Can you help? Am I ENFp or INFp?

[VenusRose]

the 'vagueness' seems characteristically Ne. I know you wanted to not reveal too much as well, but I feel like for instance Se types would be less comfortable being that vague while talking about something. They seem to try to almost force something to be either black or white, not grey. In my eyes, at least.

Anyways, I am kind of bad at distinguishing Ne or Si but I can tell when they are in general, valued. Si because it's lower dimensional for me. Ne because that's just what I do as well so how do I tell the difference. With Si types you kind of start slightly merging and the Si-Ne is hard to separate. Hence why it becomes hard for me to separate in practice as well, haha...

EIIs have 2D Si...what do you think of EII as compared to IEE?

This is kind of what I was referring to with regards to Ne:

The individual is skilled at generating intellectual interest and curiosity in others and using others' curiosity to get them to do things. He easily sees parallels between different situations, areas of knowledge or skill, and people, and likes to establish contacts across different fields of knowledge and social groups, which allows him to be part of many things at once. He enjoys considering differing viewpoints and perspectives and seeing if they can be reconciled. He enjoys the beginning stages of just about anything - new projects, acquiring new skills, experiencing new people and relationships. Preparing for and launching something new is seen as having greater value than the process of experiencing what one already has and finishing what one has begun. The concept of "finishing" seems foreign to him. Instead of taking care to finish things and tie up all loose ends, he tends to drop things when he can't handle them any longer or realize that he has neglected them for too long (this might be equally related to suggestive introverted sensing).

[ToTheMoon]

[QUOTE]

the 'vagueness' seems characteristically Ne. I know you wanted to not reveal too much as well, but I feel like for instance Se types would be less comfortable being that vague while talking about something. They seem to try to almost force something to be either black or white, not grey. In my eyes, at least.

My vagueness, I think, often stems from my childish tendency to think that others can easily read me and already know what's in my head, or actually in my heart because I only have this tendency about my feelings (I can easily explain things when it comes to knowledge and don't experience any stress about it if my knowledge is well based). I feel that I have everything written on my face so people know anyway. If they already know, then to explain too much would be excessive and even more embarrassing. It's very awkward for me. Some part of me thinks I'm way more expressive than I really am, and being expressive about my feelings is ungggghhhhh let's just not. Just got an illumination here. Is my PoLR Fe? That would point to ISTp and INTp. Interesting. And not entirely impossible, really, if I think about it from the perspective of: the more I know, the better and more confident I feel but the more I feel, the more confused, afraid and overwhelmed I am (illumination here being mostly this: I have so many feelings all the time but I actually don't feel good with them most of that time!), and always turning to thinking/analyzing to cope.

Anyways, I am kind of bad at distinguishing Ne or Si but I can tell when they are in general, valued. Si because it's lower dimensional for me. Ne because that's just what I do as well so how do I tell the difference. With Si types you kind of start slightly merging and the Si-Ne is hard to separate. Hence why it becomes hard for me to separate in practice as well, haha...

Those dimensions you speak of are beyond my comprehension for the time being . I need more time to learn about this.

EIIs have 2D Si...what do you think of EII as compared to IEE?

I'll take your question from a specific angle. The beef I have with EII is that it has Ni as Demonstrative function and I can't ever see myself not valuing and ridiculing Ni.

[VenusRose]

[QUOTE=ToTheMoon;1315991]

My vagueness, I think, often stems from my childish tendency to think that others can easily read me and already know what's in my head, or actually in my heart because I only have this tendency about my feelings (I can easily explain things when it comes to knowledge and don't experience any stress about it if my knowledge is well based). I feel that I have everything written on my face so people know anyway. If they already know, then to explain too much would be excessive and even more embarrassing. It's very awkward for me. Some part of me thinks I'm way more expressive than I really am, and being expressive about my feelings is ungggghhhhh let's just not.

Oh, I understand. It's not that I don't. I was coming at it from Se-Ni perspective and they might find it "vague"; I find it perfectly comfortable and understandable.

I think I do ridicule Fe more than I do Ni
It's interesting to think about (demonstrative vs. ignoring).

I think you may be F>T based on my impressions.

[ToTheMoon]

[QUOTE=VenusRose;1315998]

Oh, I understand. It's not that I don't. I was coming at it from Se-Ni perspective and they might find it "vague"; I find it perfectly comfortable and understandable.

Ah, okay.

I think I do ridicule Fe more than I do Ni
It's interesting to think about (demonstrative vs. ignoring).

I ridicule Fe too because I feel I've mastered it enough to be able to see when it's overdone and I don't like it overdone.
I don't think I've ever ridiculed Ni. I mean, I don't even ridicule TV fortune tellers because, you know, they actually might know something others don't. True story.

I think you may be F>T based on my impressions.

Hmm, okay, I'm not sure exactly how dynamic socionics is but I was wondering a thing. If a person is focused on developing their lower function and brings it into consciousness, that surely has to translate to the way they appear to others. On the other hand, it doesn't mean the integrated lower function will ever feel as natural and comfortable to the person as their top function(s).

Side note: how do we actually judge our own function stacking and development? We need to use a function to do that so which one is it?
Let's say it's Fi and we ping our emotional register to see how we feel about something (since many descriptions of functions focus on how a function feels to the user if it is in a respective position). The way I understand it, our Basic function is supposed to feel the most natural and comfortable for us to use. The Creative function may feel a bit uncomfortable but as we age and grow, it gets integrated with the basic function and I would presume it doesn't cause much trouble --or definitely not as much trouble as the Vulnerable function would.

I've never had troubles with my T - I may be messy or bad at maths but it doesn't feel like a problem for me. If someone criticizes my knowledge or points out inconsistencies, I can usually take it pretty well and I'd rather learn more than assume I'm stupid and unable to improve. I accumulate knowledge easily in areas that interest me, I quickly become the 'expert' when I get into something. I can also easily convey that knowledge to others, without feeling any stress.

On the other hand, I've been a very socially inept child and was constantly bullied for this and ignored by my peers and it felt like living hell. When I was about 15, I started to really work on this aspect of myself because I knew that otherwise I'd be alone forever and it felt terrifying (still does). I found a group of (solely male) nerdy friends that I was able to connect with through my strong T. I continued and still continue working on my F through all my life and I'm now objectively pretty good at it but I still don't feel confident about it. I still don't know how to behave in new situations, I'm awkward meeting new people, I am bad at expressing my feelings, I'm rarely calm when I experience feelings. I react like a child and feel hurt and like I can't ever get good at this when someone criticizes my F-related inadequacies. I'm developed enough to know where I'm inadequate and that's where I apply myself to improve my state. But it's still a lot of very hard work.

I've never had to work on T-related stuff this much. It just came in and if I found I wasn't good at some part of it, it didn't matter much because I knew I was good at other parts and that would be enough.

To sum it up, I don't think that lead-F means you appear emotional and lead-T means you don't. I think it's the way you handle these emotions and how you orientate around your feelings that's informative of your functions. I'd say it's logical to assume that someone who's comfortable with their F (inducing F top functions) would appear calm and collected while those who aren't as comfortable with it would appear, well... less that. That is assuming the situation called for F-related expertise vs T-related expertise. I guess if it were the other way round, then the T-comfortable person would appear calm and collected and the F-comfortable person could appear less so.

Again, I'm not sure how dynamic this theory is but if I spent about 20 years of my life developing my inadequate F, I would think I would aready have it visible in the way I behave. Would it be possible that this is what you're picking up on?