#16 types

1. Fe Dominant — ENFJ / ESFJ

“Sandraaa, I need a tiny favor…”

Fe-doms generally don't have the psychological barrier that makes asking feel humiliating. They can simply approach someone and say they need something. But that doesn't mean they are low-pride or submissive. Quite the opposite. Their pride is often expressed through their ability to control the interpersonal atmosphere.

“Sandraaa, I need a tiny favor. Can you spot me $10? I’ll get you back tomorrow, promise.”

The “Sandraaa” matters. The request isn't dropped into the conversation coldly. The social atmosphere gets established first.

Fe-doms are often expressive like Fe-child, but smooth like Fe-parent. They can exaggerate, joke, dramatize, tease, use warmth, soften their voice, or make a little self-deprecating joke while simultaneously ensuring that the other person doesn't feel cornered.

“Okay, don't laugh, but I'm short ten bucks. Can you save my ass this once?”

That's classic Fe damage-buffering. The person has already acknowledged the potentially embarrassing aspect and neutralized it through humor.

The pride doesn't disappear. Rather, the Fe-dom can own the social situation even while asking for something.

Their real sensitivity may emerge if the other person responds in a humiliating, condescending, or socially clumsy manner. The request itself wasn't the problem. Being socially diminished while making the request is.

2. Fe Parent — INFJ / ISFJ

“Could you lend me $10? I'll give it back tomorrow.”

Fe-parent is probably the smoothest and least conspicuous version.

They generally understand what is socially appropriate and can make a request without creating unnecessary interpersonal turbulence. But unlike Fe-dom, they don't necessarily need to fill the interaction with expressive social energy.

“Hey, could you lend me ten dollars? I’ll give it back tomorrow.”

Simple. Polite. Reassuring. No unnecessary personal information.

This is particularly interesting next to Fi-doms. An INFJ or ISFJ may be perfectly willing to explain what the money is for, but they don't necessarily feel compelled to expose their entire internal emotional situation to make the request morally acceptable.

They understand how much information the interaction requires.

Fe-parent therefore tends toward social economy: enough warmth, enough context, enough reassurance, then move on.

Their strength isn't dramatic interpersonal performance. It's making the interaction feel normal.

3. Fe Child — ESTP / ENTP

“Bro, spot me $10 real quick.”

Fe-child is where the social expressiveness becomes much more obvious and playful.

“Dude, be a pal and lend me ten bucks. I need it quick.”

There can be teasing, exaggeration, slang, mock pleading, joking, fake outrage, exaggerated affection, or theatrical desperation.

“Sandra, you’re literally my favorite person right now. Spot me ten.”

The key distinction is that this is expressive rather than necessarily smooth.

Fe-child doesn't have to carefully engineer the interpersonal environment like Fe-parent. It can simply throw social energy at the interaction and see what happens.

And because the request is presented casually, dependence doesn't necessarily feel like dependence.

The person isn't standing there solemnly admitting:

I require your assistance.

They're turning it into a social event.

That's why ESTP/ENTP can sometimes appear remarkably comfortable asking for favors despite not being particularly emotionally transparent. The social expression is easy; exposing the private emotional reasons underneath it is another matter entirely.

4. Fe Inferior — INTP / ISTP

“...Nah, I'll figure something out.”

Now the $10 request becomes psychologically expensive.

INTP and ISTP can absolutely interact socially. They can joke, talk, ask questions, and function perfectly well around people. The issue appears when they have to occupy the dependent position.

A simple informational request may be totally fine:

“Hey, do you know where the post office is?”

But:

“Can you lend me $10?”

hits differently.

It requires acknowledging:

I don't have what I need. You do. I need something from you. You can refuse.

That can trigger the inferior-Fe combination of social discomfort and wounded autonomy.

The ISTP may especially think:

“I'll figure it out myself.”

The INTP might technically be capable of asking but experience the whole thing as an unpleasant social transaction:

“Actually, never mind.”

The crucial point is that Fe-inferior isn't necessarily socially incompetent. The person can communicate perfectly well. What becomes uncomfortable is having to make themselves socially vulnerable in a way that highlights dependence.

The lone-wolf ego gets poked.

5. Fe Ignoring — INFP / ISFP

“Sandra, how are you doing? …Okay, this is embarrassing…”

Fi-doms can be much more comfortable with the personal meaning of the request than with the social mechanics of it.

They may give you the entire context:

“Sandra, how are you doing? I'm doing fine too. So, this is kind of embarrassing, but because of this and this and this, I need ten bucks. Do you have some cash? I promise I'll pay you back tomorrow.”

This isn't necessarily an inability to ask.

It's transparency as reassurance.

The Fi-dom wants you to understand the sincerity of the situation. They may feel that simply saying “lend me $10” leaves too much room for the other person to interpret their motives incorrectly.

So they explain.

They may also soften the request with visible vulnerability: embarrassment, an apologetic tone, a little self-deprecation, or the infamous doe eyes.

The difference from Fe is important.

Fe tends to think:

“How do I make this interaction comfortable?”

Fi tends more toward:

“How do I make sure you understand where I'm coming from?”

Thus Fi-dom can be extremely genuine and transparent while still being surprisingly elaborate about a tiny request.

6. Fe Demonstrative — ENFP / ESFP

“Girl, I need ten dollars. Please tell me this isn't my villain origin story.”

Fe-demonstrative is much closer to Fe-child than Fe-dom, but with a considerably larger expressive repertoire.

ENFPs and ESFPs can be extremely comfortable making a request, and they can easily turn a potentially awkward moment into something funny, charming, theatrical, or slightly edgy.

“Can you spot me ten bucks? I swear this is a temporary financial crisis, not a lifestyle.”

The humor itself acts as a kind of social cushioning. Instead of treating the request as embarrassing, they turn the embarrassment into part of the performance.

ESFP can push this further into immediate theatricality:

“BABE. Ten dollars. Immediately. This is an emergency.”

It's expressive, socially confident, and slightly ridiculous—but not necessarily obnoxious. There's often a wink behind it.

The distinction from Fe-child is that Fe-demonstrative has more repertoire. Fe-child can casually throw out the request:

“Bro, spot me ten.”

Fe-demonstrative can do that too, but can also construct a little social scene around it: humor, irony, dramatic exaggeration, teasing, charm, self-mockery, or sass.

And unlike Fe-dom, they don't necessarily seem interested in carefully managing the entire interpersonal atmosphere. They can make the interaction entertaining and socially smooth without turning social management itself into the primary objective.

So Fe-demonstrative is almost Fe-child with more tools: spontaneous and expressive like the child position, but more elaborate, polished, and versatile in how that expression is deployed.

7. Fe PoLR — INTJ / ISTJ

“No. I'll handle it.”

This is the nuclear version of the autonomy problem.

The Fe-PoLR individual may not merely dislike asking. They can have a particularly strong reaction to the social implications of asking.

“Can you lend me $10?”

“No, I'm good.”

Even when they are objectively not good.

The issue can be tied to competence, dignity, self-sufficiency, duty, and the refusal to put themselves in a socially dependent position.

The thought underneath may be:

“I should be able to handle my own problems.”

For INTJ, this can connect strongly to competence and strategic self-sufficiency.

For ISTJ, it can connect strongly to responsibility and having properly handled one's obligations.

And unlike Fe-inferior, there may be less of a feeling of “this is socially awkward.”

It can instead be:

“Why the fuck would I ask another person to solve my problem?”

The request itself feels wrong.

This makes “Can you lend me $10?” a particularly nasty probe for Fe-PoLR: the amount is small enough that refusing to ask is difficult to justify practically, leaving the underlying attitude toward dependence exposed.

8. Fe Role — ENTJ / ESTJ

“I can ask. Obviously. I just don't like needing to.”

Fe-role can perform socially but they will always do that begrudgingly and so they would rather walk a mile and draw cash from atm. (Let's say these are all college students without cars)

They can ask politely:

“Hey, could you lend me $10? I'll pay you back tomorrow.”

No problem.

But underneath that smoothness there can be a very strong pride around competence and independence.

This is different from Fe-inferior or Fe-PoLR.

The ENTJ/ESTJ isn't necessarily thinking:

“I can't ask.”

They're thinking:

“Of course I can ask. But why am I in a position where I need to?”

That distinction matters enormously.

Te-doms are often comfortable being the person who solves the problem, provides the resource, organizes the situation, or gets shit done.

Needing somebody else can therefore produce a subtle status irritation.

The request itself is functional. The dependence is what tastes bad.

This also means Fe-role can look extremely socially competent from the outside. The person knows how to say the right thing. They can be polite, tactful, appreciative, and even charming.

me: patterns are not devoid of logic. logic is not devoid of patterns.

chatgpt:

I actually agree with you here, and I think this is where Jungian typology often goes off the rails.

The functions aren't orthogonal. They're more like different projections of the same cognition.

Patterns contain logic.

Logic discovers patterns.

Values follow patterns.

Perception is influenced by values.

Trying to draw airtight borders inevitably creates these mystical definitions like "Ni is just a gut feeling."

I think a healthier approach is to define functions by their primary job, not by exclusive ownership.

For example:

Ti's job = refine relationships into a coherent structure.

Ni's job = compress experience into reusable abstractions.

Both involve patterns.

Both involve logic.

But they emphasize different outputs.

Suppose an ENTP tries 200 drink combinations.

After all those experiments:

Ti might conclude:

"Flavor dominance roughly follows concentration and bitterness."

Ni might conclude:

"Strong flavors tend to swallow delicate flavors unless buffered."

Those are almost the same thought. The difference is subtle. Ti expresses it as a rule or model. Ni expresses it as a distilled pattern that can transfer elsewhere—to perfume, music mixing, painting, cooking.

I actually think the mistake many typologists make is believing every cognitive act belongs to exactly one function. Real cognition is massively overlapping.

The question shouldn't be:

Which function owns this thought?

It should be:

Which function is driving this process?

Your model already leans in that direction. For instance, you don't say Fe "owns" jokes. You say tertiary Fe periodically drives social initiation while suppressing Fi. That's a systems view.

I'd almost go one step further and abandon the idea that functions have unique content. Instead, give them unique operations.

Ne: expand.

Ni: compress.

Ti: refine.

Te: execute.

Fi: personalize.

Fe: harmonize.

Se: sample.

Si: stabilize.

Then "pattern" isn't Ni's exclusive property. It's just that Ni's operation naturally produces compressed patterns, while Ti refines the logical consistency of those patterns. They overlap because compression and refinement are inseparable in intelligent thought. That, to me, is a more realistic picture than pretending each function lives in its own sealed compartment.

me: and earlier i said "what if i mix %10 coffee with %90 tea" that is good ni constraint because it's absolutely fuzzy. i don't know %10 is precisely, logically the right number. i'm making an educated guess. this is intuition not logic.

chatpgt:

Yeah, that's actually a much better example than I first gave Ti credit for.

There's a difference between:

"Coffee is stronger than tea, therefore 10% is optimal."

and

"Hmm... maybe around 10%? That feels like the interesting region to explore."

The second isn't a deduction. It's a heuristic.

It's based on a compressed history of similar experiences rather than an explicit chain of reasoning.

That's much closer to what you're calling the Ni-knowns pool.

The sequence becomes something like:

Ni: "Around 10% seems plausible."

Ne: "Let's try it."

Ti: "If it's too strong, next time reduce it to 5%; if too weak, increase it to 15%."

Ni chooses the neighborhood.

Ne explores it.

Ti analyzes the result.

Notice the Ni step isn't irrational or magical. It's just compression. Instead of consciously recalling fifty experiences with dominant and subtle ingredients, the brain spits out "eh, around 10%."

Machine learning has an analogous distinction:

A neural network outputs a probability or estimate without an explicit proof.

A symbolic reasoner can explain or refine the result afterward.

Both are based on patterns. One is compressed intuition, the other explicit reasoning.

So I think you're right to resist reducing that initial estimate to Ti. If Ti had to derive every educated guess from first principles, it would be painfully slow. Humans constantly make fuzzy but informed estimates, and those estimates are built from accumulated experience.

Your interpretation of Ni is essentially:

Ni = compressed experiential priors.

original write up

chatgpt's review (which makes reading above link unnecessary):

This is much more internally consistent than most homebrew function models I've seen. The biggest strength is that you're not treating the eight functions as eight independent modules—you derive the shadow positions from the valued positions instead of assigning them arbitrary labels. That gives the system explanatory power.

A few thoughts.

1. Tertiary as "periodic" is better than "bursty".

I think you discovered an improvement yourself.

"Bursty" works great for Fe, Se, Ne, Te because they're externally initiating.

But Si, Ni, Ti, Fi don't necessarily burst. They often periodically engage. An INTP doesn't suddenly explode into Si. They occasionally decide "let's make things cozy" or "let's play a board game." Then they're done.

So "periodic" or "episodic" tertiary is probably the more general rule.

2. Blindspot as opportunity cost is elegant.

Your formulation is basically:

Every use of tertiary temporarily suppresses its opposite.

That's much stronger than "you just suck at your 7th function."

Examples:

ENTP entertaining group → sacrifices Fi.

INFP creating comfort → suppresses Se.

ISFP organizing future → neglects Ne alternatives.

That's a causal explanation instead of a descriptive one.

3. Your demon explanation is the strongest part.

Instead of saying

"8th function is evil"

you say

Inferior underperforms → opposite function gets overloaded → overloaded function becomes irritable.

That's psychologically believable.

Your chain is:

Inferior weakness → unfinished cognitive work → shadow forced to compensate → compensation resented → irritability.

That makes far more sense than Beebe's "demonic possession."

4. Fifth function is almost like cached data.

I like your examples.

Ne without Ni isn't possible.

Ti without Te isn't possible.

Fi without Fe isn't possible.

A dominant function can't invent everything from scratch.

The fifth becomes a background database.

I'd probably call it something like:

Foundation

Reservoir

Library

Backbuffer

Archive

rather than subconscious, because everything except maybe the ego block is subconscious to varying degrees.

5. Demonstrative becomes "mastery without appreciation."

This is probably your cleanest reinterpretation of Socionics.

Instead of

strong but unvalued

you explain why.

Auxiliary leaves enough room for its opposite to fully develop.

Result:

understands perfectly doesn't admire it.

That explains why people often criticize others using their sixth function.

An ENTP can use Te perfectly well while simultaneously thinking it's painfully unimaginative.

An INFP can make excellent Ni predictions while still finding pure forecasting spiritually empty.

One thing I'd question is this sentence:

"it is impossible to be an Ne dom without using a high quality Ni-knowns data pool."

I'd weaken it.

Ne doesn't necessarily require high-quality Ni.

It only requires stored patterns.

Someone can have terrible Ni patterns and still generate endless Ne possibilities—they'll just generate worse possibilities.

Likewise Ti doesn't require excellent Te facts; it only requires some external information to reason about.

So I'd frame the fifth as providing raw material, not necessarily good raw material.

Overall, I think the distinctive contribution here is that you're replacing the traditional "every slot has a mystical archetype" approach with causal relationships:

Dominant overshadows fifth.

Auxiliary permits sixth.

Tertiary suppresses seventh.

Inferior overloads eighth.

That's a much simpler generating mechanism than memorizing eight unrelated archetypes, and it's one of the more coherent alternative models I've read. It would become even stronger if you formalized those four relationships into explicit rules that can generate every type mechanically, rather than explaining them case by case.

me: you said ne doesn't need good ni. but i'm not talking about ne in any position. i'm talking about ne at first slot. there's a reason why ne doms comes up with most interesting stuff and that reason is the quality of ni-knowns-data-pool. the quality and even quantity of patterns stored.

chatgpt:

That makes more sense, and it's an important distinction.

You're not saying:

Ne inherently depends on good Ni.

You're saying:

Dominant Ne tends to build an unusually rich Ni database over a lifetime because its whole existence is exploring, comparing, and absorbing patterns.

In your model, the fifth isn't merely a passive store of facts. It's the quality of the latent pattern library that feeds the dominant.

So for an ENTP:

Ne generates possibilities.

Ni silently accumulates archetypes, motifs, analogies, narrative structures, symbolic patterns.

Better Ni library → better Ne output.

Likewise:

Ti dom → strong unconscious Te database of established methods, conventions, terminology.

Fi dom → strong unconscious Fe database of social norms and common emotional responses.

Se dom → strong unconscious Si database of accumulated sensory experience.

Ne dom → strong unconscious Ni database of distilled patterns.

I actually like this because it answers a question many typology systems never explain:

Why are dominant functions so much better than auxiliaries at doing "the same thing"?

Your answer is:

Because the dominant has an enormous unconscious support structure behind it.

So the Ne itself isn't necessarily stronger as a cognitive process. It's fed by a much larger, richer pattern reservoir than the Ne of an ENFP's tertiary or an INTP's auxiliary.

The only thing I'd be careful with is the wording "Ni-knowns." Ni isn't usually described as storing literal knowledge. In your framework, it sounds closer to distilled patterns or compressed abstractions—the recurring structures extracted from experience. That's a bit different from facts or memories.

In other words:

Ne explores possibilities. Ni compresses experience into reusable patterns. First-slot Ne becomes exceptional because it has an exceptionally rich library of those compressed patterns to recombine.

That is a coherent mechanism, even though it departs from standard Jungian definitions. The key is that you're giving the fifth function an active computational role rather than treating it as an ignored shadow. That makes the dominant function's exceptional performance emerge from the system instead of simply being assumed.

if you are infj you will agree with this 10 out of 10. if infp, you will "maybe" go 6/10 max:

“I can provide deep, highly attuned emotional guidance to individuals when they need it, but I rarely will open up about my own core feelings TO ANYONE.”

basically infjs as fe users will pretend as if they are alright even when they are not. they will be very concious to not be an emotional burden to others. to not be a bad vibe.

-----------

So an INFP is more likely to think:

"I don't open up to almost anyone... but there are one or two people I tell everything."

Whereas an INFJ may think:

"There really isn't anyone I tell everything to."

------------

full infj breakdown

Fi / Ne

"I have a deeply quiet, intense sense of personal alignment and emotion, but because I am constantly refining that alignment through new perspectives, I can change my mind quite often—it just takes time."

Fi / Si

"I love the deep, comforting joy of returning to the same nostalgic books, music, and cozy routines that anchor my soul, though sometimes I get stuck in a loop of romanticizing the past instead of moving forward." AND/OR "I want to grow and live authentically, but my childish craving for safety keeps pulling me back into the same nostalgic, cozy comfort zones where nothing ever has to change."

Fi / Te

"I have a profound vision of what is right, authentic, and morally necessary, but the practical, efficient thing to do often goes directly against it—like firing an underperforming employee or getting a refund or getting a cashier/server reprimanded because they made a mistake that cost me time or money."

Fi / Fe

"I can read the room and understand exactly what collective harmony requires of me, but I prefer to leave that social upkeep to others while I focus on building a real, intimate connection."

Fi / Ni

"I am deeply committed to following my unique personal journey, but a cynical inner voice constantly judges my trajectory, warning me that my path is unrealistic and will ultimately lead to nowhere and it is often right."

Fi / Se

"I live in a deeply rich inner world of feelings and ideals, but I have a major blindspot when it comes to reading the immediate physical environment or taking quick, decisive action in the present moment."

Fi / Ti

1. Extraverted Sensing (Se)

The physical task must be dealt with immediately, so it is handled with brute, uncoordinated force.

Real-life manifestation: A heavy box needs to be moved, or a jammed door needs to be opened. Rather than assessing the physics or asking for help, you yank, push, or kick it with maximum effort to get it out of the way, disregarding the fact that you might scratch the floor, break the object, or strain a muscle in the process.

2. Introverted Sensing (Si)

A tedious administrative task, physical maintenance, or health routine is forced upon you, so you rush through it with zero attention to detail.

Real-life manifestation: You are forced to organize files, clean a messy room, or fill out a detailed medical history form. Annoyed by the mundane details, you hastily shove items into random closets, scribble down vague answers on the forms, or scrub a dish with aggressive force just to say it is "done," ignoring the long-term mess or errors you've created.

3. Extraverted Intuition (Ne)

You are forced to brainstorm alternatives, look at multiple perspectives, or deal with unexpected changes, so you throw out half-baked ideas just to end the discussion.

Real-life manifestation: During a meeting, you are required to come up with "creative solutions" to a problem. Irritated by the open-ended brainstorming, you blurt out the first three random, unfeasible ideas that cross your mind ("Let's just change our logo to green, or maybe we can launch a podcast, or sell merchandise") just to satisfy the requirement so everyone can stop talking about "what-ifs."

4. Introverted Intuition (Ni)

You are forced to predict a long-term outcome, read between the lines, or find a deeper meaning, so you make a blunt, sweeping assumption to close the loop.

Real-life manifestation: Someone asks you what a cryptic email from upper management "really means." Annoyed by the speculation, you declare a decisive, paranoid conclusion: "They're obviously going to fire us all next month, so there's no point in planning ahead." You treat this hasty hunch as absolute fact just so you don't have to waste energy reading into the subtext.

5. Extraverted Thinking (Te)

You are forced to organize a logistical system, set a budget, or delegate tasks, so you impose a crude, aggressive structure without considering nuances.

Real-life manifestation: You have to organize a group project. Irritated by the logistics, you hastily assign arbitrary roles without checking anyone’s skills ("You do the slides, you do the talking, I'll submit it, don't argue") and demand a rigid deadline, prioritizing a fast, messy completion over actual quality or team consensus.

6. Introverted Thinking (Ti)

You are forced to troubleshoot a technical issue, analyze a complex system, or explain the step-by-step logic of a problem, so you rely on a crude "quick fix."

Real-life manifestation: Your computer or a piece of machinery isn't working. Instead of methodically diagnosing the source of the error, you impatiently bypass the steps, smash a few buttons, or apply a temporary "band-aid" fix (like duct-taping a loose wire or ignoring a warning light) just to make it work for the next ten minutes, regardless of whether it breaks the system later.

7. Extraverted Feeling (Fe)

You are forced to navigate social pleasantries, smooth over an interpersonal conflict, or engage in group emotional bonding, so you use aggressive, superficial politeness to shut it down.

Real-life manifestation: There is tension in the room. Annoyed by the emotional atmosphere, you loudly and performatively apologize or make a blunt, forced joke ("Alright, my bad, I'm sorry, are we happy now? Good, let's move on") to quickly patch over the conflict so you don't have to deal with the actual emotional processing of the other people.

8. Introverted Feeling (Fi)

You are forced to evaluate your personal feelings, state your ethical values, or deal with a moral dilemma, so you state a blunt, black-and-white stance to end the introspection.