inferior Se

INFJ, 9w1, 952, so/sp

Y’all- chill on the instinctual variants for fucks sake. Fe is the group consensual function and I will break down exactly why.

Fe is an extroverted function, meaning it works based off of objective absolutes in the outside world. As a feeling function, however, its focus is on morality, ethics, and the emotional perspective. All together, that means that Fe takes universal truths about the outside world of ethics and emotion and applies them to its decision making. It’s the Feeling version of how Te works; see a fact (this approach earns more points or takes less time), makes the simplest assumption (that this approach is the right approach to use in the majority of cases), and then applies that simple rule that they just made (this approach is good, ergo if I use it I will reach my goal a greater percentage of the time). Te and Fe create simple rules based on outside data.

How this works in an emotional playing field where points and earnings and time aren’t clearly displayed is by listening to multiple perspectives to get feedback. This person tells me this is good, this person looks sad, this person lost excitement after we took this course of action. The Fe user then formulated their simple rule based on that. Normally this rule is something along the lines of “this is the nicest course of action” or “this is the most socially responsible course of action that appeals to the most people.”

This is why Fe is stereotyped as harmonious, because it takes the value of the broadest group present and makes decisions according to that value in order to appeal to the biggest group of people possible. If you have two people who don’t like one thing and eight people who do like that thing, and you’re picking between the two things to do, the Fe user will pick the one with numbers backing it, even if they’re part of the two. (Some exceptions apply, but as a rule this is true 95% of the time.)

Fe is necessarily consensual. Other people or at least some broad social rule need to agree to its actions for those actions to have moral validity in the Fe users mind. Not having group consensus means not having that outside objective emotion.

Of course there are exceptions, such as when a broad social rule is broken for the well being of a smaller group by agreement of the smaller group or vice versa, but that’s still taking an outside emotional value and using it as the basis for decision making and that’s still group consensus, just it’s one group against another group.

Soc, on the other hand, is not a decision making process, it’s an instinct, and instincts are goals. Soc wants acclaim and belonging. It doesn’t determine how it gets to that point. So a Te using 3 might get there by earning people’s respect through skill, an Se using 8 might get there by protecting people inside a circle they want in on, and an Fe user might make their Fe decisions based on the values of that particular group. The two have lots of crossover, but the group consensus is down to Fe.

An additional point I’d like to make is that the two almost always go together! Most social blind FJs are unhealthy and a mess and confused! Because it makes sense to make decisions on common values in order to gain belonging! So there’s some crossover between the two, like a Te soc user telling two people fighting to cut it out because it’s annoying everyone else (a seemingly Fe decision) but a soc-blind Fe user would almost be more likely to take the same action cause they care about consensus but not their reputation. You see this kind of strong correlation feeding into the same behavior with a lot of type crossovers, but you don’t see anyone going at descriptions of 8s hiding their weakness and saying “oh that’s just sp”

Ultra-simplified?

sp/so: I self-care, then network.

so/sp: I network, then self-care.

sp/sx: I self-care, then pursue intensity.

sx/sp: I pursue intensity, then self-care.

so/sx: I network, then pursue intensity.

sx/so: I pursue intensity, then network.

Sx-blind: I’d never throw away self-care / networking for intensity.

Sp-blind: I’d never throw away networking or intensity for self-care.

So-blind: I’d never throw away self-care or intensity for networking.

Sp: I want to make sure I have enough for myself.

So: I know my place in the community and like to give back to the world.

Sx: I am a moth drawn to a flame and don’t care if I get burned.

that me running from responsibilities  hello hello! had a really hard time deciding whether i should make this blog or not but here i am. with a new blog. for the sake of avatar (mostly sdjbf) SO YEAH. now to do this, please LIKE / REBLOG if:

you reblog atla & tlok content

you also reblog text posts, aes, photography

you have a tagging system / at least tag posts

i’ll check out all blogs that reblog or like this post but i can’t promise i’ll be following back everyone :( a few BONUSES:

you do your own graphics

we like similar things (such as memes, characters & otps)

you already follow me

Basically means you have one of your basic needs denied by your other basic need. Both your instincts work against each other and end up driving people away. It happens to all of them, but for different reasons.

-SP/sx is the most purposedly “driven away from people”, because we’re just basically too concerned with surviving, and connections happen to be a hassle. We do secretely covet SX, and it often translates to not having the strength to tell people “please don’t leave me”, and instead just telling ourselves “lmao why bother anyways”. That’s why we’re more often than not lonely and bitter.

-SX/so is basically trying to constantly fulfill their SX needs, but having no SP like SX/sp, they just try to constantly try to bond with anyone they encounter. They wish they had so many friends, but their constant need for deep interactions just frustrate people, because they have no filter, and people end up either telling them to fuck off, or taking advantage of them, so they end up driving themselves away to try to prevent that.

Only you can know your true type, Anon! (Maybe look into the cognitive functions and see if you discover any insights.) 

Same thing.

Did you prematurely judge that before experiencing it? Fi-dom.

Did you leap into experiencing it before you stopped to consult your inner self? Se-dom.

There is so much contradictory information out there that I was confused for awhile, but I came to determine sp/so based on descriptions of 6 subtypes.

I had to look at “what I am actually LIKE” far more than what I “THINK I AM LIKE.” As in, think back to my life and see if I could pinpoint any examples of my behavior that fell in line with the so and sp 6 descriptions.

I am way more this:

Sp 6: Passion of fear manifests as insecurity, fear of not being protected.

Escape anxiety through seeking security and protection, and become dependent on others, not trusting themselves enough. Feel alone and incapable without outside support. (I hate to admit this, but I have a huge sense of anxiety whenever I think about inheriting my parents’ business and all their responsibilities. I have this deeply-rooted fear of “I cannot do this” … even though I am capable, reliable, frugal, and smart. All of those things flit from my mind and I feel like I need other people helping me. Last week, I had an actual meltdown where I became almost catatonic because I had spent too much time thinking one day that there’s no way I can live up to my super-extroverted, confident father’s ease of business sense. I had to talk my way through it, and accept that I am far different, and think about how to achieve the same results but in a way that suits my more introverted and withdrawn, even shy, personality.)

Perceive the world as dangerous, and seek alliances. Endeavor to be friendly, trustworthy and supportive as allies are supposed to be. Taboo on aggression that results from the needs of dependency weakens them in the face of aggression, and contributes to their insecurity and need for external support. (I cannot think of a single instance in my entire life when I ever showed aggression in anything, even the times when it would have been beneficial for me to do so, but I can think of countless examples where other people verbally attacked me for some reason and I just stood there dumbfounded and unable to produce any kind of visceral rage with which to hit them back. I just listened, then, as a teen, went home and cried; now, I go home and withdraw from everyone.)

Want to feel the warm embrace of a family, in a protected place with no enemies. (I cannot stress enough how much this looks like 9 – I am exactly like my 9 friends in our need for a harmonious relationship; I cannot be around people who are angry, who stir up constant trouble, or seem to dislike me; and in the instances in which I am confronted by dislike or strong opinions, my literal first thought is “I want to go home, to the people who ‘get’ me and agree with me” because I feel safe there.)

Driving need is for friendship or warmth. Being warm is a way of getting people to be friendly and not angry. Warmest of the 6s. (Yep. A thousand times yep.)

Cannot let out their own aggression, and want to be good, ie. not angry. (This has baffled me for as long as I can remember. My anger flares up and then… dissipates in a very short amount of time. I never hold grudges. I never tell people off, unless I am very close to them, and even then I’m not mad for more than a few minutes. ONE TIME I lost my temper in front of two people, and I instantly felt bad about it. I have gone through some crap in my life, and never lost my temper; if I get mad, I start berating myself for BEING angry!!)

A lot of hesitation, indecision and uncertainty. Too much tolerance for ambiguity, don’t want to decide between ‘black and white’ because they see a lot of grey, can have a difficult time making decisions. Ask many questions but don’t answer any. (Sadly. Yes.)

Than this:

So 6: “Duty” - concerned with what their duty is, knowing the rules, the points of reference, the guidelines, the “good guys and bad guys”. 

Represents a mixture of the phobic and counter-phobic expressions.

Cool, cold, precise (archetypically German/Prussian character).

Stronger, due to certainty. Becomes too sure in defense from insecurity. Can become a true believer or fanatic, who holds tightly to ideologies, lacking trust to oneself and trust to others. (I do lack self-trust, but I also have it – in MBTI, for example, I am always seeking to learn more, and sometimes doubt I have typed a character accurately; in those instances I will ask someone whose opinion I trust if my reasoning is sound. I “consult” with others to get their opinions and like a consensus.)

Deal with anxiety by relying on abstract reason or ideology as an impersonal frame of reference. Make sure of things through an obsessive reliance on reason and precision. (I feel safe if I use a “rational” approach which I guess fits into this category?)

Love of precision and intolerance of ambiguity. See things more in terms of ‘black and white’ than gray. (If I put this into the context of my faith, then yes, I am more a person who says, “If you want to identify as X, you should live according to the principles defined by X.” Just as an example, Christianity teaches unconditional forgiveness, so if I see someone professing to be a Christian who is also hanging on to bitterness and refusing to forgive others, I would feel tempted to point that out to them, because they are not living according to the principles they “claim” to possess. I rarely do it, however, because it’s too combative and I’m not comfortable with initiating conflict on that level. I am more inclined to disapprove from a distance and keep my mouth shut unless asked for advice on that issue. :P)

Fear disapproval from the authorities. “The Obedient 6”. Think that the way to be safe is to do the right thing, and the way to know the right thing is to have clear rules. (Mostly, I think this way in terms of my faith; I am less this way about rules in an organization or a group, and I would never impose those rules on anyone – I would fail at being the person in charge of a “home covenants” group where everyone had to keep their house up to a certain standard and abide by the rules, since I think forcing rules upon people sucks.)

Concerned with efficiency, have a legalistic character. (Um. Yes? Kind of? I don’t like to think of myself this way, but I have been called cold before.)

Can look like: 1 or 3.

Source.

Lots of sp, some soc but not enormously.

Many ENFPs seem to be sp-blind and/or have weak sp, which is why I don’t resemble most of them – I have no problem taking tons of “alone time” to work on my various projects rather than socialize, I have always saved money with the notion that I might need it later for my long-term survival, I am aware of my physical needs and make sure to cater to them with regular mealtimes and sleeping schedules. I am very good with money and always have been frugal.

I do value soc but am hesitant to use it as a resource, and it’s hard for me to socialize or approach strangers to get to know them. I am an initiator with those I already know or have been introduced to, but more of a loner. Soc-doms tend to be more extroverted because they want to connect with you – I am never sure if I want to or not until I get to know you. I have to mentally prepare myself to go out and be with a group of people, and feel quickly drained by them and their chatter. When I first moved away from home, I really wanted to meet people and make friends but did not have the first clue as to “how.” I tried out a couple of groups where I soon discovered it was hard for me to approach people or initiate conversations. I do not project the soc-first “I am friendly, come and talk to me” aura. In one group, I realized my beliefs did not match up with theirs, so I walked away. I didn’t argue with them about it, I just knew there was no point and I’d rather be alone than in a group that seemed to agree with each other, but that I could not agree with myself. I figured, “Well, my loved ones agree with me, so they will have to do.”

I have an iffy relationship with the rules, also. When I was much younger, I had more strict views about behaviors and felt threatened when others disagreed with them – but as an adult, I am open to nuanced thinking and fall into being comfortable with uncertainty. I have super strong opinions, but rarely impose them on other people. I’m more able to be friends with people I disagree with now than when I was young – so fear of disagreement is something all 6s have to work through.

Probably my biggest clue about being sp/so came from my experiences in dating. Anytime the relationship appeared to grow more intrusive or serious, I would run away from it – it was threatening my sense of sp, and I lacked the soc-dom’s “social grace” of making a delicate break. I feel bad about that, but I think it’s a problem with sp-doms. They long to connect in a deep, meaningful way, but the minute anyone feels too “intruding” upon their time or resources or independence, they back away.

synflow means that by following your instincts, you ensure evolution and growth. sx/sp is fundamentally human, involved rather than detached from its own humanity. being so-blind means sx/sp ignores/despises the collective and even hates “most people” on a group level, but on an individual level, it’s respectful of others’ fundamental humanity. its instincts work together to ensure that sx/sp finds what it seeks: meaning, continual evolution of self, and the discovery of a meaningful other. 

unlike sp/sx, sx/sp, when left to its own devices, will ultimately find these things. life and humanity are not a contradiction, and existence is something natural rather than an enigma. it isn’t about pushing people away or connecting to them, more that these things are a symptom of a larger issue - contraflow pushes others away because their instincts ultimately result in that effect, despite desiring to connect. synflow works naturally with its own instincts and will continue to grow in a healthy direction, given time.

a good illustration I’ve seen is this series of statements (credit to @hfc2x for this clearer version of a different post)

SO/sx: I want to have everyone, but I hope I find The One 

SO/sp: I want to have everyone, but I wish I was alone 

SP/so: I want to be alone, but I don’t mind having everyone 

SP/sx: I want to be alone, but I wish I had The One 

SX/sp: I wish I had The One, but I don’t mind being alone 

SX/so: I wish I had The One, but I wish I had everyone

the contradictory statements are contraflow, the ones that seem reasonable/healthy are synflow (bolded = contraflow; italicized = synflow, if anyone is having trouble).

XXFJ’s: sunshine, laughter, social functions, concerts, helicopter mothers, emotional manipulation,,, pinterest

XXTP’s: beep bop boop emotional unavailability

9: THE PEACEMAKER

I feel like having a detailed picture of your future is very Si, rather than Ni? I don’t really understand why Ni is associated with having a clear vision of their future, which is usually a grand vision. Like Ni is “future-oriented” and Si is “past-oriented”, but I wanna know why?  

One of the largest differences between Si and Ni that I see/experience is that though they both use past experience to make decisions, Si users are much more articulate about it. The data they have is much more conscious and easily accessible. They can bring up specific situations that people can remember as evidence for making their decisions.

Compared to high Ni users, where it’s mostly subconscious, it comes out more “vibey” and encourages instinctual gut decisions. When asked to explain their reasoning Ni users struggle more to articulate specifically why they made the decisions they did. Not because they don’t have good reasoning but that information just isn’t as easily accessible (maybe partly related to the nature of N vs S?) The way they store the past experiences is more by the N meaning behind what was happening, more than the specific details of the situation.