Typology, Jungian Functions, MBTI, catchall

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-09-23 at 2:00 AM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

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.

Interesting analysis. I can definitely see how things I write sometimes can come off as abstract, I have thought so about myself too. As I've written before, I'm not so clear about the meanings of the different functions so its a bit difficult to follow along the logic here. I would say I'm the least familiar with what Te means, how would you describe that simply? As someone who struggles with attention, I get impression that Te tends to be more strong in people who are more alert to the environment overall. 

Regarding relational style. What you wrote there is also one major thing that made me question the INTJs applicability on me, becuase it seems to suggest a bit more typically "nerdy", not as "connection oriented" (they don't have to exclude each other, but that INTJ seems to suggest someone that leans more to the prior). The possibility of societal conditioning for females, it doesn't apply to me in this regard, but rather its how my psyche works. I find the "social aspect" of communication beyond the logic and the pure arguments themselves, adds intelligence to the communication (for example a persons emotional state could play a role in what they mean even if the logic suggests something else, so getting a sense of that, if possible, helps to understand more what is implied. And then taking it into account when responding, can possibly make response seem a bit "out of place" sometimes, because its not always responding to the mere words as I said). This is something I think you understand too, that's impression I get. 

Edited 6 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Joseph Maynor]

Ideally for me to type someone I would need at a minimum to see a video they are in.  Some people I can type by seeing lots of their writing, but not all.

[Sugarcoat]

4 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Ideally for me to type someone I would need at a minimum to see a video they are in.  Some people I can type by seeing lots of their writing, but not all.

Video is very different from text yes, and texting vs calling too, I can definitely relate to that. 

[Joseph Maynor]

The tertiary cognitive function makes it hard to type sometimes because the INFJ can look like a thinker, the INTJ can look like a feeler, and the INTP can look like a sensor, with Ti, Fi, and Si respectively.

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-09-23 at 2:21 AM, Carl-Richard said:

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

Ok now it makes sense

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-09-24 at 7:46 PM, Xonas Pitfall said:

@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".

Yes I do that. 

[Joseph Maynor]

Another thing to be careful of is how you interpret the Inferior Function in your type, which is a really poor choice of term because your inferior function is your 4th Cognitive Function for your type.  This is still a strength for you compared to the 4 Shadow Functions you have, which are the 4 cognitive functions not present at all for your type.  Eg., for me as an INFJ Se is my Inferior Function, which is in my type -- although harder to access -- but still there.  However these cognitive functions are in my shadow: Ne, Fi, Te, and Si.  

[Joseph Maynor]

@Yimpa  ESFP?

[Yimpa]

18 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Yimpa  ESFP?

Thank you for asking!

IRL I am an introvert, but online/on here I am extrovert. Perhaps I would have to take the test twice: one for how I am IRL and one for how I am online. 🤔