Instead of editing the original I've decided to make a second post, written when I'm actually not exhausted. Here goes:
Why am I posting this? Mainly to help me develop my thoughts on my own type, as I think best "out loud" and will be able to refer to it later. But if it helps someone or provides entertainment or whatever, great.
I've been called an INFP, INTJ and ISTP before. So this post will deal with the functions I have, and the ones I don't. I'll try to give examples of each function I have and an explanation of why I don't have the others even when it might appear otherwise.
Those claiming I'm mistyped tend to point to me asking for references or pointing out a lack of qualifications as evidence of Te use. However, they ignore a few important aspects.
Ti will seek external sources, just not to validate its own theories - instead it will use external data to compare and contrast. Ti wants to know everything there is to know about a subject, and will study it intently... but no information is accepted unless it "meshes" with the logical framework Ti builds. Compare Te, which will only seek out information that is relevant to its particular interest in a topic - only what it can use.
When a Ti user debates someone, that Ti user is likely to demand evidence supporting the opposing argument or disproving Ti's argument... because in the absence of such evidence, Ti's argument is as valid as its opponent's, and so why should it change its mind? The same reasoning is what may lead Ti to point out a lack of expertise in a topic - it's not that the Ti user is saying they can't know what they're talking about, but rather that just saying "you're wrong, here's what's right" without breaking down the opposing argument or even arguing the point beyond saying how things are and without being someone with expertise essentially turns the argument into "you say x, I say y" because, again, both are equal.
Another key difference between Ti and Te is what they do when they change their minds. Te will accept opposing facts that are better supported or refute its own and discard its former views without a second thought, perhaps only clinging to a few ideas that had been useful, because to Te there's no arguing against results.
Ti, on the other hand, hates discarding its theories entirely and will instead seek to adjust its logical framework to account for new information before discarding it. However, Ti has no qualms about discarding logically fallacious ideas, even if they "worked" in some cases, because truth is all.
I use Ti - I'll spend a long time forming an idea of what I think. Then I'll test it against established information - see if I can make logically consistent arguments supporting my views and opposing others. If not, I'll go back and adjust it until I can.
When solving problems, my first thought is "wait, let me think." I'll break problems down to component parts, seek to understand them, and then, doing so, understand the problem.
I do not use Te. I don't care much for the usefulness of knowledge, only that I have it. In a debate, I care more for consistency in an argument - I'll only ask for facts from an opponent whose argument fails to refute mine on its own - in other words, when, lacking evidence, I see no reason to adjust my views. When dealing with a problem, I break it down and examine it rather than relying on any form of "how to" guide - Te solves problems using what has been proven to solve that problem.
I've been called a Fi user because I once uttered a phrase along the lines of "you don't know me" and because I debated using walls of text.
Fi definitely is prone to having the view that another cannot know them - but while suggestive, I would not say it's something that can confirm Fi use. See, Fi will have a personal sense of its own identity and anyone who disagrees is automatically considered to not know the Fi user well enough. It's hard to break through that. Fe, on the other hand, especially high Fe users, are experts at "thin slicing" or reading "vibes" - Fe users believe that they can gather sufficient information about someone in a short period of time because there's more to every interaction than is readily apparent.
Both of these are right to some degree, and wrong to some degree.
Fi is wrong in assuming nobody can know it well enough to recognise aspects of its identity faster than Fi can. But Fe is wrong in assuming it always has enough information to make an assessment, because some things are not readily apparent, or appear different from what they are, and Fe is still subject to bias. A Fe user expecting to deal with a Fi user will interpret Fe grip - which makes the inferior Fe user prone to walls of text and emotional outbursts - as a sign of Fi use, for example.
A clear difference between Fe and Fi is that Fi has a personal sense of right and wrong.
Fe, by comparison, determines right and wrong by what is best for the collective.
Another is that Fi is individualistic and doesn't need external validation, whereas Fe determines its sense of self according to how it interacts with others.
I'm a Fe user - with inferior Fe. Most telling is that I'm prone to Fe grip - more so than some, due to certain mental health issues. Sometimes I need external validation - even when I don't particularly care what the person in question thinks of me as a person, I might sometimes need for them to understand what I'm getting at. This, I think, is a telling point in debates. I believe (though I may be wrong) that a Fi user would abandon a debate far earlier than a Fe user, as Fi doesn't need that validation.
I'm not a Fi user. My sense of right and wrong is based on cause and effect, or rather cost and benefit - the way I see it, if the most likely result is worth the greatest possible cost, it's justified. Thus, if it's good for more people, it's more justified, and if it will be costly to more people, it's less justified.
Fi, on the other hand, will most likely have specific ideas of right and wrong, or if looking at things the way I do, is more likely to consider risk and reward than cost and benefit. "What's the worst that could happen" and "what's the best way it could turn out" instead of "what would doing anything at all cost" and "what are we likely to get out of it."
I'll be honest, nobody has ever really elaborated much on an opinion that I use Ni - the closest was arguing in favour of Se - but here goes.
Ni gathers information from everywhere and weaves it all together into a single moment of clarity when a new fact presents itself out of nowhere and proceeds to mess up everything. At least that's how I choose to imagine it. Perhaps it's less dramatic. Ni is heavily focused on the future and on making predictions, and is prone (in my personal experience) to claiming prescience after the fact.
Ne, on the other hand, will start with what it knows and then ask "but what if?" It will take its first answer and run with it.
It will consider possibility after possibility, consequence after consequence, branching out more and more until, unchecked, it's made such a confusing tangle of your thoughts that somehow you're trying to figure out how to build an aeroplane when you started off wondering about what you'd need for an exotic pet. Ne can connect seemingly unrelated matters with ease, and while less effective at predicting the future is certainly good at considering possibilities, as long as you don't stretch too far.
I'm a Ne user. I'm constantly drifting off topic (writing this was accomplished with heavy use of backspace) as my thoughts wander to related ideas, and I can't stop myself considering any and every possibility. Gathering information, I start with what I know about the observable area and work onto the implications. Planning, I tend to try and cover as many contingencies as possible rather than trying to make a specific plan for an expected future.
I don't use Ni. I don't have those sorts of epiphanies that Ni is prone to, I can't "see the future" except as a series of interconnected events and possible ends. I don't have the sort of certainty about things that I've come to expect from Ni users.
Si is not your memory. Let's get that out of the way. Everyone stores memories and learns from experiences. Si is a particular way of handling direct sensory information that's related to memories and experiences. Si is about understanding current exoeriences in light of past experiences, as opposed to Se, which tends to live in the moment and consider every experience on its own merits.
Se is also often linked to physical conpetence and a tendency to react in a very physical way. Those who have said I may be a Se user said so mainly because, in my troubled youth, I had something of a tendency towards violent actions - specifically, I was often set upon by school bullies and eventually developed the habit of choking them. This, however, was simply the most effective way to deal with the immediate threat - choking scares both the attacker and onlookers and places me in a position of control, should they decide to resist.
I'm a Si user - I'm constantly being reminded of a song I once heard, a book I once read or something I saw, especially when at ease - I seek to understand experiences by relating them to what I've experienced before.
I've never been much for living in the moment, and beyond that, Se users are also generally hyper aware of their surroundings - I'm usually too caught up in whatever caugth my interest to notice the rest, or else stuck in my head. I'm only really aware of my surroundings when I try to be.
Fe grip means inferior Fe, therefore dominant Ti, and since it can't be Ti>Si it must be Ti>Ne. But beyond that...the way I handle my thoughts.
First comes analysis and investigation - I break things down using Ti, try to understand them, use Ne to consider implications and possibilities, then, and draw on Si to relate it to past experiences for comparison. Fe serves mainly as a way I (try and fail to) relate to others, or else shows up when I'm way too stressed and go into grip.
For interest's sake, some other typings that I may elaborate on in the future:
Enneagram: cp6w5, 8w7, 4w5 sx/sp (mistyped as an 8 core at first.)
Hogwarts house: Slytherin through and through.
Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
