Kim INFp?

[Hugo]

I think Kim is INFp because:

she has been with a istp and didn't like it because of weak

she says her functions well, and her work has required her to use it

she mistook for here: http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3050

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Rocky]

I say ISFP.

[Rocky]

I was kidding.

Stop trying to question people's types behind their backs.

[Hugo]

No.

Duh.

You need to look at things more globally and stop obsessing with the details. There are numerous exceptions all over the place, and nothing works 100%. You don't need to be an F-type to have empathy, and it isn't functionally related. Everyone has a different opinion on the functions, and lots of people can have them reversed, but the introverted and extroverted senses of the functions are pretty similar anyway, so it doesn't matter. Functional position in the type model does not correlate at all to actual correctness of the function itself.

The view that is actual smarts is an invention of someone slightly peripheral to the main socionics community, and it is a different way of looking at socionics. It may or may not be correct, but just know that if you choose to accept this idea, you are looking at things in a different way then many other mainstream people.

The mainstream view is that is being objective, and analyzing situations according to the pure truthfulness of them. This has nothing to do with academic work whatsoever, and has more to do with social interactions. Make a observation of any ISTj and you will see clearly what it is that an ENFp will never do under normal circumstances.

Well curious soul agreed with me
http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...r=asc&start=15

[Hugo]

Stop trying to question people's types behind their backs.

How is it behind her back?

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Hugo]

Kim is ENFp. Come on, guys. Can't you see the in her posts?

And just because she didn't have a good relation with her dual, doesn't mean that she's a different type. Dual relations AREN'T always perfect, you know.

Yes, but it was because of a personality issue that it did not work out.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Hugo]

blank

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Hugo]

[Kim]

I think Kim is INFp because:

she has been with a istp and didn't like it because of weak

she says her functions well, and her work has required her to use it

she mistook for here: http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3050

As for and : I have been reading and reading and I just don't find any sort of consensus on the distinction. I'm starting to think that they do bleed into each other more than is commonly assumed. But if we want to look at like this:

Introverted Feeling

Contents
Love, hate, sympathy, antipathy, feeling of ethicality or non-ethicality of relations, human qualities, desire etc.

Manifestation
Dividing people into "ours" and "theirs"; improving relations with "ours"; revealing people's qualities; looking for permanent and stable relations; relations are like a game where "ours" understand rules without explaining, while "theirs" will play badly even being given a detailed explanation.

Then I'm not sure that I was that far off...keep reading in that thread, some people did agree with my description.

As for :
****** said:

The mainstream view is that Introverted Thinking is being objective, and analyzing situations according to the pure truthfulness of them. This has nothing to do with academic work whatsoever, and has more to do with social interactions. Make a observation of any ISTj and you will see clearly what it is that an ENFp will never do under normal circumstances.

It absolutely has to do with academic work. Let's take Anthropology: when I go out into the field for a qualitative/quantitative study, I have to be super objective and analyze social interactions entirely detached from my personal feeling. I cannot tell women who circumsize their daughters "don't do this, it's wrong" even if I felt this is wrong (and if I did, the ENFp in me would want to address the issue and look for exchange/alternatives/possibilites). But no, I cannot do that. All I do is observe, record and analyze, put into systems and pay great attention to detail. It does not come easy for me and can actually be a great effort.

I don't think were are slaves to our functions. I believe we can develop them, strengthen them and still remain our type. It's impossible to type only based on how people supposedly use function a, b, or c.

she has been with a istp and didn't like it because of weak Extraverted Feeling

Well, this only goes to show that duality is highly overrated. I need more reassurance and emotional closeness than this particular ISTp and others I know would be able to comfortably provide. I have come to the conclusion that I fare better with someone who feeds into my strenghts and is more like me. I can see much of the duality description in the relationship:

Conflicts in dual pairs may take place, but they are rare because their solution does not really require anything beyond your basic capabilities. Partners suit each other like two halves of the same photo, making a complete picture. But because of this lack of conflict the result is that your dual seems to fade into the background when amongst other people. They seem to be too simple and ordinary, and thus not deserving of your attention. This first viewpoint is more common of extroverts. The second viewpoint consists in saying to yourself: he/she is too good for me and will scarcely like me. This viewpoint is more characteristic to introverts. However, both these viewpoints are rather peculiar to people without experience of dual communication in childhood.

This is so true and this is where some conflict came from. We had a lot of this going on because we could not develop a true genuine sense of how the other truly sees us: we were so different!

But do not overestimate duality! This is a model of relations for dealing with everyday problems. As you get used to your dual, you will begin to want something more, namely social significance of your personality, certain challenges and deviations from everyday activities. This cannot be achieved within dual relationships. And finally, do not forget that no one dual pair is omnipotent – on the contrary, it is strong only within certain fields of activity, where the dual's strong traits complement each other.

Yes, thank you very much whoever wrote this. It was comfortable and I did have that sense of protection that is associated with duality, but I got bored. He did not have the same energy level as me and was constantly stressed out. We were great in some aspects, but daily life stress coupled with me feeling trapped and bored did not make for much happiness in the end. Currently I'm so enjoying the situation where the other person has the very same emotional needs I do. It's so liberating and satisfying because I don't need to spend energy on trying to understand the person.

On the other hand, it is very difficult to achieve social recognition without the support of your dual. In general, dualization is vitally necessary in two cases: first, in unfavorable social situations when your survival is at stake, and second, when you move upwards along the social hierarchy in which the competition is acute, i.e for your career.

I can do this without my dual because, as I said, I'm not a slave to functions.

So, we did have a relationship of duality, but it's not what necessarily makes me happy. Hey, it's just me. I know an INTj/ESFj couple and they are perfect for each other!

I don't mind you people discussing my type at all, by the way, so if you have more, do tell!

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Kim]

Ahem...

"under normal circumstances"

Well, I think excessive use of a function can translate into an internalization and more natural use without the paranoia (for PoLR). Then it can become natural to switch naturally to a formerly weak function. I see that happening with . In terms of that, is my new PoLR then, haha.

:wink:

[Angel von Himmel]

Let's VI Hugo, shall we?

Lol, he looks like Dr. Mephisto

[Raver]

I think Kim sounds ENFp to me, even I get confused for INFp becuase of my introvertedness, but the functions don't really match. I read the description of INFp and I could to relate to it slightly less than the ENFp one.

[Creepy-]

Ahem...

"under normal circumstances"

Well, I think excessive use of a function can translate into an internalization and more natural use without the paranoia (for PoLR). Then it can become natural to switch naturally to a formerly weak function. I see that happening with . In terms of that, is my new PoLR then, haha.

:wink:

That's so true! is more a point of paranoia for me than (but boy is it paranoid!)

Anyway (*addresses the crowd*), you're all on crack . Kim, INFp? Noooooooooo

[science as magic]

You need to look at things more globally and stop obsessing with the details.

yes yes inxj syndrome befouls yet another

[Kim]

I say ISFP.

Haha, I saw that just now! <3 Rocky!

[Hugo]

Kim what describes you better:

+ or - ?

[CuriousSoul]

No.

Duh.

You need to look at things more globally and stop obsessing with the details. There are numerous exceptions all over the place, and nothing works 100%. You don't need to be an F-type to have empathy, and it isn't functionally related. Everyone has a different opinion on the functions, and lots of people can have them reversed, but the introverted and extroverted senses of the functions are pretty similar anyway, so it doesn't matter. Functional position in the type model does not correlate at all to actual correctness of the function itself.

The view that is actual smarts is an invention of someone slightly peripheral to the main socionics community, and it is a different way of looking at socionics. It may or may not be correct, but just know that if you choose to accept this idea, you are looking at things in a different way then many other mainstream people.

The mainstream view is that is being objective, and analyzing situations according to the pure truthfulness of them. This has nothing to do with academic work whatsoever, and has more to do with social interactions. Make a observation of any ISTj and you will see clearly what it is that an ENFp will never do under normal circumstances.

@ Transigent
The problem is that in most cases all we have to work on are just few scattered details. Working globally can give you intuitive illuminations, but then there is absolutely no way of knowing if they are even remotely correct. What you are saying is basically just that everything can be explained in every possible way - and thus nothing can truly be determined. We are not going to make any progress in enhancing our understanding of socionics that way.

I think people should not be offended if someone questions their type. In socionics the type is not a label you can choose as you wish, but an essential and probably innate mode how your mind operats. It is, in my opinion, quite possible that many people on this site too have got their types wrong and it only adds to the confusion if many of the opinions and advice on types are given by people who may not be the type they think are. I am, of course, fully aware that there are no fully reliable methods of determining the socionics type, but questioning should be our common goal and not something you just label as "the INxJ syndrome".

[schrödinger's cat]

INFP? No. INFPs are more flamboyant than ENFPs, no? Symbolic, overtly (instead of covertly) emotional, "I love/hate you - come here, I'll give you a kiss/kill [underline appropriate word]", effortlessly mysterious and stylish, Princes and princesses of ze night, moving about on noiseless wing, harharharrrrrrrrrr, that sort of thing. And even if they aren't like that, it's not because (like ENFPs) they can't be bothered and would probably be totally unable to pull it off.

No, nooooooo. Kim's an ESTJ! Yay!

[schrödinger's cat]

Well, I think excessive use of a function can translate into an internalization and more natural use without the paranoia (for PoLR). Then it can become natural to switch naturally to a formerly weak function. I see that happening with . In terms of that, is my new PoLR then, haha.

That is interesting. Could you explain that in other words? I'm not really sure that I understand you correctly.

[Scrummy]

INFP? No. INFPs are more flamboyant than ENFPs, no?

No.

[schrödinger's cat]

Ah. Sorry.

[Scrummy]

Actually, it probably depends on the ENFp/INFp so you may be right. But most INFps I know tend to be reclusive/overlooked most of the time.

[science as magic]

i think they are. i am referring to how they are inside their heads of course as this is the only place that matters

[Fermi]

i think they are. i am referring to how they are inside their heads of course as this is the only place that matters

you like?

[science as magic]

are you calling me a jackass?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

:'(

oh wait that is a zebra

:wink:

equines make the best infps

[Fermi]

You need it! Cant you already feel the blood in your mouth! GO TIGER,uhh.. lion

[science as magic]

argh bloody hell! why didn't she inform me it was that time of month grah!!!!

/me savagely mauls the infp zebra

[Fermi]

Haha, stupid. It's just a picture on your computer

[science as magic]

no!!! i can't touch those sweet sweet electrons flowing across my screen. damn these negative charges come back electrons i miss you!!! /me reverses polarity

[Creepy-aurora_faerie]

lol NO

[Fermi]

You only want his Protons because you're so negative! (why the fuck aren't there any evil smiley?!?!?)

[science as magic]

/me hands kraus his infprotons. be gentle. no not like that you are ing them too much /me runs and cries. gentle.. gentle.. just like that ahhhhhh

[schrödinger's cat]

Insane. You're all of you insane. * laughs and shakes head *

[Kristiina]

What is the general conclusion then? is Kim INFp?

This really interests me. I want to learn more about the interactions between types. This one reminds me of how I get along with ISTps (me being supervised), but seems somehow different. INFp (supervision) and and ISFp (conflict) would make sense.

Kim,
This would probably make sense:





And I actually don't agree, that your PoLR is
This is because so far all the interaction types have made sense (ever since I consider myself an ENTj). If your PoLR would be Fi, then your second function would be , and this would make your type either ESTp (relations of benefit, with me being the benefactor) or ENTp (my quasi-identical). I'm met a certain ENTp. This interaction between us is fairly different.

I'm not trying to make fun of you by saying, that I probably am your supervisor, but well... I think I am. This is just so similar to my interaction with ISTps.

[Kim]

I'm not trying to make fun of you by saying, that I probably am your supervisor, but well... I think I am. This is just so similar to my interaction with ISTps.

It is so interesting that you would say this! Are you seriously attempting to type me through intertype relations based on one exchange we have had? See, I think people abuse the concept of "supervision." Just because you feel you are right and I was wrong in this one exchange we had does not mean I'm of a type that is supervised by yours, does it? See, I feel I'm right and you were unreasonably defensive. Does that mean I must be your supervisor? No, it just means that we disagree and neither of us musters the to sort things out because we both have a temper. But I would certainly be curious to hear if other ENtjs get a supervision vibe with me. I know Ashton doesn't, but others might, who knows. I just really doubt it. I supervise my sister and it's not about disagreeing, it's a way different vibe that you cannot possibly have picked up from this brief encounter, I would say.

Just to throw another thing out there to consider in general (directed at the general public):
It has happened twice now that people have questioned my type based on a conflict with me (and only after said conflict). I do not have a problem with people questioning my type in the very least. I'm enough of an attention whore to appreciate threads in my honor, rest assured. But it's interesting how people would be so ready to translate conflict into type assumptions and reconsiderations. A singular conflict says nothing about what type the people involved are. You wouldn't believe how much conflict there was with my dual (I have pointed out elsewhere why that is). *gasp*



But more opinions are certainly appreciated and Kriistina, your input IS interesting, don't get me wrong, ok? I just don't believe it's possible to type like that. I don't mean to be hostile here.
:wink:

PS: As much as I'm open to type suggestions, it is rather certain that I'm not ISTp or have a PoLR.