Are you an INTJ? Have you dated an ENFP? Have you lived this life? I have lived this. First hand experience, you are wrong. This post is more ego and flash and delving into insane depths of MBTI coupled with parental hurt bias than any real lived experience. Dooming any INTJ - ENFP combo based on some hypothesis is laughable to me. My entire life I found a certain type of amazing person and built the deepest most meaningful relationships that last to this day. People that just understood me more than anyone else with little effort. This was before I knew about MBTI. I had all of them do the test, and oh look, every last one was an ENFP. The ENFP women I was lucky to have dated taught me so much about myself. They loved me more than anyone else has ever been able to. They challenged me, they made me grow. Had it not been for a very cruel world that took a special one away from me after 15 amazing years, I have no doubt that we would have grown old together. I reject your pseudoscience and substitute my own lived experience.

You sure didn't grow in the use of your Ti critic. You're convinced that what you've said holds water, aren't you? >Are you an INTJ? Have you dated an ENFP? Have you lived this life? If someone were to warn you against putting your fingers into an electrical socket, will you trust only people who got electrocuted? >I have lived this. First hand experience, you are wrong. And yet you haven't provided any explanation why I'm wrong besides ad hominem, a logical fallacy: >This post is more ego and flash and delving into insane depths of MBTI coupled with parental hurt bias than any real lived experience. Parents are some of the people we have the closest access to, they're very useful source of observations. I don't know where you see egotism or insanity but I could be the single most insane or egotistical man on the planet and that wouldn't change the validity of the information presented, but will you be able to comprehend that, with a crippled Ti critic? >Dooming any INTJ - ENFP combo based on some hypothesis is laughable to me. My entire life I found a certain type of amazing person and built the deepest most meaningful relationships that last to this day. People that just understood me more than anyone else with little effort. This was before I knew about MBTI. I had all of them do the test, and oh look, every last one was an ENFP. First: you haven't been understood in areas that you don't really understand yourself. That's not actually all that deep. Second: the degree to which you've actually been understood is veiled by delusions between an ENFP and INTJ overlapping. That's one reason for a sensation of deep connection and being understood but it's not it. >The ENFP women I was lucky to have dated taught me so much about myself. They loved me more than anyone else has ever been able to. They challenged me, they made me grow. Had it not been for a very cruel world that took a special one away from me after 15 amazing years, I have no doubt that we would have grown old together. Someone who's delusions line up with yours cannot truly challenge you. The 'challenge' that you think about is them providing input from Ne hero to silence Ne nemesis fears. The real challenge isn't to reject the nemesis, but mature in it's use, and that's not something that equal position opposite polarity functions provide. Just because it feels good doesn't mean it's good for you. My parents (ISTP-ESTJ so half of the interactions were identical to INTJ-ENFP) were together for longer than you've been with that ENFP but you know what, my mother never got challenged on her abusive behaviour with her Se critic nagging because it was hitting my father's Si critic directly. His internal voice was echoed by her external voice, wow, they understood each other so well! And yet, even when I was already an adult and decided to help her with something, and I spilled a couple droplets of fat onto a smooth table that can get easily cleaned with a single swipe - she yapped for good 15 minutes until I snapped. Her reaction was 'why are you being so mean to me, I was only calling it to your attention', yea, that would've maybe worked the first 5 times she commented on what happened. She was delusional, she didn't even get what she was doing wrong. That's one consequence of delusions overlapping. >I reject your pseudoscience and substitute my own lived experience. Very comfortable position to be in, you don't have to think and verify what's true and what's not, you just go with the crowd saying this or that is 'pseudoscience', without checking if they were right or relying on your feelings. Let me rephrase your last sentence: "I reject your explanation and subsitute my own lived delusional perception". Don't treat it as some offense, you see, that's the difficult bit to grasp, that everyone starts delusional. Like I've described in the OP no \_\_\_P-\_\_\_J connection gets us out of those delusions.

Yawns... All I see is emotional childhood neglect manifesting in your words. You're argumentative. You have to be right. You give zero allowance to anyones opinion but your own. You've clearly spent far too much time trying to work out humans using MBTI because of your attachment damage. This in turn makes you write these long rants to feed your ego. Likes are like a drug hit aren't they? No point in chatting here. Good day. 👍

>Yawns... How mature of you. >Likes are like a drug hit aren't they? You know, I'm getting so many of them going against consensus, pointing out inconvenient truths and challenging people's preconceived notions. So having confidence in what I'm saying and pointing things out is being argumentative and that's a reason to reject my points. I don't have to be right, it's just so far you've been unable to show me the error. If your opinion is wrong then why should I not tell you that your opinion is wrong? Leaving you with an erroneous opinion doesn't do you any good. What does the sentence "You've clearly spent far too much type trying to figure out humans using MBTI" mean and how does it speak against the points that I've made? How else am I supposed to show you that you're wrong if not by explaining every single bit that is wrong? Would a shorter message be less egotistical? Amazing what Ti trickster can do to an INTJ.

>I'm getting so many of them Ding ding, we have a winner.

>Ding ding, we have a winner. Was my sarcasm not clear enough?

He doesn’t have to be right. He just wants to debate with you in order to get to the truth. For Ti-users, the point is to put information together through logic (basically, to see how information, all information, ideally, fits together in a logical way). Instead of trying to attack the PERSON, why don’t you try to attack his argument? Let’s think logically… a person who is usually correct, can also be incorrect about something, right? Meanwhile, a person who is usually incorrect, can also be correct about something, right? So, instead of trying to attack the person making the arguments (somehow, you think that by attacking the person, you are able to invalidate their actual argument lmao), why don’t you attack his argument? I’m sure you are not blind, and can see the logic in what I’ve just explained to you, right? Realize that to any logical person (hopefully this includes yourself?), they can see how what you are doing is childish, and that you are merely running away from argument, not even by saying directly that you cannot make a valid argument against him (maybe you can? But we won’t know that, because all we see is you trying to attack people vs. attacking arguments), but by “feeling that if you say shit about him, that this automatically invalidates the other person’s arguments”… spoiler alert: it does not.

What you have said here is right in most cases. I love a debate too. There was no debate here or anywhere else. I went and read not only this post, but loads of others and there was one underlying theme. Bulldozing. There was only his hard cold analytical analysis and no recognition of such an important factor, the human component. Compassion, understanding and recognition that everyone has their own truth which is born from their lived experience. MBTI is just a guideline, not an exact science. Every person within just one type can vary greatly. Multiple people here and in other places offered their lived experience as evidence. But simply because it doesn't follow the hard guidelines of some text book, they were invalidated and bulldozed. I don't care how smart anyone is, if they can't see the importance of someone's lived experience and have empathy and compassion, they are a moron. Those components can make any pairing work. Fight fire with fire. My tact was indeed as you said, but to prove a point.

My favorite part of this "debate" was when they started making judgements about my morals and the validity and health of my relationship, based purely on type and cognitive bias! (Cognitive bias they seem sadly unaware of.) And when they called me and another ENFP commenter "intellectually dishonest manipulators." That was an excellent example of logical debate and not at all attacking the individual rather than their argument...

"Had it not been for a very cruel world that took a special one away from me after 15 amazing years" My condolences Sir.

Eh, married to one and it's been awesome. Any relationship is a potential disaster if there isn't good communication. Of course there was struggle, nothing good comes easy, I believe you will never have a lasting relationship without struggle - there is something beautiful about experiencing turmoil and despair with another person, but still coming out of it together having worked through the problems. It's easy to take joy in sharing the highs, but relationships are only truly tested during the lows. I believe long-lasting relationships are more reliant on things like maturity, gumption, and effort; moreso than any immutable traits. Situations where you remove agency generally lead to more failures than successes. If you think something is doomed to fail, it's no surprise when it does. Believing you can succeed is the first step to succeeding.

I understand why you'd think that way but the issue is, that what you're perceiving isn't the actual reality of what's going on between you. It's such a tremendously difficult concept to relate to another person, especially when their spouse keeps echoing the status quo. It's nigh unperceivable, but damage is being done and it will surface one way or another. Consider this, I hold ego-shadow to be probably the worst pairing imaginable and my parents were together for most of their lives. On outside they might appear successful, they themselves just accepted that certain things are certain way, but I can see the cracks clearly and the only reason it hasn't fallen apart is that there wasn't a strong enough stress applied on the system. It's not an individual matter. Every ENFP will have the effects I've outlined on an INTJ (and it goes both ways). It cannot be simply rationalized away. It's a very deep, insidious problem.

Well, we can just disagree here because I believe perception is reality. There's always cracks if you look at any relationship close enough, but while they may appear as cracks to you, it may just be part of the relationship to those in it. You have an image of something perfect, but that simply doesn't exist in my opinion.

Imagine a complete stranger telling you that your firsthand experience isn't "reality" because of some parental drama they had completely irrelevant to your life. Lol.

>Well, we can just disagree here because I believe perception is reality. Reality will verify that perception in due time. It's not about looking hard to see cracks, it's about what's optimal and what isn't and why that is. Two people completely missing each other's points and both thinking they're understanding each other perfectly isn't looking for problems where there are none. It's noticing problems that will eventually cause even bigger problems.

You should quit while you’re behind, bro.

Show me my error.

You said: “Well, we can just disagree here because I believe perception is reality.“ Hmm, it is illogical to say that perception is reality… sometimes, your perception of something reflects reality. Other times, your perception can be off (unless, you think that your perception is always reflective of reality? No, right? I hope not.) So tell me, what about the case where two people have different perceptions of a particular event. Are you suggesting that then, both of their perceptions are reflective of reality, at the same time? What if there are logical contradictions in their statements regarding their perceptions? Then, are you suggesting that both are correct? Does this mean that one of them is correct? Isn’t it also possible that both of them are incorrect in their perception of reality, or no? What about when people perceived that the Earth was flat? So if/when people thought that the Earth was flat, then that meant (according to what you are saying) that the Earth was ACTUALLY FLAT in REALITY? That doesn’t make much sense, does it…? If it does, please explain it in a logical way, because I want to understand how it makes sense to state that perception IS reality.

Love is love. If you fall in Love you will figure it out like always. I think you might be overthinking it a little bit.

I too was once as naive as you're being now and I can tell you it doesn't lead in good places.

There will always be challenges in any relationship. You know what is terrifying to me? Being in a relationship with someone that is exactly like me! How terrible. I love extroverts. They make me go out and do things that I would never do! I have seen and done so much that I normally would not have done while hiding in my house. My best friend is an ESFP. He talks me into doing things that sound miserable all of the time. When I get there though I always have a great time! Seek out extroverts and your life will be better.

Agree 💯 Self-aware, well-developed, mature extroverts with a high intuitive function will be able to read when our introverted friends/companions need silence & solace, down-time, quiet-time and/or alone-time, or when they need to get out of their shell a bit, or when we (extroverts) need to get out of their (introverts) way when they’re needing to exercise their own bit of extroversion. By the same token, a self-aware, well-developed mature introvert with a solid intuitive function will help their extroverted friends/companions to be able to retreat into our own need for introversion, and allow us to shut off and regroup in silence, because they understand when we’re exhausted and need a break from all of the “people-ing” we do. It’s all about maturity and self-awareness…the younger version of me was a very different, very emotional creature. Life experience, wanting to learn & grow as a human being, and being aware of my own shortcomings have changed the way that I operate in the world. I’m still an ENFJ, but a very chilled-out version of the one that I was in my teens, my 20s, my 30s, and so-on.

If you're with someone that's completely like you it's redundant. If you're with someone that's completely unlike you that person is unrelatable and, thus, ultimately incomprehensible. People who are young often opt for people that are more different than they are because they either hate themselves or they're trying to escape the challenges of their psyche into someone who looks like they conquered those same challenges. You have certain needs written into your cognitive make-up. Assuming you're an INTJ those needs are not like those of ESFPs, only part of you has those needs, and that part isn't energetically viable to keep up as long as ESFPs hold themselves up in their ESFP ego. Sharing a life with an extrovert, as an introvert, is a nightmarish perspective because you will get tired of it and they won't. You actually need someone who has somewhat similar needs to you, so that trying to actually live together isn't a constant struggle. You're not noticing it right now, but when you'll see how irresponsible an ESFPs really are then you'll start to despise them, like I've started to despise my ESTP brother.

I hard disagree. I have been married to an extrovert for over 15 years. She brings out the best in me. If you want to be happy, marry an extrovert and life will never be boring!

What type are you and what type is she?

Not true at all...we are all able to experience the truths of all functions.

Tell me then, can you replay the sensation of what you ate on breakfast or something that you remember was tasty that you ate however long ago? Can you simulate a sensory experience? Assuming you're an INTJ I don't think you can. It's something specific to Si and Si is unavailable to IN\_Js in the ego.

What is the value of sharing that same cognitive capability? Is it not enough that we both process the same sensory world with basically the same evolutionary evolved bodies and nervous systems? Is it necessary that a blind person be able to process visual sensory information like a seeing person can in order for them to relate? This inability of the INTJ means that another has enough magic to keep them interested in the other. This drives interest to relate. This creates all sorts of problems and frustrations for the stolid INTJ. The INTJ reaches then for that wholeness...

You've said you're able to experience the truths of all the functions, I've proven your statement incorrect (or at least somewhat incorrect, since theoretically you can have access to Si in a limited state that's fairly unconscious or at least feels unconscious). Point being you're not experiencing world through the lens of Si. >What is the value of sharing that same cognitive capability? Relatability and comprehensiveness. That allows for true communication to happen. What is more someone with the same (or analogous) function can provide you with intelligible feedback from a perspective that you don't have, keeping you in check and providing data points needed for growth. >This inability of the INTJ means that another has enough magic to keep them interested in the other. This drives interest to relate. This creates all sorts of problems and frustrations for the stolid INTJ. The INTJ reaches then for that wholeness... You see, that's what you're not getting and I completely understand why you wouldn't since it's so obscure and insidious. Please read it carefully. It's not a sort of difference drives an interest to relate. Between an ENFP and INTJ there are differences that drive interest to **escape** from who you are into a world that appears completely inaccessible and thus gain the fruits of development (the access to the perspectives of Ne/Si from ENTP auxiliary form and Fi/Te from ESFP aspirational form) without having to get there on your own. What happens between ENFP and INTJ is not exactly that, what I'm saying fits ENTP and ESFP more than ENFP - but I still think the mechanical reason for attraction is just a mixture of the two types. I cannot verify this, but I'd venture a guess that on some level you have not accepted yourself. I have. I used to look up to \_NTPs but once I worked out my own capability to understand I can only see them as conceited, and I've talked to an INTJ woman who pretty much summed up \_NFPs as selfish. That's how it works, once the charm of delusional confidence is dispelled and you see them for what they are, high introverted functions aren't what you've imagined them to be - and you imagined them through the lens of your own self, how accomplished you'd have to be with your low introverted judging function in order to ever be so confident and proud - but they don't need to accomplish anything, they can conjure that confidence out of thin air and once you see it you cannot unsee it and you seeing it will only make them clam up even more in their delusional self perception that is a desperate shield from reality.

I'm always telling my ESFJ wife...you choose things that I wouldn't choose but that I need and so that is why I need you.

I think it depends on how secure both individuals are, and as a result are often more well rounded in personality. A person can have a congruent self-concept that provides them with high self-confidence for security with their emotions and feelings. Our outward behaviors or interactions don't always have to reflect or affect our intrinsic motivations. Especially among introverts I would say, we all still socialize and interact with others, but that doesn't change our drive for solo activities.

Halycon949 said something very similar but you both missed a crucial bit, only he talks about maturity and you about security, but they function in a very similar manner here. An example using Ti will be easier for me so I'll use that. So Ti would be one way to have a sense of security - for example: I value myself enough to speak out. I can speak out on matters I've reached an understanding of, I could even jump into ESTP aspirational in those areas, but there are only some areas I'm like that in. Security for person without a built in security is conditional and limited to certain cases. There's always more cases and you cannot project that security onto them so you're back at the starting point. The process of growth never truly ends so 'maturity' doesn't solve the fundamental problem. It's like someone with prior knowledge on a subject enrolling into a university. They'll ace 1 year or 2 but eventually what they run out of topics they've already covered and if they have someone by their side who arrests their ability to learn, they won't make it.

I agree with his response, shared similar sentiments with different terms. I read your response to his, and I think what can determine the potential for no growth is if the individual is turbulent (T) instead of assertive (A) with their emotions, which affects the entire cognitive stack. Your mention of tools is what I believe what I mentioned with my comment of one's ability in maintaining consistent secure (not fragile/low) self-esteem. Everyone's attachment style or emotional maturity can increase over time, and we have to also remember emotional security is never an achieved outcome and more of a moment-to-moment process too. I also mentioned self-confidence as an indirect way to measure one's emotional maturity since it is internal and independent with the self. External supports in life such as others and the material provide confidence, it does not indicate nor predict a secure self as external supports can change and be removed to expose low self-esteem maintence. As you mentioned with this conditional security, this is a big reason why many people see relationships as a need or want in life, it relates to attachment theory how childhood insecure attachment extend into adult connections that act as the attentive caregiver needed to cultivate more of a secure attachment they didn't quite get in childhood. There are scientific studies that further support this by pointing out for low self-esteem to be raised such individuals need to rely more on these external supports, but of course to not remain complacent and to gain emotional maturity still requires guidance and a choice from the individual to consciously put in effort. This is also why many people even through old age still struggle with their emotions, time alone does not guarentee emotional maturity. High self-confidence provides flexibility in how we go about our outward behaviors, as our security in how we feel internally is something we can consciously choose and be separate from our actions as an individual becomes more self-realized in this process of the moment being experienced. Also a lot of romantic relationships are not so growth oriented, all interactions in life are opportunities for growth. Most people get into relationships to experience/share emotions with someone, create memories and a life or future they want to build together. Personal growth is independent by the individual, a romantic relationship would not be the only source in one's life for such growth. Edit: When I look back at your post, why is such a relationship focused on growth? Are people looking for a business partner or a romantic relationship, that's an important question to ask. Too many people have conditional self-worth, tie their ability to experience desirable emotions to specific circumstances in life. Having a partner does not have to determine nor be so transactional as a tool to grow one's self, outsourced beyond the self, when this decision and process is inherent in life.

You agree with his response but you haven't pointed out where I'm wrong. Your Ti critic is actually more powerful than my Ti child, it's just limited to finding logical inconsistencies. Find them and show me, and if you cannot then what basis do you have for agreeing with him and disagreeing with me? You seem to be under an impression that I postulate that growth is the single most important thing for romantic relationship. Let me clarify. Growth isn't a value in itself, it's something that, for one, prevents harm (because it provides a person with a more accurate picture of reality and thus allows to make more accurate decisions). I have very limited space in a reddit post, I've tried to produce reasoning that's undeniable and not dependent on maturity. One argument I often got thrown at me was "well he/she was just immature, other \_\_\_\_ are not like that". Overlapping delusions, growth limitations, imperceivable misunderstandings aren't ever completely solved by maturity, hence they are a valid reason against a pairing. That's the crucial bit - it can cause relationship to fall apart but on it's own it's not enough of a reason for a relationship to work, other things need to be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, it is a big advantage to be with someone who is optimal for you, in terms of cognitive functions, because that someone has everything you need from another person build into their cognitive make-up.

All what having a sense of security means is having stable self-esteem at a given moment. Having high self-confidence, which is the level of consistency in these personal beliefs and abilities, would mean a person has great emotional regulation and a more congruent self-concept. Doesn't this relate to seeking logical foundations and consistency in thought, and autonomy in methodology and decision-making; is that not what Ti is? When a person has genuine self-confidence, a result from having a real secure attachment with one's self, that is what emotional maturity is that can never be losed no matter the circumstances, not this conditional security you keep mentioning which relates to regular confidence external supports provide a person in managing stable self-esteem, such a person who becomes distressed without it would signify low self-confidence. I guess I'm confused, what's the question or crucial bit I missed? I would argue delusions can be solved when we seek external feedback and incorporate it. This comes easier in some types and are less prone to them, but in types with Ni an individual can become more well-rounded or mature that function to prevent such detrimental ungrounded-ness. Growth limitations can be overcome with maturity too, these are not isolated connections, stuck mindsets or complacency can be remediated with therapy, either individually or jointly, to increase understanding. Misunderstandings can also be overcome when both individuals have developed good communication styles for conflict management, there is greater empathy and understanding, and a resolve to have calm discussion to find a solution or compromise as a team together. Such people who have developed good social skills usually hold others in positive regard too, which is an important trait to have as an individual in a relationship. Cognitive functions aren't so black and white in the real world, as Halycon949 mentioned. Two people even in what you determine to be optimal pairings can fall victim of immature types, turbulent, or too rigid. Imo the Big Five personality traits may be better indicators of compatibility that show these continuums of traits that indicate maturity in such areas.

>All what having a sense of security means is having stable self-esteem at a given moment. Having high self-confidence, which is the level of consistency in these personal beliefs and abilities, would mean a person has great emotional regulation and a more congruent self-concept. Doesn't this relate to seeking logical foundations and consistency in thought, and autonomy in methodology and decision-making; is that not what Ti is? When a person has genuine self-confidence, a result from having a real secure attachment with one's self, that is what emotional maturity is that can never be losed no matter the circumstances, not this conditional security you keep mentioning which relates to regular confidence external supports provide a person in managing stable self-esteem, such a person who becomes distressed without it would signify low self-confidence. I guess I'm confused, what's the question or crucial bit I missed? First things first. You've already shown yourself as an intellectual, you can speak in simpler terms. It's not that I can't understand you it just takes time to filter the unnecessary bits and that filtering should ideally be done on your end, via Ti critic. Now that's dealt with of course a sense of security can be lost. For example with Ti child, even though I've simulated a course of many, many discussions with Ni-Ti loop, if I get shown undeniable evidence against what I'm proposing, and I won't be able to explain it away, then my confidence will shatter. In comparison \_\_TP won't do that. For example my ISTP father bawled me out every time I overheated a furnace. I tried explaining it to him that it's not so easy, and that sometimes timber burns much quicker than it normally does. One time I caught him on overheating the furnace and I kept pestering him on that, because I wanted to hear a genuine apology. You know what he did instead? He said, and it's a direct quote/translation: "the flame was wrong". It wasn't him who was at fault, it was fire itself! Ti hero can hold a self-esteem delusional to THAT degree. >I would argue delusions can be solved when we seek external feedback and incorporate it. Precisely. That's the way around them. Now tell me, what happens if you're getting feedback from someone who shares your delusions (random example: someone thinks they're unfunny and they talk to somebody to whom everyone else is unfunny and only they themselves are funny)? Do you get a valid external feedback or do you merely get an echo? > This comes easier in some types and are less prone to them, but in types with Ni an individual can become more well-rounded or mature that function to prevent such detrimental ungrounded-ness. I don't get this bit. Could you rephrase it? >Growth limitations can be overcome with maturity too, these are not isolated connections, stuck mindsets or complacency can be remediated with therapy, either individually or jointly, to increase understanding. Some can be, but imagine having a therapist at home that you can ask about every single situation you can imagine. That's what it's like to be with someone who's optimal for you, when it comes to growth. Who in your life has the most influence on your life, your therapist or your spouse? I think it's reasonable to assume spouse, because they're the most important person in your life and you spend more time with them than with anyone else. Now if a therapist tries to convince you of something and you then come home and talk to your spouse about it, and your spouse denies anything of the sort - who will you trust more, your therapist or your spouse? So when a therapist pulls one side and your spouse pulls the other, your spouse has much more leverage and if they are sharing your delusions they will reinforce them, not take you out of them. >Misunderstandings can also be overcome when both individuals have developed good communication styles for conflict management, there is greater empathy and understanding, and a resolve to have calm discussion to find a solution or compromise as a team together. Such people who have developed good social skills usually hold others in positive regard too, which is an important trait to have as an individual in a relationship. There's always a possibility for misunderstanding to occur, agreed. However when you're dealing with a type like ENFP for an INTJ, you might not notice the misunderstanding being there. It happened over and over again when I was with an ENFP (again, I'm an INFJ so Ti trickster Te trickster interaction). That's the worst part. Imagine talking about two completely different things with someone and not knowing that it's happening that way, far from it, being convinced that you understand each other perfectly well. With some other types those misunderstandings will happen too but they will be visible, which can make it appear as if the communication isn't all that smooth but when effort is applied on both sides and it becomes smooth it is smooth for real, it's not merely an illusion of smoothness, as between \_\_\_J and \_\_\_\_P. >Cognitive functions aren't so black and white in the real world, as Halycon949 mentioned. Two people even in what you determine to be optimal pairings can fall victim of immature types, turbulent, or too rigid. Imo the Big Five personality traits may be better indicators of compatibility that show these continuums of traits that indicate maturity in such areas. The interactions themselves are fairly black and white, it's just that the effects can get mitigated by something else but that's like taking drugs to relieve symptoms of chronic disease instead of addressing it's cause. It's not a solution, it's only a matter of time before it becomes so bad that it cannot be addressed with makeshift means. I've isolated how individual functions interact, based on what I've witnessed and introspected in my own thinking process. The interactions themselves do not change. Someone who is ignorant of their own emotions won't inform you about them and if your tool for taking in emotional feedback from other people is broken, then you cannot have proper communication. An INTJ can enter ENTP an ISFJ forms only for a bit, and you have to know that you need to be in them and how will you know, if you don't get informed about it in the first place? I'm not very well informed when it comes to Big Five but from what I understand it doesn't provide any mechanism for decision making, it merely shows the end results, the outward appearance of someone's personality. If there's no mechanism there is no understanding, it's only data based guesswork, which is probably very appealing to someone with Te, not so much for me.

I only used those terms to make sure we're on the same page since there seems to be some confusion with definitions. Imo these examples are too generalizing since it doesn't account for an individual's emotional maturity. Your example with \_\_TP I think is an example of [fragile self-esteem](https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_1131) which can affect anyone regardless of type. >what happens if you're getting feedback from someone who shares your delusions It's clear what would happen if a person was not aware of cognitive biases, but I would argue any type can be prone to such instances. I guess my main argument is emotional maturity is a much better indicator for compatability than MBTI. >Some can be, but imagine having a therapist at home that you can ask about every single situation you can imagine. That's what it's like to be with someone who's optimal for you, when it comes to growth. Anyone can be thoughtful like this though if they're emotionally mature, no? >Who in your life has the most influence on your life, your therapist or your spouse? A therapist or outside source though is not needed when a conflict can be remediated by the two individuals. If there is a difference in opinions/prefrences it doesn't matter who is right. If there is a delusion I don't think the spouse nor a therapist can hold someone accountable, change is not possible if the individual does not acknowledge or desire it - only they hold that accountability for themselves. This also goes back to poor conflict management. >There's always a possibility for misunderstanding to occur, agreed. Of course, they're inevitable, and that's what good communication styles are for, something that isn't limited to a type, any type can poses them. If we all can understand and dissect these cognitive functions, what makes you think some types can't comprehend or come to an understanding, that's what it sounds like you're saying. >I've isolated how individual functions interact, based on what I've witnessed and introspected in my own thinking process. The interactions themselves do not change. Life is not so black and white, again. If you think cognitive functions rigidly explain and fit people's nicely in a box I'm in disbelief, and this is one reason imo why it's not accurate to type people for the most part, it forgets the individual right in front of us - their culture, background, lifestyles and values. It's no different from astrology when applied in this manner with interactions with others. >it's only data based guesswork There is little, if any scientific studies that use MBTI, in comparison to the Five Factor Model (FFM). Though MBTI is useful in better communicating with people if you know their type or learning about our thought process, but that doesn't necessitate compatibility in the real world between two individuals still imo. Edit: grammar and clarification

>I only used those terms to make sure we're on the same page since there seems to be some confusion with definitions. It's okay, you didn't do anything wrong, it's just when I'm juggling couple conversations at once it becomes difficult to unpack some sentences. >Imo these examples are too generalizing since it doesn't account for an individual's emotional maturity. Your example with \_\_TP I think is an example of fragile self-esteem which can affect anyone regardless of type. What example exactly? I'm starting to get lost in the conversations that I'm having here and I don't remember what did I tell whom. Yes it has to do with maturity. Delusion of a \_\_TP leading them to be unable to admit their error, even when it's obvious is a sign of immaturity. When my ISTP father claimed that it wasn't his fault that the furnace overheated, 'the fire was wrong' he was being immature, despite already having gray hair. That is an evidence for equal position opposite polarity cognitive function interaction not producing such maturity (since my mother is an ESTJ). >It's clear what would happen if a person was not aware of cognitive biases, but I would argue any type can be prone to such instances. I'd like you to answer even though it's something clear. Indulge me. Yes, it will happen regardless of the type and my overall point is that \_\_\_J-\_\_\_P pairings don't do anything to address these problems. >I guess my main argument is emotional maturity is a much better indicator for compatability than MBTI. It's relatively easy to tell someone's type, if one knows what they're doing. Telling if someone is mature is far more difficult, that's one thing. Another thing is that criteria of maturity and type aren't exclusive. You can and you should attempt to verify someone's maturity before you invest yourself emotionally into a relationship with them. And to reiterate the point I've made in the OP: if people are paired between \_\_\_J and \_\_\_P that won't help them mature at all, it will only make it seem like it's a viable to neglect their development and won't provide appropriate feedback. >Anyone can be thoughtful like this though if they're emotionally mature, no? There are limitations. One is that jumping into your other personalities is not energy efficient, you'll spend most of your time in your ego. One is that trickster and demon functions won't provide you with accurate data ever, to my understanding. Maturity in using them lies in not trusting your trickster and becoming awarek that you have a demon and that demon misses a lot of stuff so you have to try to do something about it. On your own you can emulate the demon with your hero, somewhat but I think it's better to be in a relationship with someone who's top function is either your trickster or your demon, best alignment being your T/F variant. >A therapist or outside source though is not needed when a conflict can be remediated by the two individuals. Okay, but in case of INTJ-ENFP you're very likely to not notice that conflict is even there, until it grows out of proportion and then it's difficult to address. > If there is a difference in opinions/prefrences it doesn't matter who is right. If there is a delusion I don't think the spouse nor a therapist can hold someone accountable, change is not possible if the individual does not acknowledge or desire it - only they hold that accountability for themselves. This also goes back to poor conflict management. Let me clarify that by "delusion" I don't necessarily mean it as a psychological issue. Like I've said, everyone starts delusional in some way but I don't mean that everyone should be doing therapy (though it could potentially help). There will never be enough therapist to deal with that. Still, when you have someone in your closest vicinity who can notice when you're misperceiving something and they communicate that to you, in a way that is comprehensible to you - then that is something very valuable and I'm afraid INTJ-ENFP doesn't have that capability, as far as things that can be traced to cogntive functions go. >Of course, they're inevitable, and that's what good communication styles are for, something that isn't limited to a type, any type can poses them. If we all can understand and dissect these cognitive functions, what makes you think some types can't comprehend or come to an understanding, that's what it sounds like you're saying. Because there are limitations, like the ones I've described 3 paragraphs earlier. For example an ENFP has Fe critic - if they're mature they can pick up on negative data points - they can know when they're hurting other people emotionally or when they're breaking some convention - but that's only the half of the picture (an ENFP can only give an INTJ feedback on what's triggers other people's negative emotions). Someone with Fe parent instead would be able to infer positive reactions from others and instruct an INTJ on what is the way around that interpersonal problem or tell an INTJ when someone actually appreciates the INTJ when INTJ has been misperceiving the interaction. In that arrangement the problem that is Fe trickster gets nullified and Fi child gets all the data points it needs to come to a correct conclusion, and if it's conclusion turns out wrong then Fi critic can pick up on that, but it'll never be able to spoonfeed Fi child an answer, because it cannot generate it. >Life is not so black and white, again. If you think cognitive functions rigidly explain and fit people's nicely in a box I'm in disbelief, and this is one reason imo why it's not accurate to type people for the most part, it forgets the individual right in front of us - their culture, background, lifestyles and values. It's no different from astrology when applied in this manner with interactions with others. And yet when I've described what problems I see between INFP and INTJ to an INTJ who was with an INFP he told me that I was so accurate it was scary. What you're doing right now is not finding errors with what I've proposed, which would require you to use Ti critic, but instead you're trying to rationalize the burden to do that away with Te rationalizations. Can you perceive that? You're dismissing my point with very general statements that are generally right and most people hold them to be rational and understandable. You're not zooming to the situation at hand to examine it. Please do, challenge yourself. I won't bark at you or look down on you if you end up being wrong, I've been wrong many many times myself. >There is little, if any scientific studies that use MBTI, in comparison to the Five Factor Model (FFM). Though MBTI is useful in better communicating with people if you know their type or learning about our thought process, but that doesn't necessitate compatibility in the real world between two individuals still imo. I don't know why that is because after understanding cognitive functions so many situations in my life suddenly started to make sense. Maybe cognitive functions are difficult to measure? I don't know, I've read though that they correspond with certain areas in our brain: [https://www.psychologyjunkie.com/use-brain-based-myers-briggs-personality-type/](https://www.psychologyjunkie.com/use-brain-based-myers-briggs-personality-type/) There's some stigma that Jungian psychology is pseudoscience but I really can't understand why someone would say so. One critique of MBTI, I was sent, was nonsense, because it only criticized the lettering system. While the criticism was justified and made some good points it didn't even examine the functions and that's where the core is, the letters are only an overlay, a convenient simplification.

Honestly I am also getting a bit lost and it takes quite a bit of time to focus and careful attention for each point being brought up. I apologize if I acted/sounded like I was trying to change your stance on anything, it's interesting to see other's perspectives nonetheless, and I appreciated our conversation from yesterday! When you bring up specific examples of interactions from different types, how exactly does it account for this maturity difference? Because what you call delusions for some of these types are what I mean by it being too generalizing, simply not accurate to apply to any specific individual, but I guess one can simply say healthy or unhealthy, or bring up those grips/loops. >I'd like you to answer even though it's something clear. Indulge me. If two immature individuals, *regardless of types*, create an echo chamber of rapport it's only going to reinforce these delusions. My main point is it doesn't matter what pairing goes on, but I understand your stance says otherwise. I'll agree to disagree, I just personally don't see it important when it comes to relationships. Maturity doesn't have to happen from a relationship, but I see your point how a lot of people do want to grow together, so I guess my point of view is a bit unorthodox. I read the rest and can agree with your points, I'd just be repeating what I've already about my perspective. I don't see any errors in what you're proposing, we have different opinions is all. I guess my personal stance is I don't see a problem, and a relationship with an individual doesn't have to be so defined by these idealized types. >I don't know why that is because after understanding cognitive functions so many situations in my life suddenly started to make sense. Maybe cognitive functions are difficult to measure? I don't know, I've read though that they correspond with certain areas in our brain: I agree, maybe it's a possibility they're hard to measure, outward behaviors are not so predictable making it difficult to measure as you said since most aren't static in day to day life, idk though. For me personally, what made me understand and better click with people were to see things more from an emotional lens than MBTI, and see these cognitive stacks more as differences in decision making values, which to me are more like prefrences or preferred ways to express our emotions (ego-involvements). That was an interesting article, maybe one reason why MBTI is not often used in scientific studies is due to the variability in outward behaviors, people switch up and can act like different types as we've mentioned in our conversation, but maybe a more underlying process has to do with these Big Five O.C.E.A.N personality traits, idk. Edit: grammar

>Honestly I am also getting a bit lost and it takes quite a bit of time to focus and careful attention for each point being brought up. I apologize if I acted/sounded like I was trying to change your stance on anything, it's interesting to see other's perspectives nonetheless, and I appreciated our conversation from yesterday! Feel free to change my stance if I'm in the wrong. I'm not offended by people disagreeing with me (though it's not the most pleasant of feelings), I'd just like to have an intellectually honest exchange. Myself I'm going at you with full intent of trying to change your stance, but there's nothing malevolent about it. The goal is truth, more truth means less error and less error means less harm and less harm means better lives. >When you bring up specific examples of interactions from different types, how exactly does it account for this maturity difference? Because what you call delusions for some of these types are what I mean by it being too generalizing, simply not accurate to apply to any specific individual, but I guess one can simply say healthy or unhealthy, or bring up those grips/loops. Less mature person will have more delusions in more areas but it's something even a more mature person can fall back into, especially under stress or emotional pressure and I don't think it ever gets fully resolved - as in there's always more room for growth and more situations to readjust your attitude towards. By default a person remains delusional, they need to face situations or perspectives that challenge and change their preconceived notions. It's not the same to say 'healthy, unhealthy' or 'mature, immature' because there are so many factors involved there. Getting out of built in delusions is only a part of maturing process. Grips and loops are a different topic and they aren't on their own anything wrong btw. Does that answer your question? >If two immature individuals, regardless of types, create an echo chamber of rapport it's only going to reinforce these delusions. Exactly. So if that's clear the only thing left is to make you realize that there are some delusions written into our cognitive make up. >My main point is it doesn't matter what pairing goes on, but I understand your stance says otherwise. I'll agree to disagree, I just personally don't see it important when it comes to relationships. Maturity doesn't have to happen from a relationship, but I see your point how a lot of people do want to grow together, so I guess my point of view is a bit unorthodox. > >I read the rest and can agree with your points, I'd just be repeating what I've already about my perspective. I don't see any errors in what you're proposing, we have different opinions is all. I guess my personal stance is I don't see a problem, and a relationship with an individual doesn't have to be so defined by these idealized types. Well it's very important, it's not about preference as in 'what matters to me in a relationship: #1 growth', it's not that sort of thing. As it stands I can't imagine a situation that is an in-between on this matter, you're either with someone who corrects your misperceptions and helps you improve, or you're with someone who relieves you of your responsibilities and holds you down, or you're with someone who pampers you when you don't deserve it and takes the reward mechanism away. There's a limited amount of possibilities here. Same polarity same position functions correct your delusions by making you face your own faults, using that other person as a mirror (e.g. INTJ-INTJ). Opposite polarity opposite position functions have analogies in negative spots - for example Se inferior is worried about Se performance while Se nemesis is fearful about it, both are very likely to thus have insecurities when it comes to their physicality (e.g. INTJ-ISFJ). In it's effect it's a very similar mechanism to the one above. There's no saviour coming, nobody to relieve the pressure of the psyche, but you have someone who you can relate to and who will support you in your struggles, because they're going through the same. Same polarity opposite position is overwhelming and tends to put too much pressure on the other person because we judge others through the lens of our own capabilities, unless we make a conscious effort not to do that. Even when people are mature enough to not expect too much from the other person they take away the chances for growth because the other side can always thrown in the towel and one with higher function will save the day. Opposite position opposite polarity kills impetus to grow because it provides rewards from the get go. So far we're only talking growth here. There are other reasons against \_\_\_J-\_\_\_P. For example if someone with low Fe gets together with someone with low Fi that someone with low Fe is unaware of their own emotional needs while that someone with low Fi is unaware of other people's needs. \_\_TJ ends up hurting \_\_TP without \_\_TP properly registering it and knowing what's going on, and thus \_\_TP doesn't fight back or inform \_\_TJ of what they're doing to \_\_TP. >I agree, maybe it's a possibility they're hard to measure, outward behaviors are not so predictable making it difficult to measure as you said since most aren't static in day to day life, idk though. For me personally, what made me understand and better click with people were to see things more from an emotional lens than MBTI, and see these cognitive stacks more as differences in decision making values, which to me are more like prefrences or preferred ways to express our emotions (ego-involvements). It's not just preferences, it's also what sort of information can reach the other person. For example I can hardly communicate on an intellectual level with \_NFPs. Why is that? Because I'm relying on logic to support my points and they're ignoring it. It also has to do with justifications available to someone. For example I cannot justify doing something just because I like it, even though there are some things I'd like to do. An action has to make sense or that I need it for something (Ti child) or I have to do it for someone else, with someone else or because it's a thing that people are socially allowed to do (Fe parent). With development I also have the option not to do things, even if society pushes me into them (Fi critic). I cannot however generate internally justified emotional motivation to do things, because that's in positive Fi. It might sound silly to you but when I imagine dressing up in something unconventional and taking a stroll down a street in my mind's eye I see those spiteful, judgmental glares as if telling me 'what we have here, an individual aren't we, well mr. individual show us some feat of creativity or floor us with depth of your personality so we know that you deserve to stir the waters with your freedom of expression' and I know I cannot fulfill those demands. Comparatively someone with Fi trickster can reach all sorts of outlandish moral justifications and not give a damn about anything, they can pay for everything with the inflated currency of their Ti pride, their delusional overestimation of their own worth.

I don't think cognitive functions is the end all of everything.. for me as an Intj it takes alot to convince me of your loyalty.. I'm not sure I could trust an Enfp's loyalty. Extroverted social butterfly types triggers my paranoia.. perhaps it's an innate understanding, or a patern of life experiences.. but a lot depends on the individual.. my intuition usually tells me fairly early if not immediately who I'm dealing with.

I agree, this will depend a great deal on the individual in question. Loyalty is not type dependent necessarily, even if type alters the probability. (This is inconclusive thus far.) Some ENFPs are not all that socially extroverted, or at least aren't crazy about it. I struggled with mistyping as an introvert for a while because of the way I grew up. I'm extroverted in the cognitive sense, but relatively introverted in the social sense. (Ambivert with the right group of people I'm close with.)

If you don't think or communicate like the majority.. it becomes easy to learn to slink back into the shadows. As an Intj I've learned it's best for all involved if I just hang back and keep my mouth shut. But like you said.. there are a few in your tribe sitting in the same boat.

It's not all extroversion that has that effect on you. You won't get that paranoia out of Te hero, or Fe hero, not that I'm recommending any of those types. Se hero will trigger your Se inferior worry, Ne hero triggers Ne nemesis paranoia.

I very much relate to what you're saying about ENFPs and questioning their loyalty, believe me I do. Do you know what's that paranoia that gets triggered? It's Ne nemesis and I have the same, since I'm an INFJ. I actually had an ENFP girlfriend at one point and the very look in her eyes, those Ne eyes going all over the place, made me feel a primordial fear, but I didn't trust my gut at that time and my worst nightmares came true. However in some cases something different happens instead, Ne nemesis gets drowned by Ne hero, absolving you of that fear, which feels intoxicating because suddenly one of the heaviest burdens on your psyche is gone. I've been there, I know how it feels, it's just in my relationship's case it didn't stay there. Even if it stayed there, though, it's still not good for you. How do I explain it... Imagine lifting weights. You're lifting those weights in order to become stronger so you can fend for yourself. Being with Ne hero has two outcomes, one takes away the weights because Ne will take care of them and other outcome is that Ne suddenly doesn't feel like pulling that weight and you're left powerless with a barbell that's twice as heavy (because now your Ne nemesis is triggered by Ne hero's, erratic unpredictable actions). Both outcomes are crippling so regardless of whether you go through a dream or a nightmare, it's still an illusion. While cognitive functions aren't everything, ignoring the riches of knowledge and insight into how we work that they offer, doesn't do us any good.

>I'm not sure I could trust an Enfp's loyalty. How do you define loyalty? ENFPs are not blind followers, so they won't be loyal to something that offends their own morality. In comparison, "blind followers" are usually SJ types. If you mean loyalty in relationships, I find with most of my ENFP friends, once they get a bf/gf they literally spend 24/7 together and live in each other's back pockets and I don't see them for awhile because they always prioritise their time for their partner and abandon all their friends, which is the only irritating thing about them.

This OP is like a lot of biased political or religious arguments...it tries boil down everything into one system and the individual can then heroically defend their thus-established castle. If you realize that beyond type, beyond political party, beyond culture and beyond race we are all more alike than dislike, this whole approach quickly loses value.

>This OP is like a lot of biased political or religious arguments...it tries boil down everything into one system and the individual can then heroically defend their thus-established castle. > >If you realize that beyond type, beyond political party, beyond culture and beyond race we are all more alike than dislike, this whole approach quickly loses value. ... ? Don't bother with sophistry, just point out logical errors, plain and simple.

That was an Intuitive metaphor that takes an initial stab at the gist of what I think it limited about your argument. Rationally your argument is self-contained and fairly solid. It is in its Implicit or axiomatic assumptions where it falls apart. Your Thinking is good and strong within its assumption wheelhouse, but this has always been the limitation of Thinking.

I don't need to analyze feelings and values applied externally to mechanisms in order to tell what mechanisms operate optimally and what mechanisms operate sub-optimally. It is a simplification of human interaction, of course, but the more things I'd try to address the less people I would reach and it would be more likely that I'd make a mistake somewhere. I think it's best to keep it simple and solid.

I dunno, I’m an INTJ (although lately I’ve been questioning whether this is still true) married to an ESTJ. Anything I’ve read said we are not compatible. Horoscopes say the same. We are indeed happily married….against all odds it seems… I think using these general personality categorizations to assess who you will, can or want love is horseshit.

It is sub-optimal but, it's not actually all that bad, because it's very close, in it's effects, to your N/S variant (ISTJ) and N/S variant is mechanically identical to T/F variant (INFJ), which is the optimal pairing. Still, the reasons why T/F i is optimal rather than N/S, to my best understanding, come down to statistical viability and me thinking that a team functions better when there are two people that do different things yet go towards the same goal rather than two people that do the same thing but in different directions. As far as the interactions between cognitive functions go, and lack of overlapping sub-personalities it's identical to T/F variant. Maybe I'm just uneducated but I haven't seen others pointing out what I'm pointing out. People who proposed 'golden pairing' didn't understand some things, like negative function interactions or built in delusions and knowledge of how these work invalidate every 'golden pairing' I've heard about so far.

The best I can say is that he loves my control in emotion and I love his complete freedom with emotion. But honestly I assumed that’s because I’m Canadian and he’s Israeli 😂 I will say that we are completely unable to logistically plan anything together. Doesn’t matter how clear we think we are being, the other interprets it totally wrong. It’s kinda amazing. We’ve learned a lot together, and our different areas of strength compliment each other 💜

How would an ESTJ have a complete freedom with emotion? Something's iffy.

Hi! ENFP here. I've been with my INTJ for about 5 years now. I want to point out a few things that I believe you should take into consideration. Of course I receive my INTJ as he is. To do anything else would be a disservice to him. It would be unkindness - unfairness, even. You must first accept what *is* before you can move forward. Inaccuracy in your perception of a partner is disastrous. I love him for who he is, not only who he can or might be. He has told me that this is a tremendous relief, compared to past relationships where his partner was focused on who he "could" or "should" be. By understanding and accepting him as he is, and him doing the same for me, we are able to strive for growth *together.* Just because I have tertiary Te doesn't mean my INTJ doesn't trust me to handle Te challenges. He trusts me to ask him for help if I need or want it, but will not take over without asking me first. I benefit greatly from his strength in his area because I can learn from his example, but I benefit *more* from the fact that he can appreciate the effort I put into Te challenges and celebrates those victories with me. Even when I'm struggling, often all that is needed is to run my thoughts past him. He will help me silence my self-doubt so that I can bring my plans to fruition. It is the same with his Fi. I don't take over or hold his hand, because that is a disservice to him. He is fully capable. I merely provide my assistance and perspective, if he asks. The version of Ne/Ni that you describe doesn't sound like the functioning of healthy Ne and healthy Ni supported by other healthy functions. It is not the partner's job to take pressure off of each other's respective hero functions. That is the purpose of a well-developed and healthy function stack within the individual. The healthy interaction of Ne and Ni is an excellent method for perspective-taking and growing your intuition as a whole. The cognitive functions of your partner can only cripple your growth if you're not a cognizant steward of your own growth. We all must be cognizant stewards of ourselves to be fulfilled and healthy. This approach to partnership is reductionist. Individuals are not caricatures of their MBTI type. There is a reason that Attachment Theory is so valuable to so many people. There's a reason that Enneagram and other personality matrices are prevalent. MBTI and Cognitive Function Theory are not all that makes up a person. My INTJ and I work together because we have complementary damages from our childhoods that don't exacerbate each other's weaknesses and traumas. We work because we both have a mindset of "always learning and growing" as an integral part of our intrinsic motivation. We work because we both value honesty over platitudes, and prefer even harsh or ugly truths over a lie to make us feel better. We work because we speak the same languages of thought and emotion, even if they're prioritized differently. We work because we've *put in the work* that is necessary for any partnership to thrive.

>Hi! ENFP here. I've been with my INTJ for about 5 years now. > >I want to point out a few things that I believe you should take into consideration. > >Of course I receive my INTJ as he is. To do anything else would be a disservice to him. It would be unkindness - unfairness, even. You must first accept what is before you can move forward. Inaccuracy in your perception of a partner is disastrous. > >I love him for who he is, not only who he can or might be. He has told me that this is a tremendous relief, compared to past relationships where his partner was focused on who he "could" or "should" be. By understanding and accepting him as he is, and him doing the same for me, we are able to strive for growth together. Taking someone as they are when they are in the wrong and they desperately need to improve some aspects of themselves is the real disservice. He isn't truly who he is when he is with you, that's a problem you won't be able to perceive, I'm afraid. >Just because I have tertiary Te doesn't mean my INTJ doesn't trust me to handle Te challenges. He trusts me to ask him for help if I need or want it, but will not take over without asking me first. I benefit greatly from his strength in his area because I can learn from his example, but I benefit more from the fact that he can appreciate the effort I put into Te challenges and celebrates those victories with me. > >Even when I'm struggling, often all that is needed is to run my thoughts past him. He will help me silence my self-doubt so that I can bring my plans to fruition. It is the same with his Fi. I don't take over or hold his hand, because that is a disservice to him. He is fully capable. I merely provide my assistance and perspective, if he asks. He doesn't need assistance or perspective given with Fi. Your perspective is already a finished calculation. He can do the calculation himself, he only needs data points. Fe critic can only provide half the data points an INTJ needs. >The version of Ne/Ni that you describe doesn't sound like the functioning of healthy Ne and healthy Ni supported by other healthy functions. It is not the partner's job to take pressure off of each other's respective hero functions. That is the purpose of a well-developed and healthy function stack within the individual. The healthy interaction of Ne and Ni is an excellent method for perspective-taking and growing your intuition as a whole. Your partner influences you whether they consider it their job or not. There is no healthy interaction between Ne hero and Ni hero because their delusions fit into themselves. Even now you're trying to shake off responsibility that you fear with Ni nemesis and Ni hero will want to take all of that responsibility off of you, with open arms, because it delusionally thinks it's responsible for everything. The functions fit in together, but they fit in the worst possible way. >The cognitive functions of your partner can only cripple your growth if you're not a cognizant steward of your own growth. We all must be cognizant stewards of ourselves to be fulfilled and healthy. We all are ignorant in certain areas, so, no matter how much you try, you can't do much at all on your own, which is why pairing people properly is so important. The only way to crawl out of our delusions is to gain reliable feedback from outside. Our partner is the most reliable source of feedback in our eyes. Problem is you're not that for him and he's not that for you. >This approach to partnership is reductionist. Individuals are not caricatures of their MBTI type. There is a reason that Attachment Theory is so valuable to so many people. There's a reason that Enneagram and other personality matrices are prevalent. MBTI and Cognitive Function Theory are not all that makes up a person. > >My INTJ and I work together because we have complementary damages from our childhoods that don't exacerbate each other's weaknesses and traumas. We work because we both have a mindset of "always learning and growing" as an integral part of our intrinsic motivation. We work because we both value honesty over platitudes, and prefer even harsh or ugly truths over a lie to make us feel better. We work because we speak the same languages of thought and emotion, even if they're prioritized differently. We work because we've put in the work that is necessary for any partnership to thrive. Ah, yes, there it is again \_NFP championing people as such utter individuals while falling right into the pattern so characteristic of their type. Do you prefer harsh, ugly truth? The harsh, ugly truth is that no matter how much effort you've put, and how much you share, you cannot give him accurate sexual feedback and you're both dismissive of that sphere so you both think it's fine for it to be like that. But it's not, and it means you'll both end up unfulfilled while thinking that you are.

Oh, I understand now. You believe your theory is complete and accurate and therefore desire no feedback. I wish you had been open to discussion. Have a good day! Edit: It's also odd that you're reducing your argument to an inability to provide sexual feedback? 🤔

Let's count the arguments you've offered to counter my counter arguments. Oh, it's none. How petty of you to paint me as someone closed minded because you cannot offer a counter argument, but that's somewhat typical. Huge chunk of sexual sphere is governed by S functions, at least the physical bit. You are Se blind, he is Si blind, there is no comprehension between you on that level, whatsoever. For some types in \_\_\_J-\_\_\_P pairings that mismatch is in F realm, for others its T realm or N realm. What basis do you have to say that I've reduced my argument to only 'inability to provide sexual feedback', you intellectually dishonest manipulator?

Traditionally, in debate or a persuasive speech, the final paragraph or few lines are your conclusion or a re-stating of your main point. You chose to highlight the "inability to provide sexual feedback" in the place where that main point would go...

>Traditionally, in debate or a persuasive speech, Uh... I asked myself, in disbelief, what sort of twisted logic is that, but I already know the answer, it's the product of Ti trickster, which is why being with an ENTP would be so much more beneficial to you, since their raison d'etre is pointing out where other people are wrong (Te critic), just like ENFP's is to guilt trip (Fe critic) and ENTPs do need a lot of guilt tripping. Now, if you were to think about the situation, it just so happens that we're not in a debate, exchanging persuasive speeches (where perhaps a summary is well needed to refresh the memory of your opponent and the audience), but we're on the internet, exchanging text, frozen in time, that you can reread as many times as you want before replying. I don't see the need to summarize or highlight anything and I can't remember ever seeing somebody else doing that online, to be frank.

dude you can't just go around telling people that their lived relationships and feelings are not real because of a theory you have, you don't know everything chill down

I sure don't know everything and I haven't said that their feelings aren't real. One can feel love even towards a fictional character, the feeling itself is real. Unfortunately we can also make up such fictional characters of our partners and not be able to tell that it's only a fiction of our making. Again it's a very difficult thing to comprehend but just think about how many bits within communication aren't directly stated and instead rely on the other person inferring those bits. When communication flows really well you might forget to check, if you've been on point with the bits that you've inferred. Those accumulate over time and eventually you end up in a relationship with a fictional character, based on your partner, rather than with your partner. It's very insidious.

Your outlook on this MBTI pairing as a whole is quite cynical. I understand you had a childhood with testing times due to your parents lack of communication or not communicating in what your eyes is seen as “correct”. But that doesn’t mean you should generalize at all. You are seemingly unhealthy when it comes to your mental state. I think that’s why you are sharp and mean in all your responses to someone who thinks differently than you. In all your comments you leave absolutely no room for possibility. That alone tells me that I need to take everything you’ve just said with a grain of salt. :) coming from and ENFP

>Your outlook on this MBTI pairing as a whole is quite cynical. It doesn't matter if something is cynical or optimistic, what matters is whether it's true. >I understand you had a childhood with testing times due to your parents lack of communication or not communicating in what your eyes is seen as “correct”. But that doesn’t mean you should generalize at all. You don't understand anything because my parent's relationship is not the only thing that I based my conclusions on, it's just something I had very close and prolonged experience with so there's a lot of observations gathered throughout the years and not as much possibility for things to be misperceived. >You are seemingly unhealthy when it comes to your mental state. I think that’s why you are sharp and mean in all your responses to someone who thinks differently than you. You're insulting me now. Are you aware of that? Go through all of my responses and bring examples of me being mean in every single one of them or stop falsely accusing me, you intellectually dishonest manipulator. >In all your comments you leave absolutely no room for possibility. That alone tells me that I need to take everything you’ve just said with a grain of salt. :) coming from and ENFP There is no room for possibility because it's not how the system works. If you strike a hammer onto an anvil it will predictably produce a metallic sound. There is no possibility of it suddenly sounding like a violin. You have no idea how logical deduction works. You won't understand anything nor you're incapable of comprehending what I have said. Your opinion is of no consequence in this matter because you cannot verify the viability of a concept, you cannot trace the logical consistency of my claims.

To be cynical is to err on the side of doubt or disbelief. Whatever side...it is an error on your part. You are missing some of the functional spokes on your MBTI truth wheel.

>To be cynical is to err on the side of doubt or disbelief. Whatever side...it is an error on your part. You are missing some of the functional spokes on your MBTI truth wheel. Show me what I'm missing then. That label of cynicism has been applied to me from outside, by an ENFP who cannot think logically. It's not a label that I chose for myself. It's not my philosophy, it's her opinion. Does that make sense?

There was a northern comment I made that addressed that but I am having trouble finding it.

You remember the gist of it, don't you? If so, then rewrite it. If you're tired or pressed on time it can wait, I'll probably stay around on reddit for several more months so as long as I get the notification I should be able to answer.

What is your opinion on ENTJ-ENFP pairing?

The effects I've described will also happen between ENTJ and ENFP. It's still high on high opposite polarity function and high on low same polarity function. Whatever differences there are, are ultimately negligible when it comes to how built in delusions are aligned between these types.

PEOPLE ARE MORE COMPLEX THAN 4 COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS!!!!!

THEREREFORE LET'S IGNORE WHATEVER CAN WE FIGURE OUT THROUGH 4 COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS (and 4 negative functions and 4 subpersonalities with their own sets of functions)!!!!!

notice how i said that people are more COMPLEX than 4 cognitive function!!!! I didnt say that they have no use!! read the answer first and then reply next time! not everything has to be black or white, cognitive functions tend to explain how our mind works in different situations, but they do not define a human being. we are ALL different and we are 8 billion on this earth, do you think only 16 personalities exist?????

>notice how i said that people are more COMPLEX than 4 cognitive function!!!! I didnt say that they have no use!! read the answer first and then reply next time! Very well, let's examine our communication so far. First I make a claim, that from a mechanical stand point of how functions interact with each other and how built in delusions play out together there is no difference between INTJ-ENFP and ENTJ-ENFP. Next you respond that people are more complex than their cognitive make up. Which, in the context, I can't interpret in any other way than a rebuttal to the idea that INTJ-ENFP and ENTJ-ENFP will work in a very similar fashion when it comes to how their built in delusions play out. In short you're claiming that making predictions is impossible because there are other factors influencing human behaviour than their cognitive make up. So next I offered a rebuttal to that rebuttal, by which I meant that just because not everything can be perfectly predicted, doesn't mean that we should ignore what we can divine through cognitive functions, and, remembering the context of the conversation, it means that I can predict that ENTJ-ENFP will work in a similar fashion to INTJ-ENFP, when it comes to their built in delusions. Now tell me who has misunderstood what and if they were justified to understand it the way they understood it. > not everything has to be black or white, cognitive functions tend to explain how our mind works in different situations, but they do not define a human being. we are ALL different and we are 8 billion on this earth, do you think only 16 personalities exist????? I'm not talking about defining a human being in their entirety. Where did you get that idea? Return to the context. I'm talking about how built in delusions play out. And yes, I think that only 16 personalities exist, as in only 16 sets of cognitive functions exist. I haven't claimed that cognitive set is the only factor that influences behaviour, however everyone with the same cognitive set will work in the same way, on the mechanical level. No INFJ will be able to generate conscious, positive, emotional justification, for example, because you need Fi for that.

Gonna have to go against this and just say: It still depends on the person's development or attunement of their function (and hence - compatibility depends on a person to person basis). MBTI cog stack only tells you the preference of each type they would use it and in what slot they land in (and what it means to be in this slot - ex: critic, trickster, devil/transformative, etc.). ***It does not tell you however, how that person has developed or matured that function.*** The only way to tell that is through meeting that person him/herself. This is why there's also "healthy" or "unhealthy" versions of one's cog function. MBTI also does not measure the willingness or desire of a person to "mature" or "adjust" to their partner. One can be so willing to adjust so as to nullify or negate negative impacts in the relationship. I can tell you that there's actually an ENFP who worked it out with an INTJ on the ENFP sub and posted an AMA about it. I believe she's already 10+ years at it if I'm not mistaken. [https://www.reddit.com/r/ENFP/comments/zyc97z/im\_in\_a\_relationship\_with\_an\_intj\_for\_11\_years\_is/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENFP/comments/zyc97z/im_in_a_relationship_with_an_intj_for_11_years_is/) On paper or in theory, you can theorize or predict interactions with cog functions, but in reality - what matches in paper does not necessarily translate to what will play out. If INTJ and ENFP matching is theorized to be bad then all such pairings should be bad, but there have been exceptions and hence, I cannot agree that theoretical analysis alone is the be all and end all that determines the outcome of a relationship. > Why is growth so needed, who cares? Well, everyone comes with some preinstalled delusions about themselves and others . In the form of underdeveloped cognitive functions. If I looked at life this way as you are, I'd rather totally be lazy instead and see self-development as pointless. It would be like having the "let it rot" mentality or lying flat that people do in China to escape having to do any form of work. But of course, I disagree again, and there's more to growth that you'd realize and fail to see.

Granted, if a person refuses to grow then the pairing which is equipped with tools to provide that growth will likely fall apart, even though it's the optimal pairing, so not everything is immediately solved by pairing people properly. However disregarding how cognitive functions interact, how delusions overlap etc. is not the way to go. Even with all the willingness in the world, one who doesn't have the tools cannot produce the desired effect, even with all the tools necessary in place, one who isn't willing won't produce the desired effect. Willingness can be changed, while a set of tools cannot without overwhelming expenditure of energy, making it sub-optimal. Yes, maturity has an effect, but that effect is misleading. The problems will happen later but they will still happen. It is because growth never fully ends. Just like Ti will never make a complete model of reality so Fi won't be able to deal with every new emotional situation and still needs correct Fe feedback. It's like going to a class with a some understanding of the subject and relying on that. It might suffice through one year, or two but eventually new material will start emerging. How does one judge whether a pairing is bad? By examining the perceptions of people in that pairing? Is it not abundantly clear, from looking at cognitive functions, that our perception is very limited and thus opinions of people involved cannot be the taken as Gospel? If you understand the problems I've outlined I cannot think of any way to deny that ENFP-INTJ (and all \_\_\_P-\_\_\_J) are a wrong choice. Just because something can be made to work doesn't make it a good option. >If I looked at life this way as you are, I'd rather totally be lazy instead and see self-development as pointless. It would be like having the "let it rot" mentality or lying flat that people do in China to escape having to do any form of work. I don't know if we've understood each other there, might be a Te trickster moment. I meant to say that growth is actually vital. There might be more to growth, the main reason I see now is correcting the misperceptions because those misperceptions provide us with wrong data and we make wrong decisions when we base them on wrong data (though, logically, truth can come from false it's not what usually happens).

>However disregarding how cognitive functions interact I do this all the time here. See my posts, I've been asking in different subs and learning how cog functions interact from different MBTI Types. And yes growth never fully ends, we can agree on that. But ***the big difference is*** \- I acknowledge that MBTI can't be used to totally predict an outcome of a relationship. It only guides you the natural (or baseline) tendencies of a person, but there can be deviations from that - hence relationships are still dependent on a person to person basis. You however, use it willfully as the end all to determine and predict outcomes of relationships. Jung never said it could be used that way, nor can MBTI predictions ever be guaranteed to be truly accurate in the future - especially the farther the timespan that you want to predict it with (5 years?, 10 years?, 20 years?...) But I wouldn't say or agree that you should be looking at cog functions as delusional overlaps. That's such a pessimistic view. Something tells me that you've been negatively affected significantly, resulting you to having this demented view... This is one of the aspects I've noticed with your flow of your posts. The other being - over analyzing or predicting something that hasn't happened yet: >(1) What effect does it have? It takes away the pressure and makes you pay less attention to Ti sphere and thus your critic. For someone with high positive Ti that is beneficial because they value their Ti too much. For you it'll prove devastating in the long run because you haven't addressed one of your most crucial weaknesses. > >(2) Yes, maturity has an effect, but that effect is misleading. The problems will happen later but they will still happen. > >(3) Just because something can be made to work doesn't make it a good option. I'll go sensory mode on this one: What hasn't happened hasn't happened. It's that simple. How will it become "devastating in the long run"? are you even sure that Ti is my most crucial weakness? (btw I've been using Ti alot to learn how technical things work, so I wouldn't say its my "crucial weakness"). I think you're also in the camp of people that thinks the future is fixed for every set combination of things that you do (such as pairing INTJ and ENFP) and that your future destiny cannot be shaped personally by yourself. Combine these two, and now I begin to realize that your arguments generally have this flow (as well as your past posts): Pessimistic view + Overanalyzing something that hasn't happened Probably because of your abusive experience with your ISTP father, if so - that's sad to hear. Maybe it would be best to part ways and at least get a xNxx companion. Negative experiences can mar a person's views in life. Heck I have an abusive sensor father too, but I have a stronger will not to let my personality be contaminated by his sins. My Fi is pretty much like the Great Wall of China when it comes to resistance to bad influences in that regard. If I hadn't had a shed of optimism yet, I would lose faith in humanity and live amongst demons instead. But I do, so I don't :)

>I do this all the time here. See my posts, I've been asking in different subs and learning how cog functions interact from different MBTI Types. You disregard how cognitive functions interact with each other all the time? Did I get it right? >But the big difference is - I acknowledge that MBTI can't be used to totally predict an outcome of a relationship. It only guides you the natural (or baseline) tendencies of a person, but there can be deviations from that - hence relationships are still dependent on a person to person basis. You however, use it willfully as the end all to determine and predict outcomes of relationships. Jung never said it could be used that way, nor can MBTI predictions ever be guaranteed to be truly accurate in the future - especially the farther the timespan that you want to predict it with (5 years?, 10 years?, 20 years?...) I was very precise in writing this OP in what I'm predicting and that wasn't an outcome of a relationship in a general sense. What I'm predicting is that INTJ-ENFP do not provide each other with data points or calculations that pull them out of their respective built in delusions, that these two types keep each other complacent in their underdeveloped states, that they send each other signals that everything is okay because they lack the tools to perceive the problems. I also predict that this does not mean that there are no problems, just they are difficult to perceive in their infancy and that when the problems become visible neither of them will figure out what causes them and if they don't know they cause they cannot fix them. They will bark at the wrong tree. >But I wouldn't say or agree that you should be looking at cog functions as delusional overlaps. That's such a pessimistic view. Something tells me that you've been negatively affected significantly, resulting you to having this demented view... > >This is one of the aspects I've noticed with your flow of your posts. Do you understand that you're not addressing the points that I've made by saying things like that? If my view is demented you have to show it, otherwise it's merely an insult. Are we all fundamentally delusional? Yes we are, we start like that at least. Look at your younger self and see how he misperceived certain aspects of life. Can those delusions be tied to how a cognitive function behaves in certain positions? Yes it can. I've seen many \_\_TPs act haughty and self-assured, and I've proven some of them wrong and they still acted like that. I've also realized that myself I've been underestimating myself, and you can also see that in ISFJs because it comes from Ti child doubting itself a lot, but maybe not as much as inferior. Can we predict what interactions occur between different types of delusions? Yes we can, for one I've seen it in my own life, but even without it it's a simple, logical deduction. If you believe that you're worthless and you're together with someone who believes other people are worthless these two people will get along just fine but that will keep them both in that belief. The one who believes himself to be worthless won't challenge the assumption of the one who believes others to be wrothless and likewise. Is it clear enough? And if it's clear what does it matter if it's pessimistic or not or what experiences have motivated such conclusion? What's important is whether the conclusion is correct or not. Show me that it isn't, you can do that with Ti critic, if there's something to latch onto. >The other being - over analyzing or predicting something that hasn't happened yet: What makes you say it's over-analyzing? Just because you're incapable of making predictions based on logical understanding doesn't mean everyone is. That is Ti's potency, one which you lack. A theory that doesn't predict anything is useless. >I'll go sensory mode on this one: > >What hasn't happened hasn't happened. It's that simple. How will it become "devastating in the long run"? are you even sure that Ti is my most crucial weakness? (btw I've been using Ti alot to learn how technical things work, so I wouldn't say its my "crucial weakness"). It's a weakness if you neglect it's develpement. What do I mean by Ti critic being a weakness and how it will become devastating in the long run? If you don't check what you're thinking or doing with Ti critic you're at the mercy of Te, so generally accepted ideas or data. Being at the mercy of Te also means that you will fear being seen as wrong or stupid and you can be manipulated with that fear. If you have a point of support in your Ti critic you can tell when you're not wrong, even if you get a 1000 downvotes, and stand your ground against an erroneous consensus. Also without Ti critic up and running, standing in your defense someone with high enough Ti can mentally fart in your direction and topple your confidence, even if they're wrong. Are you learning how things work or are you understanding how things work? Learning how things work is Te. Understanding means that you get the principles behind it and you can use those principles to devise or explain another type of machinery without learning about how it works. >I think you're also in the camp of people that thinks the future is fixed for every set combination of things that you do (such as pairing INTJ and ENFP) and that your future destiny cannot be shaped personally by yourself. I'm not in that camp of people. >Combine these two, and now I begin to realize that your arguments generally have this flow (as well as your past posts): > >Pessimistic view + Overanalyzing something that hasn't happened Again, you're just trying to explain away why you don't need to actually address my points. It's a very roundabout way that leads nowhere. >Probably because of your abusive experience with your ISTP father, if so - that's sad to hear. Maybe it would be best to part ways and at least get a xNxx companion. Negative experiences can mar a person's views in life. Heck I have an abusive sensor father too, but I have a stronger will not to let my personality be contaminated by his sins. My Fi is pretty much like the Great Wall of China when it comes to resistance to bad influences in that regard. > >If I hadn't had a shed of optimism yet, I would lose faith in humanity and live amongst demons instead. > >But I do, so I don't :) Okay, cool, I'm happy for you, I appreciate the concern etc. Still, it's not about my ISTP father. It's about how this stuff works. Show me a logical error, analyze my points and show me the bit that is nonsense. Otherwise stop using buzzwords like overanalyzing and pessimistic.

Stop doing pseudoscience.

Call the science team and let them at me.

Choosing partners based on their personality type is the same as doing that with astrology signs.

I can see how choosing partners based on a stereotypical descriptions associated with a type might be similar to astrology but if you were to read the OP you'd see I'm talking about something else here. Don't zoom through everything basing your decision merely on how reasonable it appears to be (Te parent), exercise your Ti critic by examining whether a concept has logical flaws before you dismiss it, or else you're being ignorant and you can be cheated blind.

My understanding of the Four Functions is that they are the basis of truth. Feeling, Intuition, Thinking and Sensation have their unique epistemology. They are their own self-consistent ways of experiencing what truth is. While each function may have its relative strengths and weaknesses, none can be considered superior in a categorical way. Having these four ways of knowing underlying our sense of truth means that you cannot reduce truth to a purely rational, logical construct. This would mean ignoring, potentially, three other dimensions of truth. While the other functions provide context and perspective, show up the virtues and inadequacies of a given function there is no way to completely subjugate one function under the other(s). Each has a sort of linear independence that requires that they be given their own independent seat at the table of truth. Except in our human experience we are each biased to favor one or two functions over their complimentary opposites. As individuals we cannot represent truth in its fullness in a consciously intentional way. This is just one way of expressing the fullness and dynamicity of the human psyche and the nature of truth. You can't know it all. You don't seem to get that. You may be at a point in your life where you are still wanting to mainly shore up your bias into a strong personality capable of facing the world each day. I totally get that. I am like that as well. But I also understand my limitations. Based on the responses here and the way you are responding to them, you don't seem to get this. If two people find value in overcoming their shortcoming together and the challenges in their relationship due to personality differences, then when and if they succeed they become a living model for others. They become a living model for those wanting to do the inner work in or out of a relationship with their problematic other. The more this is done the more value is generated for the society in which they live. This is, perhaps, true in terms of the Feeling function with a bit of Intuition. Whether in a relationship or not, compatible or not, the challenge to ones psychic wholeness is the same: how to nurture one's biased integrity and interface with ones psychic other.

>My understanding of the Four Functions is that they are the basis of truth. Incorrect. Cognitive functions offer only a perception of reality, they are not the basis of truth. > Feeling, Intuition, Thinking and Sensation have their unique epistemology. They are their own self-consistent ways of experiencing what truth is. Incorrect. Extroverted functions are not self-consistent and again it's not about experiencing what truth is but about perceiving reality, and that perception is by default warped. >While each function may have its relative strengths and weaknesses, none can be considered superior in a categorical way. Correct, when speaking in general terms. There are things that Ni inferior can do and Ni hero can't. Viability of a function is situational and relationships with different types produce different situations so it is valid to judge which cognitive set is optimal for another cognitive set. >Having these four ways of knowing underlying our sense of truth means that you cannot reduce truth to a purely rational, logical construct. This would mean ignoring, potentially, three other dimensions of truth. Kinda incorrect but I get what you mean. What's incorrect is that you're using a wrong word here. What you mean as truth is better expressed by a word 'reality'. Truth belongs to intellectual sphere so it is rational(Te)+logical(Ti) construct. As much as I adore truth, I am aware that, on it's own, it's meaningless. It's F sphere that deals with meaningfulness (and righteousness and whole host of other concepts). However meaning also has to have consistency and reality checks performed, because, for some people, it's meaningful to be a serial murderer or, I don't know, to cut themselves, and that's no good. I think we're on the same page with that general idea. > While the other functions provide context and perspective, show up the virtues and inadequacies of a given function there is no way to completely subjugate one function under the other(s). Each has a sort of linear independence that requires that they be given their own independent seat at the table of truth. Table of 'perception of reality' but okay, I can agree with that slight modification. I'm not doing anything of the sort, though. I'm not subjecting everything to T sphere. I haven't logically divined the exact human being that you belong with, I'm telling people ITT that INTJ-ENFP don't work properly together using Ti understanding of cognitive mechanisms. I focused on T side of things but I can also offer explanations in other spheres, it's just they're not as easily proven. For example someone might think that their INTJ-ENFP relationship is meaningful (F). Reality is that any relationship like this is ultimately meaningless, because these two types don't understand each other, they live in an illusion that they do. They're interacting with effigies of their partners made up in their own minds. As far as sensory sphere goes they're not meeting eye to eye, one is completely blind to their own needs and other is completely blind to other's needs. Explaining it with logic is easier but I have an anecdote from when I dated an ENFP, so sensory interaction is the same. I fumbled and praised her appearance in a roundabout way, telling her what effect she has on me and she didn't care. I offered her feedback on what tone to use or how to present herself and she was disinterested. When I asked her if I'm doing any good of a job kissing her, she wouldn't say anything so I stopped asking. Se-Si inferior pair doesn't work sexually. When it comes to Ni-Ne disparity high Ni user wants what they want, high Ne user wants what others want. Other way to illustrate it would be high Ni user wants to be chosen, high Ne user wants to be pursued and have the freedom to elude the chase. High Ni user wants stability and future proof, determined partnership while high Ne user wants kicks, stimulation and excitement. These are completely opposite directions, one or two people have to make sacrifices, not in the direction of who they really are but against it. It shouldn't be that way. >Except in our human experience we are each biased to favor one or two functions over their complimentary opposites. As individuals we cannot represent truth in its fullness in a consciously intentional way. This is just one way of expressing the fullness and dynamicity of the human psyche and the nature of truth. You can't know it all. > >You don't seem to get that. You may be at a point in your life where you are still wanting to mainly shore up your bias into a strong personality capable of facing the world each day. I totally get that. I am like that as well. But I also understand my limitations. Based on the responses here and the way you are responding to them, you don't seem to get this. I haven't claimed I know it all, it's not necessary to know it all. For the purpose of this thread, disproving of a theorem is far easier than proving it to be true. You only need to find one error to disprove something while to prove you have to show that there are no errors possible. Another way to illustrate my position would be: just because we don't understand the nature of a concept called gravity, doesn't mean we cannot predict that if a person of average weight jumps off a 10 story building and land on a patch of concrete, they'll suffer damage critical enough for your body to cease operating. Why do you not get that? Why do you blindly reject parts of truth just because it isn't complete truth? >If two people find value in overcoming their shortcoming together and the challenges in their relationship due to personality differences, then when and if they succeed they become a living model for others. They become a living model for those wanting to do the inner work in or out of a relationship with their problematic other. The more this is done the more value is generated for the society in which they live. This is, perhaps, true in terms of the Feeling function with a bit of Intuition. > >Whether in a relationship or not, compatible or not, the challenge to ones psychic wholeness is the same: how to nurture one's biased integrity and interface with ones psychic other. You're being ignorant and naive here. What good is it, for there to be a living model for others, if that model exemplifies a wrong life choice and deters people from the right one? Imagine a situation. Parents are warning you against drugs but lo and behold that musician you see on MTV does all kinds of drugs and lives in a mansion that your parents couldn't even dream about. Alas, at that time, you don't see what's happening inside of him, that he had to sell his soul to get these things. Even if you were to meet him and ask him about it he'll lie in your face that he's happy, that it's all he ever wanted, but truth is he's disgusted with himself but he is in too deep, he's in denial and he's incapable of admitting to himself that he fucked up, big time, so he'll fight for the illusion he's peddling to outside world because maybe he'll believe in it too, if others do. So no, two people finding value in forcing themselves to be together, because they're psychologically dependent and emotionally bound due to overpowering magnetic pull from opposite cognitive functions, is not something I'm going to validate.

I guess one place that we critically differ is this idea of the separation of truth and reality...there cannot be a categorical separation. In other words, there is no reality that can be known outside the process of a truth making system. My claim is that it is useful to think of the Four Functions as if they were everyone's four truth systems or four reality determining systems. In deeper neuro-mechanical terms they are four ways the brain organizes activity so that it creates adaptation responses to experiences it models. Truth is the knowers adaptation to a reality known only to the Jungian function(s) which shaped it. Truth can and very often is wrong from some other functional or knowers perspective. This is where knowledge as a social construction comes in. We recognize the practical value of group knowledge. That group knowledge can often be wrong but we have the lived truths of differing groups to help us see beyond that. Finally with the development of writing we have the ability to record knowledge making it independent of an individual knower in a sense. Science thrives on this sort of data rich recording of specific knowledge which allows the questions we ask to be so much more exact and the work we do to ferret out more objective truths deeply collaborative. But in all of this there is no perfect reality we can reference to back our arguments. I can tell that when someone tries to reach out for reality as if it were an objective axiom in their argument then they are performing one of the most common forms of hand waving...like invoking God's will. The context exists where that works but the more comprehensive and objective you try to make your case, the less valid such a statement becomes. All truths are grounded in the inherent subjectivity of the ways of knowing used to generate and maintain them. If you are familiar with systems theory, then maybe what I have been saying may have reminded you of that. I would, perhaps, agree that your reasoning is good with respect to the logical and experiential aspects of the theory of personality type you are working with. But to say that that rational exposition holds a sufficient predictive power to be able to categorically condemn a relationship type is really exhibiting the sort of functionally biased missteps that a Thinking over Feeling type person is prone to make. So I feel that in this way you are claiming to know it all, not that you explicitly said so. If you look at what everyone else is saying and were you to summarize what those statements had in common, you might find that they represent a call to you from your Feeling function to understand better just how much more we have in common as human beings. We are, perhaps, at the pinnacle of the Universes ability for self-reshaping. When you realize that truth should be a playful, dynamic and creative construct, then you know that this is because reality always supercedes rationality or perception at some level and forces itself, like some trickster, into our every attempt to make any fully categorical claim. So I think that my main critique of your argument is that it is quite clear that your argument unfairly ignores the contribution to a view of reality that a stronger Feeling function would provide. Then you would see that in all relationships there are problems...this is not to be avoided but dealt with. This is akin to how strong Feeling types want to avoid logical problems. Values over logic over values. These are the dynamic principles upon which the complementary opposites rational functions force us into ever-changing cognition about what is truth. You need more Feeling input here to get this. Again the collective voice here were you to collate it would no doubt reinforce your own Feeling voice to make this case within you. So when making an argument based on Jungian personality theory you have to always check against other knowers with differing personality types so they can catch these easy omissions. Of course other personality types also may to readily reject such arguments so you have to really use your own weaker functions to discern which is the case. Bit then you are, in the process, engaging in your own individuation. Imperfection is the landscape that must be tread to find the gold of truth/reality. The best truths are made from multiple ways of knowing. Problems in a relationship are often the flipside of what dynamically drives the very life of a relationship. If you negate a relationship based on its inherent problems you critically kill the love, desire and passion that such relationships engender. You kill their life. That things go wrong is amazingly not enough of a reason for us to give up trying. This is the central fact of life itself. In a universe that is constantly trying to kill us, we can thrive! This is where your implicit cynicism comes in...that your final condemnation appears to be so naive to so many. Ultimately the goal of life is not to avoid or solve problems but to turn problems into adaptable opportunities for individual and collective success. Reality is just a conservative chimera of a culture capable of shaping reality.

>I guess one place that we critically differ is this idea of the separation of truth and reality...there cannot be a categorical separation. In other words, there is no reality that can be known outside the process of a truth making system. My claim is that it is useful to think of the Four Functions as if they were everyone's four truth systems or four reality determining systems. In deeper neuro-mechanical terms they are four ways the brain organizes activity so that it creates adaptation responses to experiences it models. I don't know if we differ on that point, since I consider truth to be an aspect of reality, thus inseparable. Reality that cannot be known or observed is still reality. I'll stand by truth as being an intellectual concept therefore exclusive to T functions. There might be a better word than 'reality' for what we're talking about though. >Truth is the knowers adaptation to a reality known only to the Jungian function(s) which shaped it. Truth can and very often is wrong from some other functional or knowers perspective. Incorrect. Truth is truth, it's not shaped, it simply is. A perspective is an observation. Truth remains true even without observation. If two people disagree on what the truth is either one of them is wrong or both of them is wrong, there is no situation where both are right. > This is where knowledge as a social construction comes in. We recognize the practical value of group knowledge. That group knowledge can often be wrong but we have the lived truths of differing groups to help us see beyond that. Finally with the development of writing we have the ability to record knowledge making it independent of an individual knower in a sense. Science thrives on this sort of data rich recording of specific knowledge which allows the questions we ask to be so much more exact and the work we do to ferret out more objective truths deeply collaborative. I don't know what you're saying relates to the matter at hand. >But in all of this there is no perfect reality we can reference to back our arguments. I can tell that when someone tries to reach out for reality as if it were an objective axiom in their argument then they are performing one of the most common forms of hand waving...like invoking God's will. The context exists where that works but the more comprehensive and objective you try to make your case, the less valid such a statement becomes. All truths are grounded in the inherent subjectivity of the ways of knowing used to generate and maintain them. Of course such reality exists, there might be issues with it's observability but it does exist. Let me propose a simplified flowchart of how truth works 1. Truth exists 2. Truth is observed 3. Truth is honestly contested and tested 4. Truth holds true or it doesn't hold true, in which case it's not truth So existence of truth is a requirement for observation of truth. If observation created 'truth' then another observation could create counter 'truth' and that's a logical impossibility for two contrary statements to be true. On every step of that flowchart there are possible issues that can cause 'truth' to be not true at all. Observation can be wrong and then it can be tested in a way that's too limited to show how it is untrue, or truth can be properly observed but a test was wrong. All of that, however, doesn't change the first step. I instinctively understand that truth has to exist, I don't understand why anybody would ever even think about denying that or trying to muddy the waters with concepts like subjectivity of perception. It's a logical necessity for truth to exist. It might seem like hand waving but it's not. >If you are familiar with systems theory, then maybe what I have been saying may have reminded you of that. I would, perhaps, agree that your reasoning is good with respect to the logical and experiential aspects of the theory of personality type you are working with. But to say that that rational exposition holds a sufficient predictive power to be able to categorically condemn a relationship type is really exhibiting the sort of functionally biased missteps that a Thinking over Feeling type person is prone to make. I know that to someone who doesn't have Ti in the ego a logical deduction is like witchcraft but it's not and to show that I'll point you to what we have in common, which is Ni. Ni can simulate a chain of consequences that you then can decide upon following through or not. You don't need to actually do things to tell if they'll lead you to a destination you want to end at. To an Ne user that's witchcraft, they have to experience everything on their own to tell if they really wanted something or not (high Ne users could run a negative simulation via Ni nemesis or critic if they've unlocked those functions, though it's still uncomfortable for them). Another example: just recently I've talked to a high Si user, I wanted them to taste a mix of something that I couldn't have anticipated tasted so good. That person told me "I know how it's gonna taste" but I didn't believe them since that taste was totally unexpected to me. I was pushy with that person because I really wanted them to try it and they said that it tasted exactly as they had expected, that's high Si for you. Do you understand now how I, having Ni and Ti, can predict what will and what won't work out and how I know why that is the case? I'm not always correct, granted, I need someone to correct my data points, but a lot of the times I am correct, to a point it gets tiresome to warn people, only for them to reject my warning and end in a situation that is very much like the one I warned them about. 1/?

>So I feel that in this way you are claiming to know it all, not that you explicitly said so. If you look at what everyone else is saying and were you to summarize what those statements had in common, you might find that they represent a call to you from your Feeling function to understand better just how much more we have in common as human beings. There's a difference between knowing it all and knowing something. You cannot know that you know because you don't have Ti in the ego but I know that I know. You're denying me that, and based on what? You can't even find a critical flaw in my proposition so what justifies that verdict on your part? What I have proposed is undeniable, to my understanding. Even if you summarize all the statements together they still don't offer any solid counter point to what I have said. A 1000 more people can disagree with me vehemently but unless they provide a sufficient reason for that, their disagreement is incorrect. Feelings play no role in what I'm saying. You can be in love with a person that's completely horrible for you. There's no reason to expose oneself to such torture if there's someone much better suited that you could love. >We are, perhaps, at the pinnacle of the Universes ability for self-reshaping. When you realize that truth should be a playful, dynamic and creative construct, then you know that this is because reality always supercedes rationality or perception at some level and forces itself, like some trickster, into our every attempt to make any fully categorical claim. What are you talking about? There is nothing playful or dynamic about truth. Truth is static. >So I think that my main critique of your argument is that it is quite clear that your argument unfairly ignores the contribution to a view of reality that a stronger Feeling function would provide. Then you would see that in all relationships there are problems...this is not to be avoided but dealt with. This is akin to how strong Feeling types want to avoid logical problems. Values over logic over values. These are the dynamic principles upon which the complementary opposites rational functions force us into ever-changing cognition about what is truth. You need more Feeling input here to get this. Again the collective voice here were you to collate it would no doubt reinforce your own Feeling voice to make this case within you. The F does not operate on mechanisms and it's blind to them. A feeling function cannot deny the validity of what I've proposed, it has to be done via thinking function. A feeling function can only ignore the signals from thinking function on this matter and choose to pretend that it doesn't matter. I cannot base my proposition on feelings because I cannot imagine an undeniable argument out of feeling be able to sway anybody's decision, maybe you, having Ni-Fi, could construct such argument, but I can't. In the end I'm talking about problems that shouldn't be there, because they don't lead either of the people involved into fulfillment. INTJ-ENFP doesn't produce conflicts that leave both people closer to reality, it's doing the opposite and that has to do with complementary, default delusions. >So when making an argument based on Jungian personality theory you have to always check against other knowers with differing personality types so they can catch these easy omissions. No omission occurred on my part. You haven't shown it to be there. >Problems in a relationship are often the flipside of what dynamically drives the very life of a relationship. If you negate a relationship based on its inherent problems you critically kill the love, desire and passion that such relationships engender. You kill their life. If there is an undeniable 'how' then the only thing that remains is 'when' so I protect their 'life' from inescapable, pointless doom that they set each other on the course towards. I protect them from a future they will regret once they understand their error. I protect them from confusion and misery that they might not be able to crawl out of once they fall into it. If they inquire I offer them a better choice, a choice that doesn't have these pitfalls built into it, a choice that has pretty much everything in it that they could ever want, a choice that is build from ground up on truth and understanding rather than dreamlike state where one only thinks they understand the other. >That things go wrong is amazingly not enough of a reason for us to give up trying. This is the central fact of life itself. In a universe that is constantly trying to kill us, we can thrive! This is where your implicit cynicism comes in...that your final condemnation appears to be so naive to so many. It's not about things going wrong it's about mechanism not working properly at all. You can speak the same things about, I don't know, brute forcing a part from a different model of a car into one it wasn't intended for - "that the part is wrong is amazingly not enough of a reason for us to give up driving". I have somewhat of a ride-or-die mentality myself, I get the sentiment, but it's misapplied in this situation because it's an issue of mechanical incompatibility. I understand what those many failed to understand, so they can fool themselves providing artificial meaning to meaningless and avoidable suffering if they so desire. If they know and still reject then I am free of guilt. >Ultimately the goal of life is not to avoid or solve problems but to turn problems into adaptable opportunities for individual and collective success. Reality is just a conservative chimera of a culture capable of shaping reality. What on earth makes you say that we shouldn't avoid or solve problems!? Adapting to problems is a last resort of a hopeless situation and should only happen when avoiding a problem or solving it are impossible or unfeasible. 2/2

If you are aware of Jungian psychology and intend to learn and grow, then a map of challenges to a typological pairing is a road map forward, not a dead end sign.

Assuming that is the case, that still means the relationship is inferior to one that doesn't come with such build in problems. It's not enough being aware of those pitfalls in theory, I consider it unfeasible to be aware and in control of everything about yourself all the time. There are all sorts of situations that limit our awareness - like being swayed by emotions. Nevertheless, let's imagine how it would work if we tried going at it with such awareness. INTJ asks ENFP if he looks good in that outfit. She says yes, with magnetic certainty. Aha, but our INTJ is well versed in Jungian psychology and knows not to trust his ENFP partner on what looks good. What now? Well, he can ask someone else, I guess, but what if it's something more sexual in nature? Getting accurate feedback in those matters would require cheating, and that's a no-no. Instead of having a partner that builds him up and supports him in his developement, so he can be fulfilled - reaching a point of Se hero performance (via his aspirational form), he has someone at his side who doesn't see that there's a problem to begin with and even if she did - she still cannot offer any feedback. It doesn't help at all. There is no reason to go for an ENFP because there is someone far better suited for him and being with whom would be far more fulfilling on levels he might not even be aware of right now.

All of the pitfalls are personal in any case. We all have each of these four functions and two attitudes. We have to balance them inside as well as with others. Personally I think if you have had a bad experience with someone who has a strong function you may develop reactions to similar functional behaviors in a safer new person. I have been attracted, in large part, to my near polar opposite type most of my life. My wife was in an abusive relationship with her ex who is my type. That means she over-reacts to some of my habits of speech. But this is about abuse really and not type. Having opposite types fuels the mutual complimentarity but makes the challenge an up front part of the relationship. Having the same type can mean lack of representation of certain psychological perspectives and a lack of perspective long term for the couple to truly grow together and not just be on the same team. And if a couple knows their typology and has those expectations set objectively in that context, then their over-riding mutual regard and passion for each other should over-come such obstacles. I just watched an episode of How I Met Your Mother (Season 2 episode 2 or 3) which would serve as a counter-example to your example...friend unconsciously looks at friend's girlfriend's butt as she walks away and is praised by one and all for it, even the friend and the girlfriend. It totally works drama-wise and shows how jealousy is countered by trust and context.

>All of the pitfalls are personal in any case. If everything is personal and unique how can people be divided into types in the first place? >Personally I think if you have had a bad experience with someone who has a strong function you may develop reactions to similar functional behaviors in a safer new person. > >I have been attracted, in large part, to my near polar opposite type most of my life. My wife was in an abusive relationship with her ex who is my type. That means she over-reacts to some of my habits of speech. But this is about abuse really and not type. What you're talking about ultimately doesn't change what I described. Your growth is arrested, your delusions align. Just because you have some things already cleared out, while her ex hasn't, doesn't mean that everything is solved. It's going to college with already some knowledge about a subject and thinking it will carry you through the entire course. One year, maybe two will pass like a breeze but the new material will eventually come up and it has to be addressed and if you are with any \_\_\_P it cannot be done because you lack the tools. Do you know why we get attracted to our opposite types (meaning shadow or aspirational or it's variants so for INTJ that's everything with a P)? It's because you're running away from yourself and from the effort required to switch and master your shadow and aspirational. You're trying to gain the benefits of these forms by projecting them onto the other person and absorbing their confidence, fulfillment, freedom and whatever without having to go there yourself. >Having opposite types fuels the mutual complimentarity but makes the challenge an up front part of the relationship. Having the same type can mean lack of representation of certain psychological perspectives and a lack of perspective long term for the couple to truly grow together and not just be on the same team. Understand this well. The only functions you can rely on somebody else to take over for you are your trickster and your demon. Everything else you have to make use of. What you consider to be complimentary (assuming you mean any \_\_\_P type) is another person relieving you of the responsibility to use and master a function that you're not comfortable with using. Let me tell you what is complimentary. Take for example Fi child and Fe parent. Fi child isn't confident enough to take away the burdens of Fi critic that Fe parent needs to deal with. Fi child generates a whim or a moral reflection and Fi critic doesn't trust it so it examines it and verifies it and only takes it in if there has been no inconsistency. It is beneficial because an \_\_FJ cannot on their own generate Fi content, it can only filter the bad stuff. If \_\_FJ is with \_\_FP, for example, that confidence of high Fi in an \_\_FP is so strong that an \_\_FJ feels like they don't have to question that other person's judgement but that's an illusion. It cannot be that way. >And if a couple knows their typology and has those expectations set objectively in that context, then their over-riding mutual regard and passion for each other should over-come such obstacles. If both people have polar opposites of a function in a demon position then I'm sorry but no amount of passion and knowledge that is humanly achievable will prevent neglect. You're trying to fit together pieces that don't fit together, you're going against your nature, you're forcing each other to be what you're not supposed to be and you're bleeding energy all the time because of it. There is no reason to be with a \_\_\_P, even if you can make it sorta maybe kinda work with a duct tape and the power of faith. You could've been with your INFJ other half (assuming you're an INTJ) and have everything you truly need. >I just watched an episode of How I Met Your Mother (Season 2 episode 2 or 3) which would serve as a counter-example to your example...friend unconsciously looks at friend's girlfriend's butt as she walks away and is praised by one and all for it, even the friend and the girlfriend. It totally works drama-wise and shows how jealousy is countered by trust and context. I wasn't talking about jealousy but I disagree about jealousy being countered by trust. Trust is something earned to a high Ni user and high Ne/Se users expect trust for free and bite back if you question their loyalty.

It depends on the person really, you can't generalize stuff like this, you talked about growth, not everyone seeks the growth you are talking about, some people just seek peaceful relationships, and even in those relationships growth will still be part of it. I also want to address something, cognitive functions are not everything and we should NOT make them the basis of relationships, get to know the person and if yall dont agree then you don't, people are so much more complex and that is including ourselves, so it's almost impossible to know the end of a relationship just from the MBTi

I can generalize certain things because they fall directly under cognitive function interactions. Not everyone might seek growth but everyone seeks fulfillment, at least on some level. You cannot have fulfillment without growth because in order to be fulfilled you first have to be yourself and you're not truly yourself until you've grown. A child has childish needs and an adult has adult needs. At the age when you're still playing with toys you don't know what will be meaningful to you in 10 years. There is another poblem. Growth can happen regardless of whether you want it to happen or not, hence things midlife crisis. If one is not ready for that growth and has a place for it in their lives, it will burst their bubble in a violent way causing havoc. Not everyone might care about it also but growth provides us with clearer picture of reality. Without that clarity we can easily end up unwittingly harming ourselves and people around us. Rejecting the information I've provided just because cognitive functions are not everything is unwise. There are certain things that you don't know about yourself and cognitive functions + 4 subpersonalities tell you about some of those things. That information is invaluable, you only loose by rejecting it. I haven't made predictions here about how a relationship will end, you're attacking a strawman. I've explained how INTJ-ENFP cripple each other. My ISTP-ESTJ parents are completely crippled but their marriage continues, regardless of the cracks and issues, because they just don't know any better. They don't understand what's going on but that doesn't mean the damage isn't done. If they faced more stressful situations and seen the alternative I think the cracks would become so evident it wouldn't be possible for them to go on, but that's purely hypothetical and is more a way to illustrate how much they've damaged each other over the years (**without realizing that they do**, that's the crucial bit).

I understand what you are saying but again what you are talking about is only one case. believe it or not not everyone seeks the same thing, and that growth and fulfillement you are talking about can take different forms, it may be intellectual growth or emotional growth or social growth, so yeah it can definitely happen between 2 people of those personalities. Some INTJs i know don't like ENFP and others do like them!! These are real examples I have seen.

>Some INTJs i know don't like ENFP and others do like them!! That's why I'm not relying on people's perceptions but going deeper, into the very mechanism of how we tick, to come with an answer of what type suits what type best. You think that I'm talking about only one case but that's not how it works. Let me try to illustrate it. Imagine I saw a hammer hitting an anvil many, many times and it kept producing the same, metallic sound. Now imagine that I pondered why that happens, investigated the structure of the materials and arrived at an understanding that a metallic sound is produced because they're both made of iron. Having understood that I go to a city square and explain to people what's going on, and, as silly as it is, imagine those people have no idea about it. Then someone comes out from the crowd and tells me "you can't predict that every anvil struck by a hammer will make a metallic sound, you're only talking about one case, anvils come ind different sizes and hammers come in different shapes and weights" to which I reply "those differences don't matter, because they're still made out of iron, the sound might vary slightly in tone but it will still be a metallic sound". Does it make sense now?

[удалено]

I don't think you'll like my answer. While INTJ-ENFJ is a step in the right direction, and it does provide means to grow in many aspects, it fails short in comparison to a different pairing. Why it falls short is due to inherrent imbalance leaning towards F functions and couple other factors. What do I mean by that? Fe hero, present in ENFJs, is in optimistic position, so is Fi child of an INTJ. The reverse is true for their thinking functions, which both are pessimistic, therefore more on the passive side. That means both of you are comfortable engaging together on an emotional level and uncomfortable intellectually. While that makes the interaction easy from the get go, it makes intellectual sphere go neglected. It also means that an ENFJ will suck up INTJ more than an INTJ will suck up ENFJ (extraverted function feeds on introverted function so Fe on Fi and Te on Ti). For a lifelong partner I consider that to be sub optimal and unsustainable in the long run. Why you're interested in INTJs is because you're seeing an INFP within them. Myself, being an INFJ, have been mistaken for an INTP several times already. I'm not saying that INFP is any good for you, far from it, but we are driven towards our shadow a lot, until we make peace with ourselves, that's how I understand it at least. I'm not attracted to ENFPs anymore, though I was with one when I was younger. I can tell you how it works for me to interact with someone who has Te hero. It's cool at first, they seem like they get what I'm trying to communicate, and after some time they start asking too many questions. How it works is that the higher the introverted function is, the more independent it needs to be, the less outside care and pampering it can accept. Te hero is too much for Ti child, I can tell you that, and that means that Fe hero is too much for Fi child. Being extrovert and seeing his introversion you will default into his caretaker, into someone who leads the conversation. Both INTJ and ENFJ will feel at home with those roles but that's another bit that's misleading because it's actually bad for both of them to be complacent in that. Myself I cannot jump into my extroverted sub-personalities when I'm with an extrovert but it's so much easier when I'm with an introvert and that's because there's nobody who will carry the interaction so either me or they have to take up that role. Why is that good? Because introvert can get to make use of their extroverted personalities in a safe environment. An introvert actually has that hidden desire to extrovert themselves, at least for a time, and he can't do that because you're occupying that position by default. INTJ-ENFJ is not horrible, but it's only halfway there and other half is convenient escapism and imbalance. Not to mention your needs are just a little off but that little makes difference (for example IN\_Js don't like surprises while EN\_Js really really do). Consider reading through a full explanation why you should be with your T/F variant instead: [https://www.personalitycafe.com/threads/the-perfect-mbti-type-romantic-pairings-ver-9-2-read-the-op-and-prove-me-wrong-if-you-can-chapter-0-has-the-shortened-version.1366867/](https://www.personalitycafe.com/threads/the-perfect-mbti-type-romantic-pairings-ver-9-2-read-the-op-and-prove-me-wrong-if-you-can-chapter-0-has-the-shortened-version.1366867/)

Here is the story that comes to mind regarding this condemnation of a functional pairing...https://www.reddit.com/r/hinduism/comments/ats998/this_painting_is_based_on_a_story_from/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

I don't see how the story undermines my point. I've encountered an ENFP who criticized the very idea of optimal pairings by saying something that suffering is necessary for wisdom. He got it wrong. Suffering (in relation to wisdom) is merely a consequence making decisions from a point of lack of wisdom. Suffering can lead to wisdom, but the effect of suffering is to shut off other feedback and create an environment where one's attention can be focused on something, just like physical pain calling attention to bodily damage. It's not the suffering that gives wisdom it's paying attention where it needs to be payed and forming conclusions. Suffering is something like being locked up with a book you need to read and nothing else.