even the possibility of confusion (or “wishful thinking”, or whatever) in the person’s mind, like the one I explained in post #82 between X2 and G2, which at least share the same rhythm.
Differentiation is about self-clarity and independence (post #24), but it doesn’t have an effect here. When functions are undifferentiated they are mixed, but it’s always e+e and i+i: one of those for consciousness (making someone an extravert or an introvert) and the other for the unconscious, even if the separation is minimal.
orangecub said: Do you have a list of most to least popular personality type I feel like there are loads of people that have the NFP/NFJ type or this might be just the people i surround myself with
The statistics that I find more reliable follow only a general distribution that goes like this: SJ > SP > NP > NJ, SF > ST > NF > NT, and ES > IS > EN > IN. (The first one is auxiliary sensation > dominant sensation > dominant intuition > auxiliary intuition). It makes sense from a biological point of view (having almost 3 sensors for each intuitive), which is the most logical reason behind the existence of the types. So in comparison I wouldn’t say there are that many NFs, globally. The SFs probably double their numbers. (Speaking of FP/FJ, you can take a look at post #59 if you have some time).
Now, what people really need to understand:
The rarity of a type might be the first thing most people want (or are “surprised”) to know, but it’s also the absolute most meaningless of them all. You didn’t choose it, you can’t change it, and it doesn’t make you more or less, better or worse than others. (In fact, if you really want to go that way, the rarest types are biologically less crucial). This is not a competition, in any sense, and if you take it like one you are doing psychology wrong. Your type doesn’t make you special. It only makes you different than some, and similar to others.
The important question is not if your type is rare, but if it’s true.
Anonymous said: Considering the fact that P/J is the most internal dimension and the fact that it determines the entire arrangement of the frames/functions, why is it not as important, if not more so, than the I/E dimension?
It is. The most meaningful division of the types is the combination of E/I with J/P: EJ/EP/IJ/IP. Those are the main sections in Jung’s Chapter X. I also wrote about this in point 2 here. At the cognitive level J/P goes together with E/I, so it’s not that it determines the arrangement by itself. It’s the dominant function that does that, with each function as X1 being like a particular crossing of both dimensions, together with a third one: Te1 implies E+T+J, Si1 implies I+S+P, etc. The fourth dichotomy comes from the auxiliary, which depends on the dominant.
Jung focused on E/I partly because he used the differences between Freud and himself as starting point (Ti1 vs Te4), and he found the same dichotomy in all kinds of previous works (poetry, philosophy, etc). I guess there’s more material about it than about J/P, but you can definitely say that J/P is just as significant, and sometimes even more, yes.
Anonymous said: What is introversion really? Considering Jung it’s simply subjectivity, getting away from the object (don’t get me wrong, I’ve read your post with “introversion is not subjectivity” but you get what I mean). Generally speaking introvert is Considered some sort of cold, very heavy, silent person (Ti vibes, Fi too). Ni doms are the most introverted in terms of subjectivity But they don’t fit into this general description (especially INFP) who seem childlike, playful and light, almost “weightless”
Come on, isn’t it a bit late for this kind of questions? You read post #15, have you read post #17? Because it’s all there (point 2), just two posts away (right below in the index), and in other places, too.
Don’t confuse observable “personality” with the nature or the attitude of the functions. There might be a typical or average correlation, yes, but they are not the same thing at all. The functions are deeper than the level at which someone can be recognized as “cold”, “heavy” or “playful”, and the links are not unequivocal. The functions are the senses of the mind. The more they focus on what’s present and possible in the moment the more they are extraverted, and the more they focus on the intangible and universal the more they are introverted. So introversion is not really “getting” away, but more like looking from afar or “the other side”.
By the way, that “childlike” and “playful” image of INPs (Ni1) is incorrect, of course. “Cold” and “silent” are very much what most people would say about many of them. Also “heavy”, yes, if it’s alluding to a certain seriousness, a “no nonsense” kind of approach. INPs are childlike (like ISPs), but not in the way that most people interpret that word. When people say “childlike” they think bubbly and random and a bit silly. They are probably picturing some versions of EPs and/or EFs. The common use of “light” and “weightless” is also probably about those. IPs are childlike in a different and deeper (mythological) sense.
Now you’re probably thinking: what a bore, I don’t understand. That’s right. The words that people use don’t work here. They keep confusing everything and describing things in incredibly limited and distorted ways. If you want to know what this is really about, you have to forget what you’ve heard elsewhere.
So, yeah, post #17, and when you’re done, post #56 and post #87.
Anonymous said: Hi :) I met your blog yesterday, I read some posts, but I haven’t finished reading them all. Before I met your tumblr I had already thought about the possibility of all introverts feelers being “Fi user”, because introversion already has “low expressiveness” by itself, but I haven’t talked about it with anyone in the community. Why do you think introverts feelers would have the Fi function? - Micaela
Hi, Micaela :)
It’s a question of understanding how the functions work, their interrelation, and how they really manifest and match with the letters.
If you read what Jung wrote about introverted feeling you’ll see that it’s the IFJs that fit the description (so they are Fi1). Those who type that kind of people as “IFPs” are doing it wrong. The real IFPs are either Si1 (ISFP) or Ni1 (INFP), and they need to have auxiliary Fi (=Fi2) because the attitude of the auxiliary is always the same as the dominant (consciousness has one attitude, E or I, and the unconscious has the other, they can’t be mixed).
The actual psychological basis for J and P is the dominant function, not the “first extraverted” one. If you type both Te1 and Si1 as “judgers”, for example, then your “J” is not psychologically coherent or meaningful. I talked about this in post #25. Other related posts are post #01, post #13, post #19 and post #31.
Anonymous said: Hi! What is the difference between the INFP (NiFiTeSe) and the INFJ (NiFeTiSe) of the popular MBTI?
The second one doesn’t exist. INFJs are Fi-Ni-Se-Te.
If you are a judger you can’t have a perceiving dominant. Fe can’t be the auxiliary of Ni. The auxiliary needs to have the attitude of the dominant. And the tertiary needs to have the same attitude as the inferior. (See post #13 and post #25, for example).
What most people mean with “INFJ’s Ni” is actually just NJ, not Ni (ENJs don’t have Ni).
What most people mean with “INFJ’s Fe” is actually just FJ, not Fe (IFJs don’t have Fe).
In fact, most people don’t know what Ni, or Fe, or any other function actually is (those who have an idea but keep using eiei/ieie “stacks” are just mistyping everybody). And they don’t know what a real INFP or INFJ is, either. That’s the opposite of a difference, sorry.
If you want to read about the real INFs you can look around, check for example the typings (INFJ, INFP), or go to the index page (especially the differences section). Also, you might want to read this post.
How many are mistyped between those two? Lots of people.
How many are mistyped believing they are one of those two? Probably more.
Anonymous said: Different anon, do you think a type with a more differentiated auxiliary is more “articulate” in a sense? Maybe there’s a better word than articulate. I suppose it is vastly different for introverts and extroverts as well.
That’s an interesting question. I get what you mean, and I would look for another word, yes, because “articulate” seems about speaking fluently, convincingly, etc, and in some cases that could be almost the opposite of what happens. It works if we know we are talking about the level of detail in the arrangement of someone’s functions, right? A differentiated auxiliary (that is: differentiation in general) makes the components clearer, so the person can see what’s offered by his/her frames of reference with more precision. That seems related to a better “articulation”, but it would be only at this (mostly conceptual) level, with countless varied manifestations.
The word that I tend to use for this is “marked”: just the idea of something (a type, its self-clarity) that’s more pronounced, more distinct, etc. And it’s really difficult to get more specific here. Does that improved resolution translate always into the same thing[s]? It doesn’t seem like it, right? (It might be precisely the opposite of that). I’m thinking not only about E/I, but also about J/P, and the rest. Is there something that can be seen (or just “felt”, maybe) from the outside that’s common to every person with a differentiated auxiliary? And could you describe it with only one word? :/
Differentiation is behind what Jung called the process of individuation (“an extension of the sphere of consciousness”) (it’s all basically the same thing) so, in this context, even if you go type by type, my impression is that, at best, you just get closer to some of the words already used to describe them: ISTJ gets more skeptic, ENFP gets more believer, etc, with each person doing it in his/her particular way. That is: what each person is gets amplified, so finding a word to describe them all gets harder and harder, not easier.
Anonymous said: What do you think about this young/old soul thing? I’ve heard a lot of people calling INFJs old souls because of their Ni-Fe in MBTI. What personality type do you think has the youngest/oldest soul? (None of them are superior though)
I talked about this in my first post, and in post #16. The best “soul age” correlation is the one that follows the 16 court cards: EJs are the elders (or kings), IJs are the adults (or queens), EPs are the teenagers (or knights), and IPs are the children (or pages/princesses). This works really well, everything fits, especially from a global and mythological perspective. How people describe others or themselves is, as usual, another matter entirely.
If people call “INFJs” “old souls” that might be for different reasons. Maybe some of them are actually EJs (probably ESFJs), and feel like they are already “mature” for their age. Others say that because they have a rather old-fashioned taste, not only in clothing or furniture, but also in manners or habits (you can see this in many judging types, especially IJs). That’s probably the main reason for that kind of comments. For some actual INFJs (Fi-Ni-Se-Te) there’s also the belief in reincarnation, or that thing about “seeing” or “knowing” the “future”, which might make them believe they have “already lived” many things.
thebutterflyofthestars said: I agree that ENTP does not have “Ti”, but why do some ENTP talk about critical thinking?
First of all: those “ENTPs” might be mistyped ENFPs (Ne-Fe-Ti-Si). This might be a rather common thing (ENFPs mistype as all kinds of types, from ENTPs to INTPs, INFJs, ISFPs and INFPs). Also: people define themselves and what they do however they want. That’s the thing, right? Everybody is a “poet”, or an “artist”. Every work is “inspirational” or “transcendental”. Etc. So even if we established that “critical thinking” goes with Ti, that doesn’t prevent lots of Te-people claiming they do just that. With an ENTP the confusion caused by the pull to reach or distance their thinking from gTi2 might be enough to make them feel that description is acceptable for themselves. See also post #103 and this one.
Anonymous said: Do you think it’s possible for an actual ESTP to mistype as an INTP (INTP in terms of the dichotomy facets rather than those erroneous ‘TiNe’ “functions”)?
I think any type can mistype as any other. The amount of misinformation, misconceptions and absolute nonsense about typology is so huge that I can even imagine some ESFJs mistyping as “INTPs”, so in comparison “INTP”-ESTP might be a simple everyday occurrence. “He’s always playing with his computer”, “He is very funny but he has a hard time making friends”, “He feels awkward in public”, etc. Most people don’t have a sufficient range of examples in mind to know the actual distribution along dichotomy lines and, among other problems, there’s also a tendency to “type” the psychological state of a person, not his/her mode of cognition.
Anonymous said: hello, why do you assign ‘romantic explorer’ to enfps?
Anonymous said: Can ENFPs be strong leaders, or they are mistyped?
1. That’s the first MBTI List that I made. I took the second word of each type (the “role” part) from the “MTR-i roles”, and the first one (the adjective) was something I thought, trying to make meaningful combinations without repeating terms. ENFPs are romantic mostly because they are idealistic NFs focused on what/who they [can] find out there. Many of them are the kind of person that likes basically everyone they meet, and lots of them have many romantic partners throughout their lives, so Romantic Explorer ends up being a really good summary for ENFP (Ne-Fe-Ti-Si).
2. ENFPs are probably the most versatile type, the one with the greatest differences between variants (this is mostly because they have Ti3 and they don’t have Se). They can be lazy geeks, conceptual or fiction writers, outgoing team-members, commercial or just public intermediaries, doctors and psychologists, spiritual and/or fitness gurus, singers/dancers and other kinds of performers, imaginative artists and filmmakers, famous actors, musicians, activists, journalists, politicians, etc.
They are often friendly and kind, but there’s a definite “smart coldness” somewhere inside them, they are not easily exploitable, at all. In fact, they navigate complex situations skilfully, and can be very cunning. The usual circumstance for them is to have at least one group of friends in which they tend to be the center of attention without being overtly “directive”. People are attracted to their talent for fun, entertainment, variety and newness, their enthusiasm, the way they can inspire and move others, etc. This can put them in leadership positions, yes. I wouldn’t call them “strong”, but I think they can be good at it, if by that you mean not so much in relation to what they seek but to the seeking itself, not so much about implementing or enforcing things, but more about the need to do “something different”.
I think leaders like John F. Kennedy (with his focus on “making deals” and his “quiet anger”) and Malcolm X (with his “uncanny ability to reinvent himself”) were ENFPs. There might be many more.
About mistypes: it’s not really a shortcut or anything like that (you still have to check every possibility, of course), but in the context of famous people and [topics related to] sites like Tumblr, and assuming you don’t know anything about the person, your best bet is actually to start with ENFP. Lots of the most liked and talked-about people (especially nowadays) are ENFPs, just like lots of those doing the talking.
Anonymous said: Thoughts on vultology/visual identification in typing?
Identical twins can have different psychological types (I wrote about this in post #43), so any method that gives definitive weight to physical identification is inescapably incorrect. It’s very tempting, I know, but it’s also rather sad and shoddy, and many times indicative of psychological blindness. Physical aspects are one of the most misleading factors when you are trying to type someone. Those who rely too much on them (even exclusively) are actually among the least reliable of typology sources (and they are probably [mistyped] ESs). You can find very similar people within a given type, yes, but you can also find them in two different ones, and I can tell you that inside the same type the observable range of movements and gestures is too wide to be useful in any sense whatsoever.
amoraphrodite-deactivated202105 said: Collective Unconscious is the same as genetic memory?
I don’t know. I found Jung through my interest in typology, and I understood what he meant when he described the psychological functions and the types. Then I started working with that on my own. But what I might tell you about the rest of his work is no better than what you can find yourself if you read his books.
For example, in this case: Jung says the contents of the collective unconscious “owe their existence exclusively to heredity”. His definition is very close to that of instincts: “there is good reason for supposing that the archetypes are the unconscious images of the instincts themselves”. He also mentions elsewhere how each one of us is a particular “combination of genes”, not some tabula rasa, and also that the anima archetype comes from the fact that a man has “a minority of female genes”, for example.
So I guess the terms are really close, but I don’t know if Jung would say they are the same thing. In fact, in a 1935 lecture he talks about the collective unconscious saying: “these images have nothing to do with so-called blood or racial inheritance, nor are they personally acquired by the individual. They belong to mankind in general, and therefore they are of a collective nature”.
Anonymous said: do you think polars can be good friends?
I haven’t found famous or clear examples of Polar friendship, couples or longtime coworkers, but the idea is that any relation can be friendly, even if it’s more common in some of them. I guess it’s easier for Polar+ (Polars who share primary temperament), for example ESTJ-ENFJ (both choleric) or ESFP-ENTP (both sanguine). What I’ve found is people who admire the work of a Polar person, but that’s not the same thing, of course (in fact, I don’t imagine them working together very well).
I think Polars tend to be in separate circles and fields. Their motivations and styles are very different. So maybe the average best situation is more like acquaintances, in contrast with other relations who can get/feel closer and share deeper things. But all this relations stuff is speculative.
Anonymous said: hey there, idk if you are still answering this blog but i will still try. so anyways, my question is, which type is likely to know what others might think(if possible, i would like to know both introverted and extraverted types that might be able to do that) and also fear being a burden or bothering people. i would assume out o fthe introveted types it would probably be infj or infp, but i also thought might be INTJ because of the “inferior” Fe.
I don’t think you can establish any reliable link there. Those are the kind of things that can apply to anyone, and shouldn’t be used for typing. Think about it. Who doesn’t take into account (to different extents) how other people can/would react? And who wants to be a burden?
- Guessing correctly what others might be thinking is often just a question of familiarity. And it’s not that common. (I mean “thinking” in the general sense of “what goes through someone’s mind”, which includes and is influenced by thoughts but also feelings, sensations and intuitions). Most of that “knowing” stays at a very superficial layer, and when it seems to be deeper it’s often mere projection, imagining what others might think, often through the colors of [unconscious] fear[s] or desire[s]. Remember for example what Jung said about certain IFJs when “the unconscious thinking goes over into open opposition and gets projected” and the person begins to feel “what other people think”.
Appearances lie, very often, so the idea would be that intuitives can get better at that, because they look past the form, but you can’t really make direct inferences from this. You can be wrong if you are N, and you can be right if you are S. A good (= demystified and impartial) understanding of a wide range of people can improve those kinds of guesses. And you can get that quite independently of your type. I think it’s not hard to imagine a young N listening to the experience-backed knowledge of an older S, where the sensor can probably guess what goes through other people’s minds much better than the intuitive.
- It’s quite obvious that Fs tend to be more aware of bothering others (just look at the facets), but some of them are very enthusiastic (especially EFs) so they can get carried away and end up having the opposite effect. Also, some IFJs (Fi1) can be very stubborn in their ways and have a total disregard for the reactions of others. I suppose you can also think about it in terms of temperament, with phlegmatics > melancholics > sanguines > cholerics. Or following this correlation: IF > EF > IT > ET.
But in any case, if you are trying to use these things for typing [yourself], don’t do it. They are too general and unreliable.
belle-keys said: We will only see world peace the day typology youtubers and tumblrs accept that 1. Sensors aren’t ultra-realist mouth-breathers without a creative bone in their body and 2. MBTI isn’t something you should seek out to help you feel special because you’re inevitably gonna contribute to the haystack of misinformation concerning MBTI when you keep pretending your dream persona is your core personality type
Love this blog bestie 💓😔
Thank you :)
Anonymous said: Brilliant Blog! Hard work !
Thanks! (^_−)v