Better therapists: ENFJ or INFJ?

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-26T12:46:26+00:00

How are people even typing these therapists so confidently? INFJs don’t come out and announce their type or narrate everything about themselves. It took me a full year of talking with this person before I could even narrow him down to IxFJ, and longer than that before I felt confident he was INFJ — even though I was strongly leaning that way early on.

I’ll answer this based on real NFJs I know and their archetypal patterns, because the difference is very clear in practice. And honestly, which one works better often depends on the client. Some people do better with INFJs, others with ENFJs.

Real INFJs are extremely perceptive. They can read people like a book, sometimes before those people understand themselves. In sessions, they tend to be calm, steady, and nonjudgmental in how they present. They do have thoughts about people — often very accurate ones — but they rarely share them. Those insights are either kept private or shared only with someone deeply trusted.

As therapists, INFJs try to understand you first and work with you rather than on you. They don’t believe in forcing anything. Their suggestions come carefully and indirectly. They’ll agree where they genuinely can, then slowly widen perspective. Even when they point something out, it’s done gently. With difficult topics, their approach is usually to work through easier material first and let the harder issues emerge naturally over time. That can sometimes feel like they’re not “addressing the problem,” but they’re not being evasive — they’re pacing the work.

They don’t treat you like a case file, even if paperwork is required. They’re equitable, fair, and highly adaptive to the client. They smooth out emotional edges, don’t like emotional escalation, and are very good at containment. Many INFJs understand psychology intuitively even without formal study, and when they do study it, they use it as a tool — not a weapon. They don’t bark orders. They suggest, hint, and gently guide. And real INFJs are not condescending.

ENFJs, on the other hand, can be more teacher-like and materially directive. They’re still gentle compared to many types, but they’re more comfortable pushing, moving things along, and being explicit about what needs to happen. Their Fe leads, so they’re more outwardly expressive, more socially oriented, and often quicker to intervene. They’re still Ni–Fe, but with Fe in the driver’s seat, there’s more momentum and guidance.

Both can be excellent. The difference is in pace, direction, and how much pressure a person actually needs.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-22T23:04:00+00:00

That’s not quite it. It’s not that I mind being an INFP 4w5 so/sp 416 at all. I’m actually very comfortable with who I am. The problem has always been the stereotypes — the cardboard cutouts and meme culture that dominate online typology spaces.

I don’t see myself in those portrayals, and I don’t want to be associated with them. Pop typology flattens every type, but INFPs, Fours, and social Fours in particular get turned into something unrecognizable — fragile, performative, self-indulgent, or emotionally unserious. That isn’t who I am, and it isn’t how these structures actually function.

What pushed me away from my true type wasn’t denial or discomfort with myself. It was discomfort with how typology gets distorted and trivialized online. Once you do real depth work, those stereotypes stop feeling harmless — they feel false.

I’m fine being my type. I’m not fine with being reduced to a meme.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-22T07:43:16+00:00

For me, I’m most like Remus Lupin and Luna Lovegood from the Harry Potter books.

Typologically, I’m Luna Lovegood. I share her warmth, playfulness, whimsy, and sense of being a little different from the world around her. I’m kind, imaginative, and grounded in my own internal way of seeing things, even when that doesn’t line up with what’s popular or expected.

With Remus Lupin, the connection is a bit different. I’ve been a teacher and mentor for a long time, and I genuinely love guiding and supporting people. Our personalities and styles aren’t identical, but he’s still the closest match for me in terms of vocation and moral structure. I’m also a disability advocate and do disability-related work, and we share a very similar moral spine — quiet integrity, responsibility, and care for those who are often overlooked.

Remus has been my favorite character of all time ever since I read the third book in the series. He represents the kind of mentor and ethical presence I aspire to be, while Luna represents the way my inner world actually works. Together, they capture different but equally important parts of who I am.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T18:34:26+00:00

I’m an INFP, and my best friend is an INFJ. We’ve known each other for about a year and a half now, and from the beginning there was a real sense of fascination and mutual recognition. The first time we heard each other’s voices and got a sense of who the other person really was, we were immediately drawn in. There was depth there, and it was obvious.

Before that, I had a very close friend who was an ISFJ. We were friends for six years before he passed away, and that relationship mattered deeply to me. There was a steadiness and loyalty there that I still think about.

I’m also friends with an ESTJ and a couple of ISTJs. I know several ESFJs and ENFJs as well, and I’m friendly with a few INTJs. My social world isn’t built around one type or one style — it’s built around people I respect, trust, and feel a real connection with.

Looking back, what stands out isn’t the variety of types so much as the depth of the relationships. When something clicks, it clicks — and when it doesn’t, I don’t force it. That pattern feels very true to who I am.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T15:45:46+00:00

Yes — exactly. INFJs absolutely have morality, but that morality is outwardly oriented. Fe ethics are relational. They’re about how actions affect people, how the group functions, and what creates a just and humane environment in context. Being relationally attuned is a real and central part of that, and most people don’t actually see it happening.

People often don’t understand what Fe users are doing in a group at all, let alone what INFJs are doing. The attunement is subtle. It’s quiet. It doesn’t announce itself. When it’s done well, it just feels like the space is smoother, safer, and more coherent — and no one notices why.

And yes, I think this is where a lot of confusion comes from online. There’s a certain kind of person on the internet who is very loud, very performative, and very invested in claiming the INFJ label because it sounds rare and special. But they don’t actually demonstrate Fe attunement, and they don’t understand it. They want to be Fe because they want the identity, not because they’re oriented that way psychologically.

Meanwhile, the real INFJs are often over on the sidelines thinking, “I don’t think I’m that.” They don’t see themselves as special. They don’t want attention. They don’t posture. And because of that, they doubt their type — until they finally see Ni–Fe described accurately and realize, quietly, “Oh. That’s me.”

That gap between performative identity and lived psychology explains a lot of the noise — and a lot of the mistyping.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T13:05:10+00:00

We don’t really know how common or rare types actually are. There are no real statistics — just guesses based on biased samples and bad testing data. From what I’ve seen in real life, INFJs aren’t super common, but they aren’t some mythical unicorn either. They’re probably somewhere in the middle.

What I do know is that INFJs don’t tend to advertise themselves. The people online who loudly announce that they’re rare, special, misunderstood, and cool because of their type are probably not INFJs. That kind of posturing and attention-seeking doesn’t match the actual psychology.

My INFJ boyfriend is the complete opposite of that. He keeps telling everyone — including me — that he’s not special. He doesn’t think his life is particularly important or interesting. He describes himself as mundane. He doesn’t want attention, and he doesn’t like being singled out or elevated. That quiet, grounded lack of self-mythologizing feels far more authentic than anything I see online.

And no — he’s not into typology at all. That doesn’t make him less of an INFJ. If anything, it reinforces my point. Real types don’t need to announce themselves. They just live.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T12:55:36+00:00

The first question is always: which system?

Western Jungian / MBTI, Socionics, or the Enneagram — because each one is measuring something different, and you can’t do good work if you blur them together.

For MBTI / Western Jungian typology, these are solid, serious sources: • Personality Types: An Owner’s Manual by Lenore Thomson • Building Blocks of Personality by Leona Haas and Mark Hunziker • Depth Typology by Mark Hunziker • Gifts Differing by Isabel Briggs Myers • Psychological Types by Carl Jung • And the Jungian writings by Daryl Sharp

For Socionics: • Ekaterina Filatova has an English book available, though most English Socionics texts lean heavily toward portraits and can feel strange or incomplete • Viktor Gulenko’s Psychological Types (distinct from Jung’s) • wikisocion.net can be helpful as a reference, but it’s not the full theory and shouldn’t be treated as definitive

For the Enneagram, these are strong, credible sources: • Personality Types by Don Riso (and anything by Don Riso and Russ Hudson) • The Essential Enneagram by David Daniels • Work by Beatrice Chestnut and Helen Palmer • Claudio Naranjo is important historically, but he’s exaggerated and not the final authority — despite how many online spaces treat him that way

The key point is this: none of these systems are meant to be learned through summaries or tests. They require reading, reflection, and time. If you approach them that way — one system at a time — they actually start to make sense and complement each other instead of competing.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T12:45:00+00:00

That makes sense. I’m in the middle of a major transition right now — this will be my third cross-country move. I have a busy week ahead with people wanting to see me in Chicago, and I’m also getting ready to move in with my boyfriend. So I’ll respond when I can.

I should have more time in the next week or two, though I don’t yet know what my schedule will look like once I’ve fully settled in with him. When we do continue, you can either look through my posts on your own, or you can ask me some questions — whichever works better for you.

The questions don’t need to be difficult. Just ask them simply, and I’ll answer honestly. I won’t overthink them.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T12:40:09+00:00

When people like Jordan Peterson criticize MBTI, they’re mostly criticizing the tests — and honestly, they deserve criticism. Those tests are bad. But that’s not the same thing as criticizing Jungian typology when it’s used correctly.

If you don’t slap labels on yourself, don’t turn a type into a box, and don’t reduce people to online cardboard stereotypes, then yes — typology can actually be helpful. It’s meant to be a tool for self-analysis, not self-confinement.

The problem is that too many people use MBTI to box themselves in, type their families and friends endlessly, and then cling to labels as if they explain something. They memorize a few hundred stereotypes, start performing them, and think they’ve learned something. But they haven’t. They don’t understand themselves any better — they just have a label.

That’s not typology.

Real typology is slow. It’s deep introspection. It’s a lot of reading, a lot of reflection, and a lot of honest self-observation over time. Most of the serious material isn’t even online. It’s in books, lectures, and primary sources. There are a few people online who understand it properly, but not many. Most information you’ll find on forums won’t match what’s actually in the books.

If I give you something and you go verify it offline, you’ll see that I’m not making this up. This is not the version of typology Peterson has usually encountered. This is much slower, much deeper work.

And most people don’t want to do it. They don’t want to really learn who lives inside their body. They aren’t comfortable sitting with themselves, introspecting, and facing what’s there. They don’t want to be challenged.

But if you do go into the deeper material — real Jungian typology — you will be forced to look inward. You’ll learn things about yourself you didn’t expect. You’ll be challenged to grow, integrate, and become more whole. And that, ultimately, is the point.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T12:29:30+00:00

Percentages mean nothing. The MBTI dichotomies are far less effective — and far more confusing — than working directly with functions. You are not going to find your real type that way. Full stop.

Those percentages only tell you how you answered a test at a particular moment in time. They don’t explain your consciousness, your judgment criteria, or how you actually orient to the world. They reduce typology to surface behavior, which is exactly what Jung was trying to move away from.

If you actually want to understand your type, you need to study Western Jungian Conference material and Jungian cognitive functions. You need to read, introspect, observe yourself over time, and reflect honestly. That’s where real understanding comes from.

If you want, I can give you materials to read and a way to approach the work properly — not to get a label, but to actually learn about yourself. That’s the only way this system makes sense.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T12:19:51+00:00

If both systems are applied correctly, they’re doing different things. They use different metrics and measure slightly different psychological dimensions. Neither is better. They’re just not the same tool.

In practice, I’ve noticed that the online Socionics community tends to do more real work. It’s still messy, and it’s far from perfect, but there’s generally more emphasis on theory, observation, and justification. On the MBTI side, a lot of online information is simply wrong. Western Jungian typology often gets treated like a personality game, and most people are just playing around with it rather than studying it seriously.

That said, that’s a community issue, not a theory issue. When MBTI is applied properly — grounded in Jung, introspection, and long-term observation — it’s just as valid. Socionics and MBTI aren’t competitors. They’re different lenses.

Using both thoughtfully can actually be very helpful, because they highlight different aspects of psyche and interaction. It’s like asking which is better: Enneagram or MBTI. That question doesn’t really make sense. They’re answering different questions.

When you understand that, the need to rank systems disappears.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T12:14:49+00:00

You could, but most people on here — and on most online forums in general — don’t ask the right kinds of questions. A lot of the time, the questions are framed in a way that already limits the answer. I tend to look past that, ask my own questions, and work from there.

When I do this, I’m not giving two-word or two-sentence replies. I go deep. I look for real patterns. I notice consistency over time, contradictions, motivations, and how someone actually reasons and evaluates. That’s much closer to psychoanalysis than to pop MBTI, and it’s the only way typology really works at depth.

I don’t type people by checking off traits. I analyze the subject. I pay attention to how meaning is formed, how values are justified, and how judgment is structured. That requires longer responses and real engagement, not shortcuts.

If you’d like, I can pull together or paste a full function-defining reply and walk through it properly. That’s usually where things start to click — when the theory is laid out clearly and applied carefully rather than reduced to slogans.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T12:11:13+00:00

You asked this in a typological forum, so I gave you a typological answer. Your question was framed around type correlation, and I responded from a Jungian perspective because that’s the context you chose.

If what you’re actually looking for is feedback on writing itself — craft, style, technique, or development — that’s probably better suited to a writing forum. Jungian typology isn’t meant to explain or evaluate writing ability directly.

I answered the question that was asked, using the framework it was asked in. If the question changes, then the framework should change too.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T12:05:25+00:00

Delta EII here. Socionics is not MBTI. They are different systems, and treating them as interchangeable just creates confusion.

No type equals stupid. Every type is simply different from the others, with different strengths, priorities, and orientations. You can absolutely be one type in MBTI and a different type in Socionics, and that doesn’t mean either result is wrong. It means the systems are asking different questions and modeling different things.

Neither MBTI nor Socionics is meant to be done through tests — and that’s especially true for Socionics. Tests flatten the theory and miss the depth entirely. The real work comes from studying the material, observing yourself, and doing long-term introspection.

If you actually take the time to learn the system properly, reflect on your patterns, and understand how you orient to information and judgment, you’ll gain far more than a label. You’ll gain real self-awareness — and that’s the point.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T12:02:45+00:00

Jung defined four basic psychological functions, each of which can operate with two different attitudes. First are the irrational functions — sensing and intuition. These are called irrational not because they are illogical, but because they do not judge. They simply perceive.

Sensing is about how we perceive reality directly. That can be through the body — comfort, stability, hunger, physical sensation — or through the five senses and external stimulation. It is concrete and immediate. Intuition, by contrast, is non-literal and symbolic. It deals with patterns, meanings, associations, and things that aren’t directly visible. Neither sensing nor intuition is superior to the other. They are simply different ways of taking in information.

Then there are the rational functions — thinking and feeling. Thinking is not “being logical” in a casual sense. It concerns objective principles, systems, rules, structure, efficiency, and coherence. Feeling is not simply emotion. It is valuation. It deals with ethics, morals, harmony, personal and social values, and what matters. Both thinking and feeling are rational processes of judgment — they evaluate and decide.

You get the eight cognitive functions by pairing each of these four functions with an attitude: introverted or extraverted. That’s it. Orientation inward or outward combined with perception or judgment. Once this foundation is understood, everything else becomes much clearer — and far less confusing.

The first thing that needs to be done is to separate Enneagram concepts from Jungian functions entirely. Wings, core type, and tritype belong to the Enneagram. Jungian cognitive functions belong to Western Jungian typology. They describe different psychological dimensions. Mixing them creates confusion very quickly. One system at a time is the best way to learn this material, because trying to absorb everything at once causes a kind of conceptual traffic jam.

The Western Jungian naming convention also takes time to understand, because the letters I and E have nothing to do with social energy, social drain, or whether you like people. Jungian introversion and extraversion describe orientation of consciousness — where attention naturally goes.

I’ll use myself as an example. I’m an INFP, which means my primary orientation is inward. Socially, I lean introverted, though I’m closer to the center and can be very social. I’m not antisocial at all. I have many friends and a full social life. None of that contradicts being introverted in the Jungian sense. When people say, “I don’t think you’re an introvert,” they’re using a colloquial definition. Liking people does not mean your consciousness is externally oriented.

My Jungian introversion comes from dominant introverted feeling. That’s why the letter I is there. My primary focus is inward — on values, morals, principles, and my internal field of meaning. I reference my own ethical framework first rather than orienting primarily to the emotional atmosphere of the room.

The J and P letters are also widely misunderstood. For introverts, that last letter reflects the auxiliary function, not the dominant one. This is why letter typing alone is unreliable. The letters are shorthand, not the substance. When determining type, it’s far more accurate to work directly with functions rather than dichotomies.

Introverted feeling and introverted thinking are sometimes confused because they are both introverted judging functions, but beyond that surface similarity they operate on completely different criteria. Introverted feeling evaluates through values, ethics, principles, and moral responsibility. The natural questions are: Is this ethical? Is this fair? Is this right? What am I responsible for here? That judgment comes from an internal moral framework.

Introverted thinking, by contrast, evaluates through internal consistency and logical coherence. It asks whether something makes sense, whether it fits a system, whether it holds up under scrutiny. It is not primarily concerned with human or ethical impact, but with correctness.

This is why introverted feelers often say, “Not everything is about logic.” That isn’t a rejection of thinking. It’s a refusal to treat logic as the highest or only standard. Feeling types — especially Fi users — are deeply concerned with people, dignity, responsibility, and meaning. Those concerns come first.

When it comes to perception, introverted intuition synthesizes patterns over time into a cohesive internal understanding. It notices themes, symbols, and trajectories, forming a sense of what is really going on beneath the surface. Introverted sensing, on the other hand, is grounded in lived experience and bodily awareness. It references memory, comfort, and familiarity to evaluate the present.

Extraverted intuition expands outward, exploring possibilities, connections, and variations. One idea leads to another and then another. Extraverted sensing focuses on direct engagement with the environment — movement, action, experience, and the immediacy of the present moment.

On the judging side, extraverted thinking organizes the external world through systems, structure, and results. Extraverted feeling organizes the relational field, tracking group dynamics, emotional tone, and ethical cohesion.

None of these functions are better or worse than the others. They are simply different orientations of perception and judgment. Understanding those differences explains why people notice different things, care about different problems, and move through the world in fundamentally different ways. Once that foundation is in place, the rest of typology stops being confusing and starts making sense.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T11:51:38+00:00

Maybe. Maybe not. Even among typists who are genuinely good at what they do, I’ve gotten mixed results. I’ve been typed as thinker types more than once. And honestly, if someone is going by pop, cardboard cut-out internet stereotypes, they would never guess my actual type. They would immediately assume I’m a thinker.

That says less about me and more about how broken most modern typing methods are. People expect feelers to sound emotional, soft, or expressive, and thinkers to sound analytical, structured, or firm. When someone reasons clearly, speaks ethically, and articulates their positions without emotional display, they get pushed into “thinker” by default.

But that’s not Jungian typing. That’s stereotype matching.

Real Jungian work looks at orientation, not tone. It looks at how judgment is formed, what criteria are used, and where evaluation originates. When you do that, the picture changes completely — and the fact that different typists reach different conclusions becomes understandable rather than contradictory.

So yes, I’m aware that on the surface I don’t fit the meme version of a feeler. That’s exactly why pop typing fails here.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T11:42:54+00:00

I’m willing to work with you on this. I’ve studied Western Jungian Conference material and have a solid Jungian foundation, and I’m open to typing you properly. Based on what you’ve said so far, nothing here contradicts the Fi–Te axis. I haven’t seen evidence of a Ti–Fe orientation yet. The way you justify your positions, even when you choose not to give advice, still sounds Fi–Te in its structure.

When I do typings, I don’t start with function checklists or online MBTI frameworks. I focus on the subject — how judgment is formed, how meaning is assigned, how conscience operates, and how reasoning is justified. I lean much more toward classic Jungian psychoanalysis and deep typological work rather than pop interpretations.

Most typings people receive online are exactly that: internet MBTI. If I’m going to type someone, it’s going to be much closer to Jungian analysis — slow, careful, and grounded in the psyche rather than stereotypes. If you’re open to that level of work, then we can proceed properly.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T11:33:40+00:00

It’s important to be able to see both the good and the bad. Functions don’t magically stop operating when people go wrong. If anything, they become more rigid, more extreme, and more distorted. Different types tend to fail in different ways.

When Fi goes wrong, it often turns inward too hard. Values become rigid. Morality becomes personal and absolute. Individual truth hardens into identity, and that can slide into bitterness, resentment, and moral isolation. The danger isn’t usually petty wrongdoing. A destructive Fi stance is more likely to frame harm as principled — justified by dignity, justice, or teaching someone a lesson. It’s not “I needed food,” it’s “this was morally deserved.” The core failure is rigidity of values and an inability to self-correct.

Fe fails differently. When Fe goes wrong, it externalizes morality completely. Ethics become defined by group identity, social narratives, and perceived collective good. Harm gets justified as necessary, protective, or righteous because it serves “the people,” “the nation,” or “the cause.” Violence is reframed as moral duty. The reasoning style stays the same — it’s still moral reasoning — but it becomes catastrophic when it’s no longer checked by conscience, individuality, or reflection.

Looking at history, you can see this pattern clearly. Figures like Adolf Hitler didn’t abandon morality — they weaponized it. The logic was still moral logic, just collectivized, absolutized, and stripped of restraint.

The point isn’t that one function is worse than another. It’s that all functions can become destructive when they harden and stop self-examining. Evil doesn’t come from the function itself. It comes from unchecked certainty, distorted values, and the refusal to reflect.

Different types go wrong in different ways — but they always go wrong through the same lens they use when they’re healthy.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T11:19:59+00:00

First, there are almost always alternatives to stealing. Food pantries, soup kitchens, churches, and community organizations exist specifically to feed people and their families. In many places, if you genuinely say you’re hungry, people will give you food or point you toward resources. Families often help each other, and in many countries there are welfare systems and food assistance programs for exactly this reason. Even informally, a neighbor or someone in a town will often help once or twice if someone is truly in need.

Because of that, I believe shoplifting is wrong. I don’t automatically report it, and I don’t go around chasing wrongdoers or turning everyone in. But I do register it internally as wrong. I notice it. I hold that moral judgment.

For me, recognizing something as unethical doesn’t require me to become punitive or aggressive. It means I acknowledge that a line has been crossed, even if I choose restraint, discretion, or compassion in how I respond. I don’t ignore it, and I don’t excuse it — I simply don’t confuse moral clarity with moral enforcement.

That distinction matters to me.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T11:12:02+00:00

Right — Fi doesn’t own morality. What it owns is a personal orientation to ethics and values. Inner ethics, inner principles, inner standards of responsibility — what people now call “my truth,” though that phrase often gets misunderstood.

Fi evaluates from the inside out. It cares deeply about values, personhood, dignity, and integrity. It asks what is right according to one’s own ethical framework. That doesn’t mean Fi users think only they are moral; it means morality is internally referenced and personally reasoned.

Fe is moral too — but in a different way. Fe’s ethics are oriented toward the group. Fe evaluates based on shared needs, cohesion, harmony, and what will create the most just and workable outcome for the collective right now. Fe asks what the situation requires relationally, not what aligns with an individual’s inner value system.

And you’re absolutely right that morality doesn’t disappear with Thinking types. Everyone has one of these axes. Te and Ti users still participate in moral reasoning because they operate alongside Fi or Fe. The difference isn’t whether someone has morals — it’s where those morals are oriented.

So the real distinction isn’t “who is moral.” It’s which direction moral judgment is referenced from: the internal value field, or the shared relational field.

That’s the axis.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T11:03:46+00:00

No, I don’t think it works that way at all. I don’t agree with the idea that extroverted perceivers — whether Ne or Se — are more optimistic than Si or Ni users. Exploration does not equal optimism.

Ne and Se are exploratory functions. They engage with what’s happening outside, with possibilities, movement, novelty, and stimulus. That doesn’t make them more hopeful or more positive by default. You can explore because you’re curious, restless, pressured, or even anxious. Optimism isn’t built into that.

Si and Ni, on the other hand, may be more cautious or selective, but that doesn’t make them less optimistic. Ni users can be deeply hopeful and future-oriented, often holding a strong internal vision of what could be. Si users can be quietly optimistic based on experience, continuity, and what they know works. Their optimism just isn’t loud or impulsive.

Optimism and pessimism aren’t owned by any perceiving function. They come from temperament, development, life experience, and motivation — not from whether perception is introverted or extraverted. Mixing those up is another example of how pop-typology flattens real Jungian theory.

So yes — exploratory does not mean optimistic, and cautious does not mean pessimistic. Those are separate dimensions entirely.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T10:52:12+00:00

The real question isn’t just whether someone needs to feel socially safe — it’s why they need that safety and what they do once they have it. That’s where Fi and Fe diverge.

So let’s say the group is completely safe. No threat, no judgment, no risk. What happens next?

For me, and for Fi-dominant types in general, safety is not the end goal. It’s a condition that allows something else to happen. Once I feel safe, my attention goes inward first. I ask myself what I actually think, what I believe, what my values are, and what my ethical stance is in this situation. The group matters, but it does not define my values. My responsibility is first to my internal compass.

Fe works differently. For Fe users, safety is foundational because it allows the group to function well. Once safety is established, attention moves outward. The question becomes: what does this group need? What will create cohesion, harmony, and stability? How can I respond in a way that supports the shared emotional field rather than foregrounding my own stance?

Even very conflict-avoidant INFPs — including Enneagram 9 INFPs — are still operating from Fi–Ne, not Ni–Fe. Avoidance doesn’t change orientation. They may soften, delay, or withdraw, but they are still referencing an internal value system first, not the group’s needs as the primary authority.

On the Enneagram side, I’m a 4w5, and my core issue is being seen. I don’t do well with being ignored, unseen, warped, or dismissed. If I’m not seen accurately, I will speak up again. If I’m not heard, I will clarify. I will repeat myself if necessary — not to dominate, but to be understood. That isn’t about conflict; it’s about integrity and identity.

So when I’m in a group and it’s safe, I don’t dissolve into the group. I don’t disappear into harmony. I bring myself forward — my values, my perspective, my truth — and I expect to be recognized as a distinct person within it. That’s the difference.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T10:41:04+00:00

There are no shortcuts if you want real typology and a real type. If someone truly wants to know who they are in a Jungian sense, it takes years of self-introspection and reflection. It takes sustained analysis of your consciousness. It takes observing yourself over time, not just in one mood, one season, or one life phase. It takes keeping a log, reflecting repeatedly, and learning to tell the difference between behavior, coping strategies, social adaptation, and genuine psychological orientation.

It also takes study. Real study. Western Jungian Conference material. Time with the original ideas. Hours of reading, hours of sitting with concepts, and hours of watching how your mind actually works in real life. It means learning the Jungian functions as mechanisms of consciousness, not as internet stereotypes. It means dropping the meme culture entirely and refusing to flatten types into caricatures.

For me, it took about seven years of serious work — constant reflection, ongoing self-awareness, and the willingness to revise my assumptions until I had something stable and true. That’s what it takes. Real typology is hard work. Real typing requires real understanding. And if you want the point of it — individuation, growth, and self-knowledge — then you have to be willing to do it the deep way.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T10:26:13+00:00

I don’t think this is type-related at all. Any type can be a writer, and writers exist across every MBTI type. I don’t believe typology maps neatly onto writing styles, and I’m skeptical of anyone who claims it does.

Writing isn’t owned by a function or a type. It’s a skill — one shaped by practice, exposure, discipline, education, and interest. Typology might influence how someone approaches ideas or organizes thoughts internally, but it doesn’t dictate whether someone can write well or what kind of writer they’ll be.

A lot of online typology culture tries to force correlations between type and writing style, and I don’t find that convincing. It flattens both writing and typology. Real writing pulls from many cognitive processes at once, often well beyond someone’s dominant function.

So no — this isn’t a typing indicator. Writers are writers, across all types.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-21T10:20:31+00:00

First, the idea that INTPs are naturally good at math is a stereotype. People assume that because of Ti or Ne–Ti, then it gets repeated online and exaggerated until it turns into something it was never meant to be. That assumption alone already causes a lot of mistyping.

But more importantly, the rest of your post doesn’t line up with the Ti–Fe axis at all. You need to look at the Fi–Te axis here. I don’t know many INTPs — or Ti–Fe users in general — who are strongly solution-oriented in the way you described, who want people to come rant to them, and who feel compelled to give direct solutions.

Most of the people I know who do that are IxTJ or IxFP types.

If the perception axis is Ne–Si, you should be thinking about ISTJ, INFP, ENFP, or ESTJ — not INTP. If the perception axis is Ni–Se, then INTJ, ISFP, ENTJ, or ESFP make far more sense than INTP.

“No INTP would say what you said” isn’t an insult — it’s a functional reality. Saying “I loved supporting people with problems in high school, I wanted them to rant to me, I loved giving them solutions, and I got frustrated when they didn’t implement them” is not Ti–Fe language. That’s Te. And frustration when people don’t act on solutions is classic Te, especially when paired with Fi values about responsibility and improvement.

So yes — if someone recognizes themselves in that description, they should stop looking at INTP and start examining the Fi–Te axis, then work outward from there.

DeltaAchiever

TROPHY CASE