Can you help? Am I ENFp or INFp?

[Sol]

Now I can identify some things from time to time. Exciting.

I was sceptical to Socionics until the moment of understanding of own type and seeing that the theory describes good my experience. It was exciting to get new knowledge. And partly disappointing as people appeared to be limited and affected by types.
It's very hard to feel good in close relations with bad IR people, for example. We often do not choose with who to deal - on jobs, among relatives, etc. So we are limited in the use and comfort in relations with them. We may get romantic attraction and even marry people in bad IR or not good IR with them. I got feelings to a conflictor girl some before reading about Socionics. Meanwhile other accidental people become very meaningful for us - but it's a chance which you may do not get. I had a luck of geting a semi-duality girl in my school class - I had feelings to her and mb that was mutual. And had the experience of what to loose the one with good IR, which one has become emotionally important for you - you get a many monthes depression and later establish psyche state below of what was with the external inspiration.
For the most people here Socionics has lesser personal meaning. They had no IR effects so meaningful in their life on practice. Besides higher interest, the situation allowed me to understand the types better too. Then I developed in this understanding for many years and tried to share by this understanding with others. Find issues and obstacles which prevent people from correct types and typing. Find better methods. I see Socionics as the way to improve peoples lives and to help make lesser mistakes, as I know the difference.

Some time after own typing I had a talk with a Jung's follower. My position was similar to MBT one - that types allow people to use their strong traits. While my opponent accented on that types are bad, psyche's distortions. I thought about the said, recalled what was written by Jung in "Psychology types". And either met or recalled the statistic of the expression of dichotomies among people - that more of people have dichotomies near equal state, but not tend having them at any other position alike 60-70% what some typology authors supposed. And I've accepted the point of my opponent.
Sure it's reasonably to use more the most developed traits. But a type is _also_ a distortion leading to psyche issues, while weak functions operate below social norms. Hence a duality is not only a way to find easier for you people, but also a way to improve in you what is weak and mb to reduce the functional imbalance. It's the point where Jung and Socionics approaches unite.

The task is to unite it better, - to use the duality effects deeper and wider. Before Socionics I read a book from Internet (the real printing was 300 pcs only) about love by Dobroslavovich/Altynov. He described this feeling and relations idealisticly, but I've got a trust - as felt he described the real experience and impressions in it. And that was wonderful experience which people may to have. He thought it needs to find a special, only your woman to get the needed feeling. I thought this feeling or state is mb possibly to create (or to enforce the existing) with anyone. That conflictor girl - I had feelings to her to that moment already and now I knew what feelings should to be. I have an esoterical inclination, it's inborn - from the ancestors and this just enters in your life - you may use it or to reject, develop or leave as is - it just lives with you. The part of this inclination is the abbility to operate by your imagination and psyche in trance states, what allow to do some things (alike telepathy). This mb used to influence on own psyche and mb psyche of other people by alike hypnosis techniques. I had a girl and a task - and I did it. The feeling alike I read about. The problem was in the girl - hard for me psyche to unite with, hard to establish good relations - it all looked too hard, strange negative components in the state, not the best relation to me from her (it could be fixed by efforts) - I expected some other. So I've decided to leave her as there was no mutual feeling compared of mine to her and that was against what should to be as I thought in that time. I've stalked with new problem - types and their limitations. This leaded me to Socionics which explained the situation and shaw a solution - the people which are much easier and potentionally more productive to deal with. I knew such people exist - the other semiduality girl, she influenced differently on me; I knew other good IR people in my life and noticed the similar.
As the way to improve weak regions of people and reduce type's expression mb the duality and love relations. Duals have as strong the regions weak in you. Meanwhile the psyche of duals (and good IR people) is easier to unite with, they are easier to love. Love state enforces the mutual influence between peoples' psyche. This is mb my addition to typology approach, - the explaining of what love state is and how to make it stronger. The aim from Jung, the duality from Augustinavichiute, and I've found the possible way to unite them.

[ToTheMoon]

...

Thank you for sharing your experiences with me. I appreciate your openness. I think I we see these things similarly to some extent, and then we don't. I like the dynamic take on psyche and the belief that it can grow and develop, and that we can work on our weaknesses as well as our strengths. I also believe that there's really nothing wrong with having a weakness and not making effort to work on it, if one doesn't want to. That said, I would rather concentrate on developing my psyche on my own, while trying to ensure beneficial environment for me as a person and acknowledging that the environment matters a lot too.

I also can't help but wonder what you mean by love. My personal take is very simple and grounded in reality --it's just enjoying a relation with another person on a (hopefully semi-) daily basis. Sure, as I grow older, I hope I choose my partners more consciously and for the good feelings they bring me rather than for other criteria that I used to base my decisions upon. But it's not in my nature anymore to try and find a balance for my own issues in another person. Not that I would see it as wrong for somebody else. I just don't see it a correct for me. I hope to be a self-sufficient person who's responsible for themselves and rooted in themselves, and okay with all areas of themselves, weaknesses included --and I hope to find another person who is like that as well. Then we can decide to meet in the middle when we want to and choose to. That act of continuous choosing of one person is love for me. So here's where our views diverge, as I understand it. Which is good. Always glad to read another point of view.

[Sol]

I also believe that there's really nothing wrong with having a weakness

Having weak functions, a weakness leads to lesser usefulness and higher harm, to lesser efficiency. So it's evidently better to have all functions on strong level - for you and other people. The other problems of a type are: inner conflict (neurotisation) and bad IR issues.

> That said, I would rather concentrate on developing my psyche on my own, while trying to ensure beneficial environment for me as a person and acknowledging that the environment matters a lot too.

Jung's type point on one of ways of psyche improving for your use and for other people. To do it purely "on your own" means to ignore all existing knowledge, what is doubtful to be good approach. To develop in weak functions regions is doubtful without a dual which is strong there, you need an expert to help and teach you. In particular skills - mb without a duality, but not to develop a whole function.

> I also can't help but wonder what you mean by love. My personal take is very simple and grounded in reality

My understanding of love is not hard and real too. There is no other love, besides united state and collectivism.
You said about to be open - this means no borders and hence two people unite into each other. You partly described by other words the same. If you'll add to this other sense - you'll get inner contradiction in your understanding.
Individualism and love are incompatible. Individualism is egocentrism, - separating from others, it's hate but not love. In love you loose and disolve your individuality in the united state with other, where for you the interests of other one mean not lesser than your own, unconditional acceptance of other one.
There is no other love.

You need a similar experience to understand. It's a pleasant state.
The example of an attitude to break the borders between 2 people in a pair I've described there. You may think about this as a self-hypnotic technique, but this does more - tunes unconscious links between people too. This may make stronger a feeling which already exist, at least. Do not use in case you have doubts in long and good relations with other one. It's more for marriages, where you take the duty to love, to care, to make other one happy.

[ToTheMoon]

Having weak functions, a weakness leads to lesser usefulness and higher harm, to lesser efficiency. So it's evidently better to have all functions on strong level - for you and other people. The other problems of a type are: inner conflict (neurotisation) and bad IR issues.

I don't think being efficient is a prime priority to me, either in relations with others, or to myself. It's okay to be relaxed and let go and not make an effort and to be lax with myself where I don't feel very confident. When I'm pressing myself in areas where I'm not confident, I become even more inefficient. I have no issue with being myself, weaknesses and all. I have no problem accepting my innate imperfection. Doesn't mean I can't or don't want to develop myself. I just know my boundaries and limits. That's a very liberating thing to know.

> That said, I would rather concentrate on developing my psyche on my own, while trying to ensure beneficial environment for me as a person and acknowledging that the environment matters a lot too.

Jung's type point on one of ways of psyche improving for your use and for other people. To do it purely "on your own" means to ignore all existing knowledge, what is doubtful to be good approach.

Like I said, I want to focus on myself while acknowledging what is happening around me. Please don't twist my words.

> I also can't help but wonder what you mean by love. My personal take is very simple and grounded in reality

My understanding of love is not hard and real too. There is no other love, besides united state and collectivism.
You said about to be open - this means no borders and hence two people unite into each other. You partly described by other words the same. If you'll add to this other sense - you'll get inner contradiction in your understanding.
Individualism and love are incompatible. Individualism is egocentrism, - separating from others, it's hate but not love. In love you loose and disolve your individuality in the united state with other, where for the interests of other mean not lesser than your own.
There is no other love.

Okay, that is your opinion and I respect it. Mine is different and it stems from my personal experience in the world. When I was talking about being open with others, I didn't mean having no borders to self. I meant being accepting and curious about what others have to express as their own, unique and separate beings. I can respect the other and see their interests as as important and valuable as my own without losing myself in another person. Unity with others and collusion (sorry, there's no English version of this article but you can use google translate) is a very toxic thing for me to be in, and I have learned through my therapy that I lose myself completely when I strive to unite that way with others, which comes very easy to me, unfortunately. This is all part of my personal history into which I will not delve on a public forum and with a stranger.

I have no need to quarrell with you so I will just leave it here and I would appreciate it if you would not try to discuss this more. It unsettles me and draws attention away from the aim of this topic which is searching for my socionics type. Thank you.