INDEX
ABOUT
FAQ
GLOSSARY
MBTI TYPINGS
MBTI RELATIONS
DISCORD
PHOTOGRAPHY
GENERAL
DIFFERENCES
TYPING
FUNCTIONS
TABLES
LISTS
WORKS
VARIOUS
NAMES
MEMES
MORE
scrittura-intuitiva-dropbox said: I’ve been studying the basics of graphology, recently, and I’ve quickly noticed how our handwriting usually reflects our unconscious more than our conscious. I find this tremendously interesting and I thought maybe you would find it intriguing, too :)
Hmm… The connection that I would consider is perhaps between the physical, emotional or psychological state of a person and his/her handwriting at a particular moment, but not the conscious/unconscious in general. I mean, those are different things. I don’t think all ESFPs write the same way, right? But maybe you can look at several letters written by the same ESFP, compare them and say, for example: “she was happier in this one” or “when she’s tired she writes like this”.
We have to be careful because for many people anything that’s not in the form of words gets classified as “unconscious”, and that’s not how it goes. Just because it is[n’t] thinking doesn’t mean it’s [not] conscious. That’s something very important that we need to remember. And also: unconscious doesn’t necessarily mean absent or hidden, but more like blurry, vague, slippery, remote, etc.
From a broad perspective, graphology is mostly based on [weirdly] easy similarities (“if you write big you think big”), but then there are also contradictions between the different “schools”, and of course: the scientific studies show that it doesn’t reveal any real connections. Graphology is too close to systems of “visual typing”, “divination” or “fortune-telling”: physiognomy, phrenology, chiromancy, cartomancy, astrology, etc. There’s always a problem with that kind of thing, and it’s very difficult to explain, but you could say it’s the assumption of an unequivocal relation between observable “marks”, “signs”, etc, and the internal (and sometimes even “future”) immutable properties, qualities or contents of someone’s mind[/life]. This is actually a big problem, and I talked a bit about it in post #25.1.
The most outrageous “connections” focus on the external not only regarding mind/matter but also by being outright separated from the body. These would include, for example, astrology (the position of the stars when you are born) (absolute nonsense) and cartomancy (that is: chance interpreted as meaning) (the perfect breeding ground for [self-]justification, [self-]condemnation and other insidious mental fabrications).
In the context of psychological type (and related topics concerning consciousness and the unconscious) everything we do or say has to match with these two things:
1. Identical twins can have different psychological types.
2. Both men and women, and people of various races, with all their extreme physical differences, can have the same one.
If you follow the implication behind point 2 you come to the conclusion that practices like graphology take that supposed unequivocal link to internal differences and increase its external resolution so, instead of sex or race, now it’s the shape of the body, the head or the face, the color of your eyes, the lines on your hands, or the lines you draw with your hands. In the end, saying “his/her handwriting indicates unconscious content X” is virtually the same as saying “[s]he is white/black/etc, or a [wo]man, therefore [s]he has unconscious content X”. Point 1 says that’s not a safe assumption.
And in fact, it is precisely there where the negative connotation that some people attach to the word “discrimination” might arise: interpreting observable variations as sure signs of how someone thinks, or what [s]he is thinking. (The actual word should be something like stigmatization instead, because discrimination is simply neutral identification: “the ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment”, and that’s not a bad thing at all, but something extremely helpful and necessary).
Anyway, there are no easy or mechanizable shortcuts for revealing the workings and contents of the mind. I don’t think you can ever establish anything like that. The mystery is always a mystery.
In the next text post I’m going to include an example that might explain why some types/people are more prone to get carried away by this kind of things than others, because I think it has something to do with the interrelation of the functions.
This post is an extension of post #24 (just like post #31 and post #35, which I recommend reading first, too), and it’s just a general approach to the two remaining interrelations between the proper cognitive functions of each type: X1-X4 and X2-X3. (There’s no direct relation between X1 and X3, nor between X2 and X4).
The important idea to keep in mind here is that, just as we can see every time we write the functions in order (X1-X2-X3-X4), X1 (the dominant function) and X4 (the inferior function) are far or disconnected from each other (X1//X4), but X2 (the auxiliary) and X3 (the tertiary) are close or connected to each other (X2·X3). That’s the basic assumed position between them (although it might be slightly different for some people, and it’s not always in the same degree: see post #24.3).
What these interrelations mean, in a very broad sense, is that each type can find, recognize, hold and apply X1-contents that are independent from X4, and vice versa, but they usually have a very hard time doing the same with X2-X3, which are seen as inextricably linked or mutually implied.
✸ X1//X4 is the most patent evidence of function differentiation, and it ties in with what I wrote about them in post #24.6: how X1 can manifest in forms that other people might consider “excessive” or “extreme” (especially those who don’t have that function, and those who have it but in an unconscious location), and how X4 can feel like something separated from the person.
✸ In the case of X2·X3, as both auxiliaries are conditioned (or supervised) by their corresponding dominant, this [permanent] link is better understood as encapsulated inside X1( )X4: it manifests itself mostly, and I’d say only, with/through X3-elements that are meaningful or derived from the point of view of X4, and X2-elements that are meaningful or derived from the point of view of X1.
So, for example, the basic internal link is the same in both INJs (Ni2 ↔ Se3), but the contents that “resonate” in there are different for each type: in INTJs Se3 is determined by Fe4, and Ti1 oversees Ni2, but in INFJs Se3 is conditioned by Te4, and it’s Fi1 overseeing Ni2.
It’s very difficult to talk about these things with precision. They are all subject to countless versions and ramifications, changes in time, etc. I don’t know all the details of the [dis]connections, but I know there’s something there. For example: one of the most interesting aspects of the auxiliary-tertiary interrelation is X3 → X2, or what you could call the [semi-]unconscious influence that certain X3-components have over consciousness, via X2. In some cases, under certain circumstances, this connection gives the impression of some kind of energy source or self-generated activity. There’s an [almost] automatic pull or movement there, when the person is exposed to specific X3-elements, because [s]he can’t help but associate them with matching X2-ones. This is all inside X1( )X4, of course: the dominants are the lenses that dictate the particularities of those elements, and the encompassing essence of the result.
An example of this with the INJs would be the way some of them interpret various kinds of observable objects and tangible patterns or variations (Se3) as unambiguously connected to corresponding internal aspects of the mind (Ni2). This is something that both Jung (INTJ: Ti-Ni-Se-Fe) and Myers (INFJ: Fi-Ni-Se-Te) show in their work, in different degrees and with their different “flavors”, of course. I think this is the main reason why many INJs enjoy, study and sometimes employ “divinatory” practices like those I mentioned in the previous text (post #50). Other types might like some of that, too, but their interests have different causes and evolutions.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE
Let’s see if I can give you another example, including all of the above. For some ENPs a particular manifestation of their Si4 is the feeling of not being the owners of the fruit of their labor, in the sense that its potential usefulness seems always separated from the person (which identifies with Ne1). This takes different forms, and creates different X3-elements for each type:
➤ For some ENFPs (Ne-Fe-Ti-Si) that specific Si4 gives shape to various conceptual notions (Ti3), which in turn imply corresponding external expressions or expected shared values (Fe2). Those could be political ideals, for example (that’s where these ENFPs can be mentally confident, skillful and quick, not so much with the concepts). These Fe values are interpreted from the point of view of what’s possible (Ne1) which, being X1, might recognize relations that are disconnected from what’s actually useful (X4 = Si4).
➤ For some ENTPs (Ne-Te-Fi-Si), that specific Si4 generates certain internal values (Fi3), which in turn imply corresponding ways of external determination (Te2). Those could be mechanical ideas, for example (that’s where these ENTPs can be mentally confident, skillful and quick, not so much with the moral side). This Te judgment is interpreted from the point of view of what’s possible (Ne1) which, being X1, might include relations that are disconnected from what’s really useful (X4 = Si4).
If you think about it, one of the global effects of these interrelations is a kind of “expansion” of the internal connection, as if X1 and X4 were two hands holding X2 and X3 and pulling them apart from each other, with the conscious consequence of increasing demands on Fe2 in the case of ENFPs, and on Te2 in the case of ENTPs. Ok, it’s not exactly that way, but you get the idea, right?
MBTI TYPING NOTES (1)
That’s one of the best summaries for identifying J/P. Many people of both rhythms can be spontaneous and lazy, unproductive and rebellious (and the opposite of that), but the “optimal environment” for Js to “develop”, “contribute”, and express their talents in a beneficial and not [self-]destructive way needs some kind of established [and enforced] rules, methods, structures, routines, schedules, principles, hierarchies, etc (= forms of judgment). For Ps it’s the opposite: those things are precisely what blocks [the fruits of] their abilities and their natural way of finding an autonomous and adaptable manner of [dis]organization. They need to be “left alone” so they can follow their proper forms of perception.
If you give complete freedom (no regulations, no goals, etc) and/or a clear lack of discipline to Js they don’t work well at all, in any sense, and they probably end up behaving in undesirable ways (some have an inner awareness of this, and try to insert themselves in commitments or predefined settings). If you do the same with Ps they work much better, and they tend to self-generate a behavior that’s [unexpectedly] beneficial both for them and for others. The problem is assuming that only one of those approaches (”order/chaos”) works for everybody. And the solution is, of course, recognizing the existence of those differences and identifying people’s types correctly, not through the false e-i-e-i/i-e-i-e “function stacks”, which are responsible for lots and lots of IJ ↔ IP mistypes (among other things).
MBTI TYPING NOTES (2)
I think that’s one of the best ways to put it. Everybody can recognize there’s value in concordance and connection, everybody can experience emotions, everybody can be friendly and cold, everybody can love and hate and choose because of that (and everybody can do math, if you know what I mean), but Ts decide and work much better when conclusions and outcomes don’t depend on those factors, when there’s some kind of mechanical criterion for their actions, some advantage from a task-oriented perspective, or some knowable difference in terms of conceptual value/purity. If all you give Ts are vibes, moods, tones, shifting opinions, imprecise preferences and explanations, and other [capricious] subtleties, they end up feeling adrift and lost at sea, with nothing to hold on to, or maybe like a bull in a china shop, trampling over something [precious] that they just can’t manage.
Fs are the opposite: their proper confidence comes from navigating and relying on personal (IF) or group (EF) evaluations, no matter how illogical they are. They find there’s a reason in there, a consequential indication of worth. Fs tend to give the impression of being part of something “bigger” (something that might not even be actually present or discernible). In any case, they usually imply some kind of inner/outer reach for contact with other beings. A T person, by contrast, underlines psychological [and physical] boundaries, implicitly, and in that sense is always identified to a greater extent than Fs. One way or the other [s]he is somehow “apart”, and “individual”.
Romance includes strange things like offense and forgiveness, and ideas like infatuation, fascination and passion. It moves [with] something that’s not conceptual but it’s equally (some would say even more) intelligent and human. Romance carries people to inexplicable heights and depths. It can be extremely dangerous, but it can also find a sense where logic is unable to.
starshapedeye said: Hello! I read all the posts about the types and I think that I’m INFx (just a social one). However I relate to both on some points. What would be the main differences?
Hi! :) Let’s look at behavior and see if that helps.
INFJs (Fi-Ni-Se-Te) present greater differences between their social (or just initial) behavior and their private (or later) one: they can show up at a gathering with an exquisite dress and gracious manners, capturing everyone’s attention, but when they are in private they reveal a strong personal intensity, which can manifest in a strangely demanding or devious attitude, or in some kind of irresponsible or random/moody behavior.
INFPs (Ni-Fi-Te-Se) are less extreme in that sense, and their behavior (if they are social at all, which is not very common) is either quiet and unobtrusive or more on the “awkward/weird” side than on the elaborate/polished one. INFJs can be moderately “popular”, while INFPs are (together with INTPs) the most retiring of the types. Also, they don’t play with other people’s strings like many INFJs do (for some this might be considered “boring”).
INFJs are more likely to be suspicious of others’ intentions (that’s a manifestation of Te4). Some can suffer from things like exhaustion or anemia. INFPs feel more like distant observers, and might be oversensitive to light, sound, etc (that’s a manifestation of Se4).
The stereotypes are all backwards, of course: if they were siblings, their parents would learn that INFJ is often the one behind most mischief, and also the one who would benefit the most from routines and schedules. INFP would probably just go along with that, and attentive parents would notice that they can trust him/her more easily. (This has nothing to do with talent or potential, of course).
INFPs are informative, acting more like impartial messengers. INFJs are cooperative, and feel more like quirky innovators.
MBTI TYPING NOTES (3)
In this context abstraction is the opposite of sensory fact, literal description, and preservable/recordable elements. It’s not about concepts (T) or values (F) that are “vague”, “complex” or “difficult to explain”, because those are manifestations of judgment, and S/N is the psychological axis of impartial reception of impressions. Abstraction is the absence of form, and it includes ideas like relation, chance, ramification and implication.
People on both sides can draw and paint extremely well, they can swim and run, and distinguish sugary from salty. Everybody can improvise or take time to decide, and many people make plans and feel bad when things don’t go as expected, but the inner tranquility and conscious agility of Ss improves a lot when they don’t have to imagine alternative scenarios or possibilities (especially disconnected, extreme or immediate ones), and then count on the accuracy and reliability of those for their decisions. If all you give them are hypotheses and speculations, trees of imagined choices, incorporeal laws and philosophies, and [random] original ideas from nowhere, they might like some of that, but they are left definitely hungry, because it’s not nutritious for them. It’s just air, or empty space. They need a point of view, a foothold, and distrust that which doesn’t seem to have it. They’ll probably think or ask things like Where did you get that from? or What’s the use of that? Ss’ imagination springs from the object and revolves around it. They look for ways to present and care for it, and this includes their own bodies and anything with material value.
Ns, on the other hand, are more about uncertainty and prospect. In fact, they tend to show some kind of inherent disposition for [apparent] recklessness, either in the tangible (EN) or the intangible (IN) world. Their corresponding S-types have a more sensible air about them. With Ns it’s like they are somehow passing through instead of really there. They look past the object, being interested in things as subjects of movement and transition, and looking for the different way[s], the unseen or even nonexistent path[s], where it’s actually risky and dangerous and sometimes an outright “leap in the dark”. Ns have a sense for invisible forces.
MBTI TYPING NOTES (4)
Space and time are the same thing (in fact, time doesn’t exist, but that’s a topic for another post), so you can interpret timelessness as spacelessness, too: a source of information that’s independent from the presence and the specific configuration of the elements of the world at any given time. It’s not the abstraction of post #55, because that includes forces like gravity and other effects of physics, and those are tangible (EN): they come from matter, and living things can actually feel them. Timelessness is atemporality, and refers to the existence of factors that don’t depend on molecules and atoms. Many people consider those elements “subjective”, but they aren’t (post #15.7). That word is, very often, just an indication of distrust in anything that cannot be “tested”, “proven” or “replicated”.
Es’ consciousness is focused on [what can be learned about or done with] what is there in the particular moment and place that they inhabit. The extent of that moment and place depends on the social/hierarchical position of the person, the scope of his/her responsibility, and the range of his/her interest (which can vary from one matter to the next, of course). Inside that sphere, their confidence is stronger when they can get and work with all the present impressions, the current facts, the shared knowledge, the emotional atmosphere, the possible uses and consequences of what is established or happening, etc. Es take their information from the outside, and bring information there, too. If you leave them without any clear connection to actual objects or events in tangible reality or history, if all you give them are ahistorical perspectives, references to atemporal ideas, and other “irrelevant” comments (for being unrelated to what’s in front of them), they probably take it as some kind of intrusion, interruption or nuisance (or even craziness), and you as some kind of intruder (or crazy person).
Regarding their own external sphere, Es tend to be very much about “the latest”. It’s not necessarily a “fashion” thing, but if you take a pair of Ghost types (E-I) of the same age, the extraverted one usually has a more “modern” air: [s]he talks about and works more around the most recent discoveries and happenings (what the “competition” is doing, for example), and [s]he’s also more excited/worried about upcoming events. (They might not even like those circumstances, at all, but if you keep them away from them they feel like a fish out of water, and will fight to come back).
Is are not so consciously attached to the present arrangement of the world, the state of the art, the social calendar or the detailed flow of the news. They have a sense for what transcends physical reality and any particular moment in time. So it’s like they see the world from outside, and when they refer to tangible or historical things they take them as [optional] examples, not as the ultimate determinant. In fact, in comparison with the inner impression, those things are usually seen as incomplete, approximate, as if someone “hadn’t got it right”. That’s precisely the reason why, for example, ISPs (Si1) are often unconvinced with the way objects appear, and like reinterpreting or “fixing” them.
MBTI TYPING NOTES (5): The fantastic world of…
(Mistypes happen for many different reasons. This is just one of the most prevalent. I’ll try to cover a few more in following posts) (They all mix together and make a mess of everything).
There are many people who, somehow, have an approximate sense of what the real functions are, but they follow the nonexistent alternating “stacks” (e-i-e-i/i-e-i-e), so they tend to mistype (others and themselves) with types that have those functions in different positions (= the real ones, because the supposed “starting” positions don’t exist). Lots of those mistypes take an extraverted and/or sensing person and try to make him/her “introvert” and/or “intuitive”, while others are just the already chaotic confusion that is the [mis]typing of introverts (especially INs), which wasn’t in need of any mistyped “intrusions” at all. Some clear and widespread examples:
➤ Many “INTJs” are actually INFPs or INFJs (the introverted types with Ni, Te, Fi and Se), or maybe ESTJs (Te-Se-Ni-Fi), or even ESTPs (Se-Te-Fi-Ni).
➤ Many “INFJs” are actually INTPs or INTJs (the introverted types with Ni, Fe, Ti and Se), or maybe ESFJs (Fe-Se-Ni-Ti), or even ESFPs (Se-Fe-Ti-Ni).
➤ Many “INTPs” are actually ISTJs or ISTPs (the introverted types with Ti, Ne, Si and Fe), or maybe ENFPs (Ne-Fe-Ti-Si), or even ENFJs (Fe-Ne-Si-Ti).
➤ Many “INFPs” are actually ISFJs or ISFPs (the introverted types with Fi, Ne, Si, and Te), or maybe ENTPs (Ne-Te-Fi-Si), or even ENTJs (Te-Ne-Si-Fi).
The rest might be common, too, I just haven’t checked them thoroughly because mistypes don’t tend to go that much in the “IS” direction:
➤ “ISTJs” being actually ISFs or ENTJs (Te-Ne-Si-Fi).
➤ “ISFJs” being actually ISTs or ENFJs (Fe-Ne-Si-Ti).
➤ “ISTPs” being actually INTs or ESFPs (Se-Fe-Ti-Ni).
➤ “ISFPs” being actually INFs or ESTPs (Se-Te-Fi-Ni).
In this context, the most common mistypes that stay between extraverts probably come from an X2↔X3 switch, resulting in ESJ↔ENJ and EFP↔ETP.
There’s also a related mistyping tendency that’s partly based on this problem, and what it does is that it mistakes the auxiliary and tertiary functions of certain types, usually extraverted, for the “auxiliary” and “tertiary” of the introverted “stacks”, resulting for example in many ENFPs (Ne-Fe-Ti-Si) mistyped as “INFJs”, many ESFJs (Fe-Se-Ni-Ti) mistyped as “ISFPs”, etc.
So, yeah. Those 4-letter codes that you see all over the internet, especially if they start with an I, have a high probability of being wrong.
Some descriptive red flags:
✸ “inexpressive/unemotional INTJ”: probably INFJ.
✸ “modern technology INTJ”: very likely ESTJ.
✸ “conspiracy-theorist INFJ”: probably INTP.
✸ “inspirational/positivity INFJ”: probably ESFJ.
✸ “lazy+random/funny INTP”: very likely ENFP.
✸ “social/quirky/eccentric INTP/INFP”: probably ENFP/ENTP respectively.
✸ “[stylishly] aesthetic INFP”: probably ISFJ.
✸ “tortured INFP artist”: probably ISFP.
Some classic function-stacks-mistypes (FSM™):
- Carl Jung “INFJ” → actually an INTJ (Ti-Ni-Se-Fe).
- James Cameron “INTJ” → actually an ESTJ (Te-Se-Ni-Fi).
- Elon Musk “INTJ” → actually an ESTJ (Te-Se-Ni-Fi).
- Neo (The Matrix) “INTP” → actually an ENFP (Ne-Fe-Ti-Si).
- Alan Turing “INTP” → actually an ISTJ (Ti-Si-Ne-Fe).
- Princess Diana “INFP” → actually an ISFJ (Fi-Si-Ne-Te).
- J. R. R. Tolkien “INFP” → actually an ISFJ (Fi-Si-Ne-Te).
- Vincent Van Gogh “INFP” → actually an ISFP (Si-Fi-Te-Ne).
MBTI TYPING NOTES (6): I told you but you keep…
Many people have a really hard time seeing Feeling-dominant types as Judgers, so they mistype them as “Ps”. This misconception is deeply rooted in both MBTI and Socionics, so you could say it is a typology problem in general. (In fact, the descriptions of “ESFj” in Socionics are about people who would be ESFP in MBTI, their “ESFp” is ESFJ, their “INFp” is INFJ, and their “INFj” is INFP).
One of the causes for this in Socionics is that they don’t understand the dichotomies at all. Their “INTp” is the INTJ, and their “ENTj” is actually ESTP (yes, it’s all a mess).
In MBTI this problem is everywhere mostly because Myers put it right there in the very foundation of her system: she was an INFJ (Fi-Ni-Se-Te) who somehow considered herself a “perceiver”, and constructed the initial tests so that they typed people like her as “INFP” (and probably other IJs↔IPs). The extent to which this has been fixed is obviously not enough, as the consequences of that error are still all around. (To me, this is precisely MBTI’s weakest point, and a sad misfortune, because without it lots and lots of people would [have] be[en] able to understand themselves and each other much better, instead of much worse).
Anyway. This is what happens: for many “typologists” the [apparent] capriciousness and/or randomness of being directed by conscious feeling makes a person “irrational” (Jung himself said something related to this, back in 1925: “one of the points with respect to the functions that has been most combated is my contention that feeling is rational”), so they think “irrational = perceiving”, and start mistyping everybody (or building mistaken models). Why? Well, yes, Jung said irrationals are perceivers, but irrational doesn’t mean “non-thinking”, it means non-judging, so we arrive again at the classic difficulty of actually understanding the difference between J and P, which is not T/F.
Just because someone decides or does something without an identifiable or reproducible standard or criterion doesn’t mean [s]he’s not following his/her own conscious judgment. You have to realize that those people (Fe1 and Fi1) are actually choosing, putting some perception (presence/possibility) as dependent on some other factor. They want something a certain way because it’s acceptable (or not) as an [implicit] agreement in that moment in time, or as an internal preference, even if that choice changes very quickly afterwards, “because reasons”. In that sense they are just as directional, aspiring, concerned, worried, committed and focused as thinking-dominant types, those who seem to do the same but “more coldly” or “without emotion” (Te1 and Ti1).
And then you have to distinguish that from perceiving types (especially FPs), who only seem to decide because they go through all the different impressions that their dominant function receives, and arrive at some kind of conclusion already implicit in that set of presences/possibilities, not one conditioned by any other factor. Sometimes the choices of [F]Ps are seen, in comparison, as even more “stubborn” than those of [F]Js precisely because it’s not actually them controlling the decisions (building on them, assuming them as personal responsibility, upholding them, etc): there were 342 jellybeans in the bottle, and Ps just counted (SP) or guessed (NP) them.
In this context, the most common mistypes are:
➤ “ESFPs” who are actually ESFJs (Fe-Se-Ni-Ti).
➤ “ESFJs” who are actually ESFPs (Se-Fe-Ti-Ni).
➤ “ENFPs” who are actually INFJs (Fi-Ni-Se-Te) or ESFJs (Fe-Se-Ni-Ti).
➤ “ISFPs” who are actually INFJs (Fi-Ni-Se-Te), ISFJs (Fi-Si-Ne-Te), ENFJs (Fe-Ne-Si-Ti), or ESFJs (Fe-Se-Ni-Ti).
➤ “ISFJs” who are actually ISFPs (Si-Fi-Te-Ne).
➤ “INFPs” who are actually INFJs (Fi-Ni-Se-Te), ISFJs (Fi-Si-Ne-Te), ENFJs (Fe-Ne-Si-Ti), or ESFJs (Fe-Se-Ni-Ti).
➤ “INFJs” who are actually ENFPs (Ne-Fe-Ti-Si) or INFPs (Ni-Fi-Te-Se).
Mistypes between ENFJs ↔ ENFPs don’t seem that common (or maybe I just haven’t noticed them yet).
If you want to have a better idea about the differences between FPs and FJs, consider this example: in a normal day, for an ESFP buying fruit, the most important thing is impartial quality, freshness, healthy color and texture, etc. There’s actually no “conscious ordering” involved: the best oranges are not to be “decided”, just found. For an ESFJ the crucial factor might be the opinion of a certain majority (either to defend it or “manage” it), or someone “important” (the vendor, other customer[s], a friend, a celebrity, a chef, those who are going to see/eat the fruit, etc), it might be the current fashion somewhere (not necessarily where the ESFJ lives), etc. The best oranges are thus decided, that’s why sometimes you can see a personal involvement or “identity transference” in some ESFJs regarding certain objects. (Something similar happens between ESTPs and ESTJs, etc).
Now you’d need to extrapolate that to ISFP/ISFJ and INFP/INFJ (at least), with the former being about sensory perceptions (forms) and the latter about inner meanings/possibilities (relations). But be careful because there are always layers of confusion that I can’t include here. One would be that both Ps and Js can reach very similar conclusions: just imagine our ESFs fighting for the same orange. And another one could be that some Feeling people tend to distort the words they use to give a certain image of themselves (yes, Thinking types can do that, too, but that’s off-topic here).
Some related red flags:
✸ “impulsive/flamboyant ESFP”: probably ESFJ.
✸ “painstaking/obsessive ESFJ”: probably ESFP.
✸ “domestic/handy ESFJ”: probably ISFP.
✸ “expressive/passionate ISFP/INFP”: very likely ENFJ or ESFJ.
✸ “courteous/classy INFP”: probably ISFJ, INFJ or ENFJ.
✸ “coy/devious/naughty INFP”: probably INFJ.
✸ “blank/awkward/boring INFJ”: probably INFP.
Some classic feeling-as-perceiving-mistypes (FPM™):
- Marilyn Monroe “ISFP” → actually an ESFJ (Fe-Se-Ni-Ti).
- Monica Bellucci “ISFP” → actually an INFJ (Fi-Ni-Se-Te).
- William Shakespeare “INFP” → actually an ENFJ (Fe-Ne-Si-Ti).
- Keira Knightley “ENFP” → actually an ESFJ (Fe-Se-Ni-Ti).
- Isabel Briggs Myers “INFP” → actually an INFJ (Fi-Ni-Se-Te).