Typology, Jungian Functions, MBTI, catchall

[MuadDib]

@Rafael Thundercat

https://www.instagram.com/p/DdRYTxbFD_1/

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dc59vXyA0A1/

Edited Sunday at 11:43 PM by MuadDib

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-09-18 at 9:22 PM, Joshe said:

The IN seems right but you seem like INFP to me. Take that with a grain of salt because I'm not an expert. 

Do you think that fits? 

Most things listed seem accurate to me. One thing that makes me wonder is that T seems to correspond to people who are more "in the head" types than F, as I said haven't read so deeply into the descriptions of each but its my impression from the little I've read. As someone who has been "in the head" type very very strongly since childhood (have slowly became more balanced in recent times, but still applies), it makes me initially think T applies more to me. Even if the content of my mind is not typically "nerdy" or "logic oriented" as T seems to suggest something in that direction, I have still been more "thinking driven" so far in my life overall I'd say. 

Also, I thought maybe reading up on the meaning of each preferences/functions and then self assessing based on them could be equally or maybe even more accurate than taking the test again, what you think? Maybe me making this suggestion supports the idea I could be INFP lol 

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-09-18 at 9:57 PM, Carl-Richard said:

@Joshe Sugarcoat seems to have some T going on (not  "that kind" of T, you know what I mean 👀).

When I identify a strong Fi user, I see them making assertions without using many connective prepositions like "because", "as", "therefore", because that is how logic is expressed (connecting different things explictly through linguistic structure). I could point out three examples of this on the forum, but they likely wouldn't appreciate it as "being logical" is generally seen as a virtuous thing.

Intuitive Fi users in a discussion will often suggest possible conceptual interpretations that could be conceptually rich and possibly valid, but they will less often justify them or again explicate them in connection to other things that could be relevant in the discussion (and they can often end up being quite irrelevant to the discussion overall; it's just something that they "thought about" because they value it and they want to share that).

I cant help being curious about that first sentence ahhah

Sometimes the seemingly "out of place" stuff are not so out of place as it seems, its just providing a perspective from different vantage point (might be using the word incorrectly), but if someone doesn't think in that style, maybe it doesn't ring bell for them. (Emphasis on sometimes.......☠️)

On 2026-09-18 at 11:30 PM, Joshe said:

Seems like I've seen her on multiple occasions implying and even flat out saying that too much thinking is taking place lol ("this is wrong, I don't like it"). And I've noticed the bolded bit several times. 

That's a good heuristic about the connectives. Reminds me of The Secret Life of Pronouns. 

Ahahahahh keen perception

Because you guys mentioned me I wanted to reply even if not tagged......

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Sugarcoat said:

Most things listed seem accurate to me. One thing that makes me wonder is that T seems to correspond to people who are more "in the head" types than F, as I said haven't read so deeply into the descriptions of each but its my impression from the little I've read. As someone who has been "in the head" type very very strongly since childhood (have slowly became more balanced in recent times, but still applies), it makes me initially think T applies more to me. Even if the content of my mind is not typically "nerdy" or "logic oriented" as T seems to suggest something in that direction, I have still been more "thinking driven" so far in my life overall I'd say. 

@Sugarcoat INFPs are definitely in their head. I was best friends with an INFP for a long time. The question is: what are you in your head about? Are you concerned with how things make you feel, if you like things, how are things important and how do things matter to you - things like that. That's very Fi. 

INFPs get along well with INTJs and INTPs, but they can't take too much of their thinking. They will hang in there as long as the topic is important to them, but as soon as you start talking about nerdy topics they don't care about, they're good for about 20 minutes and then start yawning. They don't want to just think about anything. They want to think about something related to how they feel about something. For example, my INFP friend could listen to me think deeply and talk for hours if the topic was useful for working out some curiosity or interpersonal dynamics or personal life challenges, but as soon as I wanted to tie things back to big picture, systemic stuff, he'd start yawning. 

1 hour ago, Sugarcoat said:

Also, I thought maybe reading up on the meaning of each preferences/functions and then self assessing based on them could be equally or maybe even more accurate than taking the test again, what you think? Maybe me making this suggestion supports the idea I could be INFP lol 

Yeah, I think that's better than taking a test. If you wanted to take a test, try this one: https://personalityhacker.com/products/ph-personality-test

[Rafael Thundercat]

2 hours ago, Joshe said:

For example, my INFP friend could listen to me think deeply and talk for hours if the topic was useful for working out some curiosity or interpersonal dynamics or personal life challenges, but as soon as I wanted to tie things back to big picture, systemic stuff, he'd start yawning. 

How you know he was INFP??

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Regarding @Sugarcoat I see Ni, Fi, Te & Se but also some Ne (a LOT of possibilities constantly being generated by her).

I don't see Fi dom (my brother and sister are both Fi doms). From past comments I do see Fi but it is always embedded in a very abstract analytical process. There isn't a lot of value based "this is how I feel" and more an immediate jump to "why is this happening?' What structure explains this?" "Does this follow or could there be another possibility". Which is why Sugarcoat's posts are strange because they come across as quite personal but wrapped in abstractions.

Te is odd because it is present but not dominant at all. Lots of category distinguishing, testing explanations, contradiction IDing, etc but much less of "Here is the objectively correct framework therefore here are the premises. This is the conclusion, now we apply it." But the Te component could be extraverted more in some real life application that isn't transparent from forum posts. IE how @Joshe or I operate with substantial Te being implemented in concrete reality and a touch less so on the forum (but still very much there). Joshe's Te floods into his work as does mine in construction.

But the strongest argument against INTJ is her relational style. But this could be societal conditioning due to being female. I see personal resonance in her interpersonal nuance, sensitivity to emotional states, peoples interpretation of each other, psychological suffering. But this doesn't really jump out at me as either Fe or Fi. I see much more Fi though. 

I am decidedly uncertain.

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

I cant help being curious about that first sentence ahhah

Sometimes the seemingly "out of place" stuff are not so out of place as it seems, its just providing a perspective from different vantage point (might be using the word incorrectly), but if someone doesn't think in that style, maybe it doesn't ring bell for them. (Emphasis on sometimes.......☠️)

Do you consider yourself as being a producer of testosterone? 🤠

Edited yesterday at 12:23 AM by Carl-Richard

[Joseph Maynor]

Ti is my tertiary function.  This is why INFJs can sometimes look like a thinking type.  I learned this recently through investigation.  Tertiary function is like the wild card in MBTI typology.  

INFJ

Ni
Fe
Ti
Se

[Ramanujan]

@Joshedid game worked for you as an INTJ

 

[Joshe]

6 hours ago, Ramanujan said:

@Joshedid game worked for you as an INTJ

Never stuck with it. I’m not compatible with pickup. I don’t have the specific drive and the rewards work differently for me. Instead, I learned to play my own game. If I were to practice and get good at modern pickup, that just wouldn’t be who I am. I wouldn’t be authentic, and that bothers me far more than being bad at picking up girls. 

Why do you ask? Are you into it?

I’m actually more into seduction. I remember when I was like 15 or something and found The Art of Seduction in the bookstore and got super excited about it. Seduction is fun. Modern pickup is shallow in comparison, from my POV. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Joshe

[Xonas Pitfall]

MBTI, Socionics, Enneagram, Jungian typology, Spiral Dynamics, etc. are amazing tools for self-reflection, but it’s important not to get stuck in these labels. It’s so easy to get caught up in them, and I’ve definitely seen many people do that. Use these systems to reflect on your values and behavioral traits, not to box yourself into a specific type, think you’re above a certain cognitive type, or assume you’re the “best type,” etc.

[Joseph Maynor]

My Enneagram is 4w5, tri-type 4-5-9, and instinctual variant sx-so-sp.

[Xonas Pitfall]

@Sugarcoat

A better way to figure out your type would be to question what you dislike or cannot imagine yourself doing, as well as the thoughts and behaviors you seem to fall into on autopilot, even when nothing is forcing you to act that way.

In Socionics, I believe this is partly why there is a function called PoLR, or the Point of Least Resistance. It refers to the information element that is particularly difficult or uncomfortable for a person to deal with. It can show up as a blind spot, an area where you have little confidence or interest, or something you instinctively try to avoid unless circumstances force you to engage with it. Looking at these kinds of patterns can sometimes tell you more about your type than simply reading descriptions and trying to find traits you relate to.

In that sense, you can reverse-engineer your type. Instead of asking, “Which type sounds like me?” you can ask, “What consistently feels unnatural to me? What do I struggle to pay attention to? What do I do automatically, even when there is no external reason to do it?” This can help you identify recurring patterns in your cognition and behavior.

It’s way too easy to read broad descriptions of different types and get lost in them, especially because you can probably relate to aspects of multiple types. Looking at your actual patterns, especially the things you consistently avoid, struggle with, or do automatically, can give you a more grounded starting point.

And of course, as we’ve learned here, bias is huge too. We often subconsciously want to be one type rather than another, or project false identities onto these labels based on what we think they mean for how we’re perceived and what we’re capable of. Removing that bias as much as possible would be ideal.

Every type has its own strengths, weaknesses, blind spots, and limitations. I’ve seen, for example, intuitive logical types be the ones people especially like to identify with, or types that people associate with high charisma, intelligence, manipulation, or some kind of exceptional prowess. But people often overlook the less flattering aspects of those types, including the ways they can be clueless and "useless".

[Joseph Maynor]

@Xonas Pitfall  Do you know your MBTI?

[Xonas Pitfall]

@Joseph Maynor

I personally believe I’m an INFP, but I’ve been typed as INTP and ENTP by other “typists,” so it really depends on how objective I am about myself and how accurately I’ve communicated the relevant information to the typists.

That said, I think MBTI and Socionics can be tricky to compare because the two systems aren’t completely 1:1. There are also some issues with how certain behaviors are interpreted through functions and information elements, so I’ve always found that part of typology difficult to pin down because it’s easy for definitions to become so broad or flexible that almost any behavior can be interpreted as evidence for a particular function. I think it’s more useful to stick with a consistent definition of each function that is specific enough to be functionally workable and actually distinguishable from the others.

With Enneagram, though, I’m a bit more confident that I’m a 9w8, with sx/sp or sp/sx.

[Joseph Maynor]

11 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

@Joseph Maynor

I personally believe I’m an INFP, but I’ve been typed as INTP and ENTP by other “typists,” so it really depends on how objective I am about myself and how accurately I’ve communicated the relevant information to the typists.

That said, I think MBTI and Socionics can be tricky to compare because the two systems aren’t completely 1:1. There are also some issues with how certain behaviors are interpreted through functions and information elements, so I’ve always found that part of typology difficult to pin down because it’s easy for definitions to become so broad or flexible that almost any behavior can be interpreted as evidence for a particular function. I think it’s more useful to stick with a consistent definition of each function that is specific enough to be functionally workable and actually distinguishable from the others.

With Enneagram, though, I’m a bit more confident that I’m a 9w8, with sx/sp or sp/sx.

Some people are really good at MBTI typing.  If I met you or you post a video I could probably type you.  

[Xonas Pitfall]

5 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Some people are really good at MBTI typing.  If I met you or you post a video I could probably type you.  

I’m a very private person, but I appreciate the offer 🤍