INXP

[Jordan~]

This has probably come up before, but I've been thinking about types with X in them - not lower case x for indeterminable, but upper case X for both. This is all in light of the fact that I appear to be one - and INXP - and so my thoughts are presented using INXP as a case study from the perspective of my own experience.

In tests which put the functions in order, mine come out thus:

Dominant - Ne
Auxiliary - Ti, Fi
Tertiary - Si
Inferior - Te, Fe

Now, I think it's possible to arrange these results (which are described, depending on minute fluctuations, either as INFP or as INTP) differently; like so:

Dominant - Xi
Auxiliary - Ne
Tertiary - Si
Inferior - Xe

This is achieved by adding Fi and Ti together, in effect, to produce Xi, which replaces Ne as the dominant (which then assumes its proper position as auxiliary). Xe, being composed of two inferior functions, is not added, but rather remains inferior (since the inferior is defined as the weakest function, effectively the one that's used negligibly enough or poorly enough to be barely worthy of consideration, and ~0 + ~0 = ~0.

This way, we see a fusion of INTP and INFP's functions that preserves the same order. Xi is to be seen as the operation of Ti and Fi at the same time (as Xe is to be seen as Fe and Te cooperating).

Let me elaborate on this point by reference to examples. Xi is what happens when Ti and Fi are both working, either against eachother or in harmony. Mental conflict is something we're all very familiar with, I'm sure; but more and more I find that the conflict is not intrafuctional - i.e., it isn't the process of using one function to process several conflicting sets of data - but interfunctional, and while I've been familiar with my Ti for a long time, the newcomer seems to be Fi. I find myself questioning logic in favour of fundamentally illogical values. The inner emotional world - what feels right, what I know to be right without having to think about it, how I feel about people and things, strong emotional reactions - can all be as good a reason to act as sound logic, now.

The number of decisions I make motivated by logic vs. the number made by emotion is probably about 50/50, give or take a few either side. While I've said that this is interfunctional between Ti and Fi, in the Xi model this is intrafunctional. Xi, which is the simultaneous operation of Thinking and Feeling, processes conflicting sets of data using both methods and comes to a conclusion using either. It's not that one is used or the other, it's that both are consulted before a decision is made. Sometimes logic and feeling agree, resulting in a very strong decision with a great deal of conviction behind it, and sometimes they disagree, resulting in a weaker decision which is more regrettable, or can be seen as a choice of the lesser of several evils. Much the same thing occurs with Ti or Fi individually where logic or values are foggy. The equivalent situation for Xi is that logic and values, which are effectively fused into the same process of enquiry, are in conflict - either logic with logic, values with values, or logic with values.

To give real life situations - I know that it's completely illogical to feel that I should have some influence over the behavious of my ex, but strong inner feeling justifies it; i.e. the feeling justifies itself without need of logical verification, and indeed, even in opposition to it. This is an example of a conflicted decision, and of course I feel a measure of guilt for the feeling at the same time as I feel justified in having it. It's an unfortunate situation, but it is the situation, and Fi deals in absolutes.

Another example of a conflicted decision is where I know that there's a very sound logical basis for doing something, but I feel that to do it would be wrong. For example, I might risk deliberately taking action which I know will hurt someone's feelings - something I don't want to do because it violates my principles - if I know that it's necessary for the good of everyone involved in the situation, e.g. if someone has an especially annoying habit which they don't seem to notice, and everyone's just about had it with them being around as a result. While Fi on its own would do nothing - better to put up with it than violate those principles and create disharmony - in concert with Ti, it can be forced into regretting the acknowledged necessity of the action.

An unconflicted decision, where the two aspects of Xi are in agreement, might be a recent case where both logic and feeling guided me towards the same decision. There was talk of closing off an established meeting place because it wasn't being used as intended, and I knew that there would be a negative knock-on effect for the other places which would be forced to take on an extra load in that event, as well as having a strong feeling that I didn't want to lose it, an emotional attachment to the place. Feeling was then the motivator and Thinking the mastermind; the two working in concert to ultimately produce and deliver a presentation which was passionate and well-reasoned and resulted in the eventual revoking of the situation. Ti alone couldn't have achieved this without very strong logical grounds for doing so; and Fi could never have produced an argument cogent enough to convince people who couldn't care less if the place feels like home or not.

The last is a rare example of Xi working well - these cases make up about 1/3 of the total, the other 2/3 being logic dominating emotion or emotion dominating logic.

What are your thoughts? Are X types possible? Feel free to shoot me down if I'm getting above myself, I'm really just bouncing around a theory I've been thinking about.

 

[echoplex]

I don't know if X types are really possible, but I'll say that I can relate (and would suspect others here can too). The idea that both Ti and Fi seem like good reasons to act is something I often seem to come across. I certainly use Ti more, but Fi seems to barge in when things seem too muddled to simply base on logic.

The thing is though, this could really be Fe, which would seem to make more sense in MBTI theory. Even though Fe is inferior, I don't think inferior means "not used often". I think it rather means "not used as well...not as sophisticated." To me, this means that even an Fe-inferior person can still understand and access powerful emotions, and even use them as reasons to act. They just tend to struggle with things like consoling others, finding the courage to reach out to others, justifying societal values and gestures, etc...

However, I've had a similar idea to yours, which I call Ji (introverted Judging). This just simply means Ti+Fi (like your Xi). It's not a function per se, but rather a denotion of one's preference for judgment to be introverted in (almost) all cases. I've considered that, for some people, their preference for Ji may be so strong that Ti and Fi might be virtually interchangeable for them. However, I'd still believe that they would prefer one over the other (although they may not be aware of which), even if only slightly.

So, in your theory, you are dominant Ji (Ti/Fi) and inferior Je (Te/Fe), which would suggest that you have a strong preference for keeping your conclusions to yourself. Of course, this is already true of INTPs for the most part, so it doesn't change much except for the fact that Fi is invited into Ti's decisions.

It's hard to imagine them getting along well, but I think it could be possible. Tbh, what you're describing seems like a possibly tortured soul. Ti and Fi in a room together could definitely become....interesting.

 

[Aiss]

In tests which put the functions in order, mine come out thus:

Dominant - Ne
Auxiliary - Ti, Fi
Tertiary - Si
Inferior - Te, Fe

Now, I think it's possible to arrange these results (which are described, depending on minute fluctuations, either as INFP or as INTP) differently; like so:

Dominant - Xi
Auxiliary - Ne
Tertiary - Si
Inferior - Xe

INTPs tend to score higher than expected on Fi. I do as well. I know only one person whose Ti and Fi is equally strong (not just the test result) and it's difficult. I think the fact that you've been able that post the way you did shows your Ti is still in charge.

To give real life situations - I know that it's completely illogical to feel that I should have some influence over the behavious of my ex, but strong inner feeling justifies it; i.e. the feeling justifies itself without need of logical verification, and indeed, even in opposition to it. This is an example of a conflicted decision, and of course I feel a measure of guilt for the feeling at the same time as I feel justified in having it. It's an unfortunate situation, but it is the situation, and Fi deals in absolutes.

I'm not sure I get what this example is about (what is the decision? to feel?), but if it's you feeling bad because your ex is feeling bad, then it's definitely Fe.

Another example of a conflicted decision is where I know that there's a very sound logical basis for doing something, but I feel that to do it would be wrong. For example, I might risk deliberately taking action which I know will hurt someone's feelings - something I don't want to do because it violates my principles - if I know that it's necessary for the good of everyone involved in the situation, e.g. if someone has an especially annoying habit which they don't seem to notice, and everyone's just about had it with them being around as a result. While Fi on its own would do nothing - better to put up with it than violate those principles and create disharmony - in concert with Ti, it can be forced into regretting the acknowledged necessity of the action.

Sounds like Ti dominating over Fe. Fe is generally more concerned with making other people feel good, so it would protest against hurting their feelings. Fi would question your motives for wanting to do it.

An unconflicted decision, where the two aspects of Xi are in agreement, might be a recent case where both logic and feeling guided me towards the same decision. There was talk of closing off an established meeting place because it wasn't being used as intended, and I knew that there would be a negative knock-on effect for the other places which would be forced to take on an extra load in that event, as well as having a strong feeling that I didn't want to lose it, an emotional attachment to the place. Feeling was then the motivator and Thinking the mastermind; the two working in concert to ultimately produce and deliver a presentation which was passionate and well-reasoned and resulted in the eventual revoking of the situation. Ti alone couldn't have achieved this without very strong logical grounds for doing so; and Fi could never have produced an argument cogent enough to convince people who couldn't care less if the place feels like home or not.

Sounds like well working INTP's functions: Ne provides ideas, Ti takes care of a logical backup, Si constructs clear, ordered arguments and Fe reaches out to the audience. No Fi necessary. Most INTPs fail where Fe is concerned.

As to the motivation, Fe would push you to do such things for others ("shared values", sense of community) and Fi would push you to do "the right thing". It's a very blurry distinction in this case, since it probably fits both, and no one but you can possibly tell which one it was.

What are your thoughts? Are X types possible? Feel free to shoot me down if I'm getting above myself, I'm really just bouncing around a theory I've been thinking about.

It should be possible to be outside the 16-types division. I find it hard to believe in there being an INXP since the descriptions of MBTI types seem more like "what kind of person will using these functions result in". With significantly disrupted functions' order the person would be less balanced, resulting in an entirely new type. Also, as I said before, you don't sound like a Ti/Fi case to me. Especially the fact that you say your F showed up recently makes me think you might be simply developing your Fe (therefore developing as an INTP).

I don't mean to shoot you down or anything, these are just some thoughts on what you've said. I'd like to see Ti/Fi and all other functions working in harmony, but I doubt it's possible to achieve. It seems to me there must be some reason why all of NTFS (sorry, couldn't stop myself) are used in some way or another by all types. Even if my Te is stronger than my Fe, it's still Fe which interacts, because I need an F function for balance. Similarly I think if Ti is ruling over introverted judgment, Fi would be dominated by it in most cases, so even if Fi > Fe the latter would be main Feeling function.

Remember, introverted judgment is how you value ideas in your head. For example, would you respect a highly intelligent person whose morals seem doubtful? Ti would value them for intelligence and mistrust them, Fi would reject them considering it dangerous. In effect Ti person might get along with them better, being interested in getting to know them precisely because they're different and yet intelligent, disregarding - although not dismissing - their ethics for this purpose. Fi wouldn't accept this line of reasoning.

 

[Jordan~]

Well, I considered that the Ti/Fi blending might basically be a symptom of depression. I'm medicated, but I suppose that elevates the mood but keeps the depressive personality. "Tortured soul" might be right - it was said by Myers-Briggs that those suffering from mental disorders might find that none of the type descriptions really fit them exactly, wasn't it?

I did consider that it might be Fe, but I don't think it is. For one thing, it comes up generally either as not at all present or very, very poorly expressed in tests. Fi, by contrast, is highly expressed. For another thing, I've not really gotten any better at consoling people, and if anything I've become more and more averse to things like 'shared societal values', etc., crucially to the point that it's almost irrational; i.e. even the rational beliefs shared by society are rejected purely because they're shared by society. That's where I'm seeing the operation of Fi - it motivates belief on the basis of an emotional/instinctively moral response to society (that it's a bad thing). With consolation, making people feel good, etc.; if I'm required to console a friend I'll try to make an effort because I'd feel guilty if I didn't. The empathetic reaction to their suffering is immediate, but quite brief and not very strong. I can easily be distracted from it, but there's still a sense - a sense for which I have no logical justification - of guilt that I've done the wrong thing by not helping them, even if there was no rational obligation to do so.
Now, that's not to say that Fe isn't developing. It probably is. But there seems to be a parallel and separate development of something else, as well.

The example with my ex, and similar examples, are really where this is most noticeable. With the whole relationship thing came a major shift in perspective that had nothing to do with empathy, social cohesion, making other people feel better, etc. The example given was a bit vague, but the situation is that the beloved does (or, in fact, feels - only theoretically does) something morally reprehensible in that it's disgusting. Just disgusting - there's no rational basis for it being morally reprehensible, just that emotional one. In fact, what came to be thought of as "the rational part of me" said that it wasn't morally reprehensible at all, and the response of "the emotional part of me" would be "What do you mean? It's disgusting." A kind of internal dialogue (which is usually how I think, anyway) between two representatives of either side of the argument would arise, and lead nowhere - very strong senses of obligation, conflicting both internally and between eachother, existed on either side. There seemed to be at once several logical arguments which disagreed with eachother, and it was impossible to select one as superior to the others; and at the same time powerful emotions that were in opposition to one another (e.g. intense guilt over not being able to accept the perceived flaw [out of a sense of the way that a lover 'should' behave, which is notably in opposition to the consensus view] vs. disgust at the flaw; the feeling at the same time that he was superior to me but also pitiable). These examples are where I noticed the whole situation developing, and it's from this relationship also that my depression formed (I was depressed to an extent before, but it became a lot worse, and diagnosed, afterwards).

The other two examples, which are sidelines, really, also seem to me not to be entirely explicable by the operation of Fe. In the first of those two, I would absolutely love to hurt the feelings of the person in question. I would really, really like to let rip; but I also feel that it would be wrong to do so. My attitude towards the person is secondary to the feeling of moral obligation not to leave them isolated. Where Fe is at work here seems to me to be the desire to see them ruined, while Fi is, by contrast, informing me that it would be wrong to attempt to ruin them. Ti's role is to inform me that it might be necessary.

In the other example, while I can see all four functions at work, I also believe that Fi was the motivator and that Te was, to a lesser extent, involved (in the whole 'plan of action' side of things). I say this because my feeling was very much "This is a bad thing, someone has to do something about it" rather than a "them vs. us" situation. I could acknowledge that the arguments in favour of closing the place were reasonable, but I didn't like them because they were in conflict with that 'inner, emotional world' that's spoken of. Overall, in fact, there was probably more of an objective case for closing it. This, I see as Fi bullying Ti into doing its bidding. Another reason is that there was no desire for group action, or a sense that I was acting on behalf of a group. The fact that a group who agreed with me existed was convenient as leverage and little else. In short, I was out to serve my own interests, which coincidentally aligned with those of some other people. The person I had to speak to was a single, influential individual whom I already knew quite well, and with whom I had a little influence already. There wasn't really any need for Fe to reach out - for one thing she knows me, and for another she has a professional obligation to hear me out.

Make no mistake, most of the time it's not at all harmonious. I tend to forgo judgement and act completely on impulse a lot of the time, which I suppose is letting myself be ruled by Ne (and I definitely don't match up to the description of an ENTP). The bottom line is that, reading INTP and INFP descriptions, most of the points in both apply strongly to me, and a few don't in each. They both fit me about as well, it's pretty difficult to try to pick one that matches better or more often.

 

[Sugarpop]

The original theory seems shabby to me. On what merits do we accept such notions as Ti, Fe, Te and Fi, or the relationship between them? Many people seem confused and frequently try to explain diverging phenomena by means of ad-hoc hypotheses like these.

I see that INTPs tend to be more like me than other people in some areas, but can that be explained as an effect of 'functions'?

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

I'm just throwing this out here: An INFP (or INFP-INTP fusion) would not have come up with such a framework like yours, Jordan.

(I haven't read it all... I will though! and then reply more intelligently.)

 

[Adymus]

To give real life situations - I know that it's completely illogical to feel that I should have some influence over the behavious of my ex, but strong inner feeling justifies it; i.e. the feeling justifies itself without need of logical verification, and indeed, even in opposition to it. This is an example of a conflicted decision, and of course I feel a measure of guilt for the feeling at the same time as I feel justified in having it. It's an unfortunate situation, but it is the situation, and Fi deals in absolutes.

Feeling like you have to "Influence" another person? Do realize this is Fe and not Fi? Something that All INTPs have.

Another example of a conflicted decision is where I know that there's a very sound logical basis for doing something, but I feel that to do it would be wrong. For example, I might risk deliberately taking action which I know will hurt someone's feelings - something I don't want to do because it violates my principles - if I know that it's necessary for the good of everyone involved in the situation, e.g. if someone has an especially annoying habit which they don't seem to notice, and everyone's just about had it with them being around as a result.

Again, you are influencing group dynamics in order to maintain emotional harmony, more Fe.

An unconflicted decision, where the two aspects of Xi are in agreement, might be a recent case where both logic and feeling guided me towards the same decision. There was talk of closing off an established meeting place because it wasn't being used as intended, and I knew that there would be a negative knock-on effect for the other places which would be forced to take on an extra load in that event, as well as having a strong feeling that I didn't want to lose it, an emotional attachment to the place. Feeling was then the motivator and Thinking the mastermind; the two working in concert to ultimately produce and deliver a presentation which was passionate and well-reasoned and resulted in the eventual revoking of the situation. Ti alone couldn't have achieved this without very strong logical grounds for doing so; and Fi could never have produced an argument cogent enough to convince people who couldn't care less if the place feels like home or not.

This is practically bleeding with Fe. But you should be proud, you sound like really well developed INTP, to be able to produce a logical model and then relate to the world with Fe Passion, it's a pretty sweet deal. You deserve a pat on the back for being this advanced in personality development, but you are still no anomaly.

The last is a rare example of Xi working well - these cases make up about 1/3 of the total, the other 2/3 being logic dominating emotion or emotion dominating logic.

What are your thoughts? Are X types possible? Feel free to shoot me down if I'm getting above myself, I'm really just bouncing around a theory I've been thinking about.

I think you just have a misunderstanding on what the difference between Fi and Fe is. Fi has nothing to do with influencing others and that seems to be the only think you are using your supposed "fi" for. Fi like Ti, is nothing more than a subjective form of discernment, they are feelings that are only meant for you. In the same way that Ti is subjective logic, logic that was initially only meant for you, unless you can translate it over into something objective with your Fe inferior.


As for your cognitive process test, I really think that test is complete garbage and it is beyond me why other people are not seeing this. First of all, Fi and Ti essentially come from the same brain quadrant, they are both subjective discernment, and Ti can really exist without Fi and vice versa. In an INTP Fi is the value behind logic, and to an INFP Ti is the logic behind value. This is why when something doesn't make sense to an INTP and if something doesn't feel right to an INFP, they will both react "emotionally."

Now can to two be equally strong? I don't think so, because there is just no point for them to be equally strong. Ti and Fi serve the exact same purpose in a person (Internal Subjective discernment that is. Another reason why I know you are not using Fi, because you speak of synergy between the functions.), there is just no point in having both equally strong, and I don't see why your body would waste the energy to develop both when it can just develop one stronger than both. Not to mention calling two functions "Dominant" is kind of counter intuitive don't you think?

 

[Aiss]

Well, I considered that the Ti/Fi blending might basically be a symptom of depression. I'm medicated, but I suppose that elevates the mood but keeps the depressive personality. "Tortured soul" might be right - it was said by Myers-Briggs that those suffering from mental disorders might find that none of the type descriptions really fit them exactly, wasn't it?

(...)

If this is the case then I guess everything is possible. I still don't think you're a Ti/Fi case, though. From what more you've written it seems your Fe might not be really so well developed after all, more like malfunctioning Ti/Fe combo. Rejecting one's emotions might lead to difficulties for INTPs:

[FONT=Tahoma,Helvetica]Feelings and emotions are regarded with suspicion and perhaps fear by the INTP and he may be keen to avoid considering or showing them. At the same time, he may experience a certain fascination for the emotional world, but he is desperate to de-personalize any thoughts on that area. He is compelled to subject his emotions to continual analysis, the Ti core literally suppressing the Fe shadow, attacking Fe with accusations of irrationality. He resists letting his feelings go, fearing that to do so would be to relinquish control to an unknown force. He believes emotions to be of a lesser substance than logic and his natural goal would be to conquer his emotions with pure rationality.[/FONT]

In short, if you're entertaining the concept of rejecting your emotions because of irrationality, your T is well in control. Perhaps too much in control, even. It can't, however, deal with them in any way, therefore growing angry. Then there may come a moment when Fe suddenly gets out, resulting in an emotional outburst.

It's significantly different from what you've said earlier about your examples, you do realize this?

Selfishness has nothing to do with functions, more with your value system. If your interest is most important, then Ti is perfectly capable of working for it. Again, having emotions - no matter how strong - is no reason to suspect Fe/Fi. These functions are better at dealing with them, that's it. You don't sound like doing well there (no offence intended), and what you're describing is more like malfunctioning Fe than Fi.

I'm not saying you're definitely not INFP, but you sure don't sound like one. Whatever happened to you doesn't sound like suddenly developing Fi. As I said, you seem very much a Ti person. All of us have all the functions in some measure, but usually only one of each kind is in control. In extreme situations shadow functions may emerge.

The original theory seems shabby to me. On what merits do we accept such notions as Ti, Fe, Te and Fi, or the relationship between them? Many people seem confused and frequently try to explain diverging phenomena by means of ad-hoc hypotheses like these.

I see that INTPs tend to be more like me than other people in some areas, but can that be explained as an effect of 'functions'?

I don't know about you, but I can clearly distinguish between Ne, Fe and Si "voices" in my mind. I did this before reading about MBTI, though I didn't have a name for them. When I found out about functions it was like finding a framework in which all of this fit. Analyzing Ti is trickier, since I'm identifying with it a lot, besides using it to analyze other functions, but detachment is possible.

 

[Sugarpop]

I don't know about you, but I can clearly distinguish between Ne, Fe and Si "voices" in my mind. I did this before reading about MBTI, though I didn't have a name for them. When I found out about functions it was like finding a framework in which all of this fit. Analyzing Ti is trickier, since I'm identifying with it a lot, besides using it to analyze other functions, but detachment is possible.

The distinctions between the funtions don't seem unplausible. It seems to me (research needed) that they were discovered in through introspection in much the same way as you describe. However, plausibility or the making of sense does not make an idea valid. It's a model, possibly useful in some cases, but probably not an entirely adequate description. Do the functions correspond to physical differences, for instance?

 

[Aiss]

^ It's obviously just a model. Is it even possible to accurately understand and/or describe the mind, when mind is the tool we're using to achieve it? This is debatable, but I'd say just looking at the variety of psychological theories shows there's no theory - or at least none have been found - which would be both universal and accurate enough, much less scientifically provable. Lack of clear genetical patterns also works against it.

I see functions as more of an abstract way of describing our thinking process rather than a physical reality. On the other hand, the way some functions deal with emotions may suggest the use of some parts of the brain that are more/less sensitive to substances such as seratonine and generally the chemistry behind emotions. I know nothing about biochemistry, so it's just a guess.

There have been apparently some studies, which showed the areas of brain corresponding to NTFS functions. This would point to Ne/Ni etc. being a different uses for the same part. It also makes sense in a way that while some of them are better developed (for example in xNTx: N > S, T > F), the uses of these may either be inborn or determined in early life. Therefore it would be possible to inherit traits independently of learning how to use them - an interesting concept, although almost impossible to explore.

 

[Adymus]

^ It's obviously just a model. Is it even possible to accurately understand and/or describe the mind, when mind is the tool we're using to achieve it? This is debatable, but I'd say just looking at the variety of psychological theories shows there's no theory - or at least none have been found - which would be both universal and accurate enough, much less scientifically provable. Lack of clear genetical patterns also works against it.

I see functions as more of an abstract way of describing our thinking process rather than a physical reality. On the other hand, the way some functions deal with emotions may suggest the use of some parts of the brain that are more/less sensitive to substances such as seratonine and generally the chemistry behind emotions. I know nothing about biochemistry, so it's just a guess.

There have been apparently some studies, which showed the areas of brain corresponding to NTFS functions. This would point to Ne/Ni etc. being a different uses for the same part. It also makes sense in a way that while some of them are better developed (for example in xNTx: N > S, T > F), the uses of these may either be inborn or determined in early life. Therefore it would be possible to inherit traits independently of learning how to use them - an interesting concept, although almost impossible to explore.

Actually the brainscan studies I looked into suggested that Si-Ni, Se-Ne, Ti-Fi, and Fe-Te are all coming from the same quadrants, which I think makes more sense.

 

[Aiss]

^ Differently developed then? I still think we can't understand how our minds work using our minds, and this (functions) model isn't bad.

 

[Renk Fasze]

Jordan, need a moment to fully chew and respond to your thoughts here.

Definitely following the same question that has been dominate in my head lately.

I'm very new to the MBTI typology or any typology for that matter so please bear with me.

Just a very raw question and im sorry...

Have you been hurt deeply by someone you held very close?

In a time where i am flip flopping between INTP and INFP i find myself not comfortable with either solution each brings to my question at hand. Correct me if im wrong but you notice the same?

What if the flip flop, or dissatisfaction with either, is a result of relying on the trusty, yet well proved logic only to be let down. Then reverting to feeling only to have it fail due to an under developed or damaged understanding of it.

To give real life situations - I know that it's completely illogical to feel that I should have some influence over the behavious of my ex, but strong inner feeling justifies it; i.e. the feeling justifies itself without need of logical verification, and indeed, even in opposition to it. This is an example of a conflicted decision, and of course I feel a measure of guilt for the feeling at the same time as I feel justified in having it. It's an unfortunate situation, but it is the situation, and Fi deals in absolutes.

Guilty. Ive done it. That feeling is love. Love is not logical in retrospect. Probably not even completely in the moment either but i have not thought that out yet. (i hold love to be an illogical phenomenon for the most part)

In reflection of your ex's actions you attempted to describe your reason for wanting her to act a certain way...yet you are objective to the feeling (that you had in the relationship) because you are out of the moment.

I don't think it can be defined that way. Some things need to be seen subjectively as they were first experienced because any reflection after the fact is objective to the feeling therefore cannot be "logically" explained.

Seems like more of a tangent than clear thought and i do tend to be random. Spur of the moment. If i missed, tear it apart, please.

 

[milkyway2]

I definitely feel like I'm a mix between INTP and INFP sometimes. I logically analyze everything. When I had a situation where there were 2 people that wanted to date me at the same time, (which i know i shouldn't be complaining about so much) it was insanely difficult to decide what I wanted to do. I was making pro/con lists in my head for each person and trying to figure out what to do for like 2 months. But I was ignoring my feelings. I started dating someone and it didn't work out because I realized I had strong feelings for the other person. It still baffles me as to what those feelings exactly are or why, but I know that ever since I've been with him I've been happy. And it just.... feeels like the right thing to do. And that's hard to me to explain.

 

[Adymus]

I definitely feel like I'm a mix between INTP and INFP sometimes. I logically analyze everything. When I had a situation where there were 2 people that wanted to date me at the same time, (which i know i shouldn't be complaining about so much) it was insanely difficult to decide what I wanted to do. I was making pro/con lists in my head for each person and trying to figure out what to do for like 2 months. But I was ignoring my feelings. I started dating someone and it didn't work out because I realized I had strong feelings for the other person. It still baffles me as to what those feelings exactly are or why, but I know that ever since I've been with him I've been happy. And it just.... feeels like the right thing to do. And that's hard to me to explain.

Having feelings doesn't make you an F, everyone has feelings. We're not vulcans, we just prefer thinking over all. Relying primarily on your feelings is what makes you an F.

 

[Zero]

The number of decisions I make motivated by logic vs. the number made by emotion is probably about 50/50

Are, are probably

The Ex-example. Don't even know where to start with you on that one. Don't do relationships and don't have exes. You do understand that it's a subjective(personal) vs objective(whole) decision making spectrum. So, that's not the problem.

I'm not sure about the other examples either... They seem complicated. I can't imagine considering all that. X is somewhat possible, but even if you tend to be one way more than the other, by even a point, you're that type. It's usually beneficial to be one type or the other, because then you actually have a reference. What type do you feel like you're more of? An F or a T? In the end, we kind of use them to suit our needs. That's what systems should come down to.

I think an INFP mentioned that they listened to the lyrics of a song and I hadn't thought about it before, but I do listen to songs for the sounds. Probably why I'm a fan of Draft punk and such music. Lyrics are kind of secondary unless they're really distracting. I prefer music without lyrics, I find that sort of music the most moving.

So, that's my two cents I guess.

My T is high, though I guess my F isn't that terrible. I think people closer to the axis would probably be more helpful though.

I'm not sure it would help, but what are your INP percentages? I'll assume T/F to be 0%=X.

 

[KazeCraven]

I definitely feel like I'm a mix between INTP and INFP sometimes. I logically analyze everything. When I had a situation where there were 2 people that wanted to date me at the same time, (which i know i shouldn't be complaining about so much) it was insanely difficult to decide what I wanted to do. I was making pro/con lists in my head for each person and trying to figure out what to do for like 2 months. But I was ignoring my feelings. I started dating someone and it didn't work out because I realized I had strong feelings for the other person. It still baffles me as to what those feelings exactly are or why, but I know that ever since I've been with him I've been happy. And it just.... feeels like the right thing to do. And that's hard to me to explain.

Hmmm... I used to be a member of infp.globalchatter and I don't think what you've said is even possible for INFPs. Can INFPs really ignore their feelings? They seem, on the whole, constantly aware of and driven by their emotions.

I'm a rather emotional person myself, but I'm usually confused as to why I feel certain ways. I've tried consulting my feelings for decisions, but it's really difficult for me which makes me try to ignore them, yet if my feelings don't agree later it's a big problem. Trying to suppress them doesn't work, but trying to pull them out or understand them makes them disappear. Capricious little buggers.

It's odd. Unlike my brother, I wasn't very rebellious or distrusting as a child, accepting social norms like a good Si (or is it Fe?) when they were brought to my attention, but as I got older I decided I was developed enough to make my own opinions about things and argue them as they came up. I never really had my own ideas of right or wrong (why I ever thought I was INFP is beyond me!), but I was quite put off as I found logical errors in the set of beliefs handed to me, making the end result rather odd.

Do other INTPs have a strong sense of right and wrong? I don't really, but I tend to adhere to my moral code quite strongly.