Functional Formulas

[waxwing]

I was thinking about creating graphs to represent functional identities in MBTT, but sort of got bored before I finished that. So, instead I've studied a few patterns and tried to come up with a theory of intertype relations for MBTT. Who knows if it's actually fresh.

1. To begin, look at INTP.

Functional order:

Ti, Ne, Si, Fe, Te, Ni, Se, Fi
_______________________
A1, B1, C1, D1, A2, B2, C2, D2

Let A1 - D2 stand for each function, as shown above.

Type 2 will be defined as [A2, B2, C2, D2, A1, B1, C1, D1], which is bascially swapping the 1st four functions with the last 4.

This formula matches ENTJ (functional order: Te, Ni, Se, Fi, Ti, Ne, Si, Fe).

Types 3 and 4 must be types whose functional orders follow either the pattern [2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1] or [1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2] and whose letters are represented by A, B, C, D or D, C, B, A (unbroken sequence). We come up with these possibilites: ESFJ and ISFP.

ESFJ's functional order: D1, C1, B1, A1, D2, C2, B2, A2.
ISFP's functional order: D2, C2, B2, A2, D1, C1, B1, A1.

So, INTP, ENTJ. ESFJ, and ISFP form Group A.

Next four types will emerge from the NT group and the SF group. The reason for this is that we are now looking for functional orders that still follow the pattern of [1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2] or [2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1]. Two remaining rational types are INTJ and ENTP [ B1, A1, D1, C1, B2, A2, D2, C2]. Two remaining "SF" types are ISFJ [C1, D1, A1, B1, C2, D2, A2, B2] and ESFP [ C2, D2, A2, B2, C1, D1, A1, B1]. All we are concerned with is the numbers now although if you want to know the actual functions you can refer back to the original formula for INTP.

So, INTJ, ENTP, ISFJ, and ESFP form Group B.

Next we must find patterns among the remaining types and group them accordingly. Look for any [2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1] orders to begin. [B]ESTJ [A2, C1, B1, D2, A1, C2, B2, D1], ESTP [C2, A1, D1, B2, C1, A2, D2, B1], INFJ , and [B]INFP [D2, B1, C1, A2, D1, B2, C2, A1] all share the pattern, but these types will not form group 3. We first need to match dominant A1 or A2 types with dominant D1 or D2 types, and similarly, pair dominant C1 and C2 types with dominant B1 and B2 types, respectively. This is the same method we used for groups 1 and 2. 1st and 8th functions of group 1 are either A or D. 1st and 8th functions for group 2 are either B or C. For group 3, 1st and 8th functions will be A or D. For group 4, they will be C or B.

Group 3 becomes: ENFJ, INFP, ESTJ, and ISTP.

Group 4 becomes: ENFP, INFJ, ESTP, and ISTJ.

Now let's analyze the groups and possibly organize them on a grander scale.


Group 1 - INTP, ENTJ, ISFP, ESFJ.

Group 2 - ENTP, INTJ, ESFP, ISFJ.

Group 3 - INFP, ENFJ, ISTP, ESTJ.

Group 4 - ENFP, INFJ, ESTP, ISTJ.

INTP ENTJ ENTP INTJ
ISFP ESFJ ESFP ISFJ

INFP ENFJ ENFP INFJ
ISTP ESTJ ESTP ISTJ

Based on the fact that we see a complete reversal of functions in types directly on top of each other, it seems natural that these types in relationship would contradict each other. These pairs are INTP/ISFP, ENTJ/ESFJ, ENTP/ESFP, INTJ/ISFJ, INFP/ISTP, ENFJ/ESTJ, ENFP/ESTP, INFJ/ISTJ.

Relations of greatest benefit based on similarity will be adjacent pairs (similar to the mirror relation in socionics) within groups.

I am tired of doing this now, but maybe I'll come back and fill in the missing pieces later.

For now, what are your thoughts on the types I've highlighted and the way in which I've grouped them?

[wildcat]

I was thinking about creating graphs to represent functional identities in MBTT, but sort of got bored before I finished that. So, instead I've studied a few patterns and tried to come up with a theory of intertype relations for MBTT. Who knows if it's actually fresh.

1. To begin, look at INTP.

Functional order:

Ti, Ne, Si, Fe, Te, Ni, Se, Fi
_______________________
A1, B1, C1, D1, A2, B2, C2, D2

Let A1 - D2 stand for each function, as shown above.

Type 2 will be defined as [A2, B2, C2, D2, A1, B1, C1, D1], which is bascially swapping the 1st four functions with the last 4.

This formula matches ENTJ (functional order: Te, Ni, Se, Fi, Ti, Ne, Si, Fe).

Types 3 and 4 must be types whose functional orders follow either the pattern [2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1] or [1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2] and whose letters are represented by A, B, C, D or D, C, B, A (unbroken sequence). We come up with these possibilites: ESFJ and ISFP.

ESFJ's functional order: D1, C1, B1, A1, D2, C2, B2, A2.
ISFP's functional order: D2, C2, B2, A2, D1, C1, B1, A1.

So, INTP, ENTJ. ESFJ, and ISFP form Group A.

Next four types will emerge from the NT group and the SF group. The reason for this is that we are now looking for functional orders that still follow the pattern of [1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2] or [2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1]. Two remaining rational types are INTJ and ENTP [ B1, A1, D1, C1, B2, A2, D2, C2]. Two remaining "SF" types are ISFJ [C1, D1, A1, B1, C2, D2, A2, B2] and ESFP [ C2, D2, A2, B2, C1, D1, A1, B1]. All we are concerned with is the numbers now although if you want to know the actual functions you can refer back to the original formula for INTP.

So, INTJ, ENTP, ISFJ, and ESFP form Group B.

Next we must find patterns among the remaining types and group them accordingly. Look for any [2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1] orders to begin. [B]ESTJ [A2, C1, B1, D2, A1, C2, B2, D1], ESTP [C2, A1, D1, B2, C1, A2, D2, B1], INFJ , and [B]INFP [D2, B1, C1, A2, D1, B2, C2, A1] all share the pattern, but these types will not form group 3. We first need to match dominant A1 or A2 types with dominant D1 or D2 types, and similarly, pair dominant C1 and C2 types with dominant B1 and B2 types, respectively. This is the same method we used for groups 1 and 2. 1st and 8th functions of group 1 are either A or D. 1st and 8th functions for group 2 are either B or C. For group 3, 1st and 8th functions will be A or D. For group 4, they will be C or B.

Group 3 becomes: ENFJ, INFP, ESTJ, and ISTP.

Group 4 becomes: ENFP, INFJ, ESTP, and ISTJ.

Now let's analyze the groups and possibly organize them on a grander scale.


Group 1 - INTP, ENTJ, ISFP, ESFJ.

Group 2 - ENTP, INTJ, ESFP, ISFJ.

Group 3 - INFP, ENFJ, ISTP, ESTJ.

Group 4 - ENFP, INFJ, ESTP, ISTJ.

INTP ENTJ ENTP INTJ
ISFP ESFJ ESFP ISFJ

INFP ENFJ ENFP INFJ
ISTP ESTJ ESTP ISTJ

Based on the fact that we see a complete reversal of functions in types directly on top of each other, it seems natural that these types in relationship would contradict each other. These pairs are INTP/ISFP, ENTJ/ESFJ, ENTP/ESFP, INTP/ISFJ, INFP/ISTP, ENFJ/ESTJ, ENFP/ESTP, INFJ/ISTJ.

Relations of greatest benefit based on similarity will be adjacent pairs (similar to the mirror relation in socionics) within groups.

I am tired of doing this now, but maybe I'll come back and fill in the missing pieces later.

For now, what are your thoughts on the types I've highlighted and the way in which I've grouped them?
I appreciate your work. I see the logic. I do not see the point. Please elaborate.

[waxwing]

wildcat, the point was originally going to be to visually represent the patterns by plotting points on a graph. I might still do that but for now the point is just to find the patterns and divide the types into groups based on common trends in functional order. Make sense?


I am tired of doing this now, but maybe I'll come back and fill in the missing pieces later. I quit at the point where I was going to define the relationships in more detail because I'm not sure I want to define every single relationship. Instead, I think I want to make it visual. What do you think?

[wildcat]

wildcat, the point was originally going to be to visually represent the patterns by plotting points on a graph. I might still do that but for now the point is just to find the patterns and divide the types into groups based on common trends in functional order. Make sense?
I quit at the point where I was going to define the relationships in more detail because I'm not sure I want to define every single relationship. Instead, I think I want to make it visual. What do you think?
It lookes very interesting. I think you are trying to do with the chart 2 something similar what I have been trying to do with the chart 3.
I have been prejudiced about the applicability of the chart 2. Not about the chart itself, though.
Of course I may be wrong. I can change my mind. We shall see.
Your method is sound.

Yes, I think it is a good idea to make it visual!

[waxwing]

It lookes very interesting. I think you are trying to do with the chart 2 something similar what I have been trying to do with the chart 3.
I have been prejudiced about the applicability of the chart 2. Not about the chart itself, though.
Of course I may be wrong. I can change my mind. We shall see.
Your method is sound.

Yes, I think it is a good idea to make it visual!
I have started to drift away from MBTI in favor of socionics, thinking that socionics seems more applicable in terms of functions. Then I realized that the functional orders for MBTI might not be the real problem. It might be that the MBTI types are so rarely understood as being composed of eight active functions, so nobody really knows the purpose of each one, or how they're interrelated within one type and between types.

Ok, since you think it may be a good idea, I will definitely work on the graphs after I figure out the best way to make them.

Thanks for your feedback.

[jread]

I'm too stupid to understand this.... I see lots of numbers and my brain shuts down :cry:

[wildcat]

I have started to drift away from MBTI in favor of socionics, thinking that socionics seems more applicable in terms of functions. Then I realized that the functional orders for MBTI might not be the real problem. It might be that the MBTI types are so rarely understood as being composed of eight active functions, so nobody really knows the purpose of each one, or how they're interrelated within one type and between types.

Ok, since you think it may be a good idea, I will definitely work on the graphs after I figure out the best way to make them.

Thanks for your feedback.
Yeah I do hope you succeed with the graphs. It is interesting what you said about Socionics.. it would be intriguing to try about the graph that way.. but it may cause a problem as well.
Think of the P/J switch.. they wanted to follow Jung to the core.. and of course they are literally correct.. from the angle they explain it.
And yet the INTP of the MBTI is truly the perceiving type and the INTJ the judging type.
You are right about the need in the first place to understand the functions. What do they stand for. What do they exactly do.
The function order has posed the really difficult problem. It seems a kind of hushed-away problem which keeps coming back from time to time.

[wildcat]

I was thinking about creating graphs to represent functional identities in MBTT, but sort of got bored before I finished that. So, instead I've studied a few patterns and tried to come up with a theory of intertype relations for MBTT. Who knows if it's actually fresh.

1. To begin, look at INTP.

Functional order:

Ti, Ne, Si, Fe, Te, Ni, Se, Fi
_______________________
A1, B1, C1, D1, A2, B2, C2, D2

Let A1 - D2 stand for each function, as shown above.

Type 2 will be defined as [A2, B2, C2, D2, A1, B1, C1, D1], which is bascially swapping the 1st four functions with the last 4.

This formula matches ENTJ (functional order: Te, Ni, Se, Fi, Ti, Ne, Si, Fe).

Types 3 and 4 must be types whose functional orders follow either the pattern [2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1] or [1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2] and whose letters are represented by A, B, C, D or D, C, B, A (unbroken sequence). We come up with these possibilites: ESFJ and ISFP.

ESFJ's functional order: D1, C1, B1, A1, D2, C2, B2, A2.
ISFP's functional order: D2, C2, B2, A2, D1, C1, B1, A1.

So, INTP, ENTJ. ESFJ, and ISFP form Group A.

Next four types will emerge from the NT group and the SF group. The reason for this is that we are now looking for functional orders that still follow the pattern of [1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2] or [2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1]. Two remaining rational types are INTJ and ENTP [ B1, A1, D1, C1, B2, A2, D2, C2]. Two remaining "SF" types are ISFJ [C1, D1, A1, B1, C2, D2, A2, B2] and ESFP [ C2, D2, A2, B2, C1, D1, A1, B1]. All we are concerned with is the numbers now although if you want to know the actual functions you can refer back to the original formula for INTP.

So, INTJ, ENTP, ISFJ, and ESFP form Group B.

Next we must find patterns among the remaining types and group them accordingly. Look for any [2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1] orders to begin. [B]ESTJ [A2, C1, B1, D2, A1, C2, B2, D1], ESTP [C2, A1, D1, B2, C1, A2, D2, B1], INFJ , and [B]INFP [D2, B1, C1, A2, D1, B2, C2, A1] all share the pattern, but these types will not form group 3. We first need to match dominant A1 or A2 types with dominant D1 or D2 types, and similarly, pair dominant C1 and C2 types with dominant B1 and B2 types, respectively. This is the same method we used for groups 1 and 2. 1st and 8th functions of group 1 are either A or D. 1st and 8th functions for group 2 are either B or C. For group 3, 1st and 8th functions will be A or D. For group 4, they will be C or B.

Group 3 becomes: ENFJ, INFP, ESTJ, and ISTP.

Group 4 becomes: ENFP, INFJ, ESTP, and ISTJ.

Now let's analyze the groups and possibly organize them on a grander scale.


Group 1 - INTP, ENTJ, ISFP, ESFJ.

Group 2 - ENTP, INTJ, ESFP, ISFJ.

Group 3 - INFP, ENFJ, ISTP, ESTJ.

Group 4 - ENFP, INFJ, ESTP, ISTJ.

INTP ENTJ ENTP INTJ
ISFP ESFJ ESFP ISFJ

INFP ENFJ ENFP INFJ
ISTP ESTJ ESTP ISTJ

Based on the fact that we see a complete reversal of functions in types directly on top of each other, it seems natural that these types in relationship would contradict each other. These pairs are INTP/ISFP, ENTJ/ESFJ, ENTP/ESFP, INTJ/ISFJ, INFP/ISTP, ENFJ/ESTJ, ENFP/ESTP, INFJ/ISTJ.

Relations of greatest benefit based on similarity will be adjacent pairs (similar to the mirror relation in socionics) within groups.

I am tired of doing this now, but maybe I'll come back and fill in the missing pieces later.

For now, what are your thoughts on the types I've highlighted and the way in which I've grouped them?
I did the same thing with the chart 3 and/or 4.

INTP = Type 1

TI NE NI TE FI SE SI FE

A1 B1 C1 D1 A2 B2 C2 D2 respectively

Waxwing swapped the one and two around

we get

FI SE SI FE TI NE NI TE = ISFP

Types 3 and 4: unbroken sequence:

TE NI NE TI FE SI SE FI = ENTJ
FE SI SE FI TE NI NE TI = ESFJ

This is the A group of Waxwing

[wildcat]

In continuation I use r for reverse order.
Example Ti Ne Ni Te = r Te Ni Ne Ti
In other words, 1 = r2; 2 = r1

INTP 2 = ISFP 1 = r ESFJ 1 = r ENTJ 2

This was the First group

G2 ISTP 2 = INFP 1 = r ENFJ 1 = r ESTJ 2

G3 INTP 1 = ISFP 2 = r ENTJ 1 = r ESFJ 2

G4 ISTP 1 = INFP 2 = r ESTJ 1 = r ENFJ 2

G5 INTJ 2 = ISFJ 1 = r ESFP 1 = r ENTP 2

G6 ISTJ 2 = INFJ 1 = r ENFP 1 = r ESTP 2

G7 INTJ 1 = ISFJ 2 = r ENTP 1 = r ESFP 2

G8 ISTJ 1 = INFJ 2 = r ESTP 1 = r ENFP 2

[fripping]

look, i know this is nerdball central and everything, but I don't think you're going to find a lot of people willing to expend the required amount of mental energy on this

[wildcat]

look, i know this is nerdball central and everything, but I don't think you're going to find a lot of people willing to expend the required amount of mental energy on this
You are right. I stop this nonsense immediately. Amende honorable.

[April]

Like wildcat, I appreciate your work, waxwing. This is very similar to the Socionics theory of the four quadras and the intertype relations, which honestly makes a bit more sense to me. I don't have as much conflict with ISTPs as I do with ESTPs. Both types use all the opposite functions, but maybe fact that ESTPs primarily use a perceiving function (which is weak in me, and seems kinda pointless) adds more to the fire. ISTPs primarily use Ti, which isn't the strongest in me, but it's something I can respect (as it is an introverted judging function, like Fi).

Maybe I'll have more to add later, too.

[wildcat]

Like wildcat, I appreciate your work, waxwing. This is very similar to the Socionics theory of the four quadras and the intertype relations, which honestly makes a bit more sense to me. I don't have as much conflict with ISTPs as I do with ESTPs. Both types use all the opposite functions, but maybe fact that ESTPs primarily use a perceiving function (which is weak in me, and seems kinda pointless) adds more to the fire. ISTPs primarily use Ti, which isn't the strongest in me, but it's something I can respect (as it is an introverted judging function, like Fi).

Maybe I'll have more to add later, too.
I am glad for your support for waxwing, she surely deserves it. Hers is a workable idea and it is logical. It is important to understand the function display from every angle.
Serotonin I think has also made some interesting discoveries. Like waxwing all along the line I think- I may not know all of them.
It is not pointless to understand the functions and their order in different situations and their display.
Both waxwing and Serotonin made me accept of something I had rejected before.
It is curious what you say about being able to respect Ti, as it is an introverted judging function, like Fi.
Because here is the crux of the matter- the something that makes the emerging groups valid.
The four quadras? I shall look into the matter.

[th!nkstyle]

The logic is easy enought to follow, but for me as always with any topic is about questioning the basis, here this is the "functional order". Anything you create can only be as good as the theory that underpins this. I dont really know much about it, but how "for sure correct" is it that all INTPs have
inward thinking first, then Ne, Si, Fe, Te, Ni, Se, and finally Fi?

perhaps im moving to an entirely new topic all together, but just my 2 cents. good work however

[wildcat]

The logic is easy enought to follow, but for me as always with any topic is about questioning the basis, here this is the "functional order". Anything you create can only be as good as the theory that underpins this. I dont really know much about it, but how "for sure correct" is it that all INTPs have
inward thinking first, then Ne, Si, Fe, Te, Ni, Se, and finally Fi?

perhaps im moving to an entirely new topic all together, but just my 2 cents. good work however
The function order of individual members has been discussed at least in three diverse threads.
There are various models for the function order according to the standpoint of the order. These are discussed in the thread Function Order Confusion.
It is good to survey the threads The Cognitive Processes.Com and the Cognitive Processes.
What is the medial average of the individual results?

[waxwing]

The logic is easy enought to follow, but for me as always with any topic is about questioning the basis, here this is the "functional order". Anything you create can only be as good as the theory that underpins this. I dont really know much about it, but how "for sure correct" is it that all INTPs have
inward thinking first, then Ne, Si, Fe, Te, Ni, Se, and finally Fi?

perhaps im moving to an entirely new topic all together, but just my 2 cents. good work however
That's a very good point, but my approach was actually to test the functional orders by analyzing the relationships between different parts of the model (not finished yet, unfortunately). I have a lot of serious problems with MBTI so of course I don't trust that these functional orders are actually correct in practice, but I do need to start somewhere. The orders I used to make abstract orders are the ones assigned to MBTI types.

Here's kind of what I think, though, on the subject of a foundation for the theory. Functional orders are based on gradation between some set formula, and that formula is what indicates a particular type. Although the formula indicates one type over another, it does not completely define it. The gradation would. In other words, you can say INTP is Ti, Ne, Si, Fe... but you can't say that the appearance of Ti, Ne, Si, Fe... = INTP. The gradation, let's say, between an INTP with strong Ti-weak Ne and another with strong Ne-weak Ti is great enough that a person could easily appear Ne dominant. But here's the crux: I would like to show somehow that an INTP always has Ti dominance and that even the strongest INTP Ne is always undergirding Ti, even when it doesn't seem that way. Possibly the strong Ne sheds a more intuitive light on introverted thinking. I'm pretty sure, however, that to actually be Ne dominant - Ti auxillary would change the type to ENTP. An ENTP could look very much like an INTP, of course, but is set apart by the relationship I already pointed to. Actually, I think it's two or three relationship. The one is "intrafunctionally" and the other is "interfunctionally." The possible third has to do with interrelatedness between types, and the functions therein. Anyway. that just came to me and might be a stretch.

I'm just guessing here. I still haven't had time to make graphs, but I hope it will clear up some of the confusion and either show that, yes, these MBTI functional orders are valid and make sense on a grander scale, or that no, they do not seem to work from what we know by experience. This is by no means a model to show what I know to be correct. It is a model to reveal what works and what does not.

I'll come back to this later. Thanks for your input.

[wildcat]

That's a very good point, but my approach was actually to test the functional orders by analyzing the relationships between different parts of the model (not finished yet, unfortunately). I have a lot of serious problems with MBTI so of course I don't trust that these functional orders are actually correct in practice, but I do need to start somewhere. The orders I used to make abstract orders are the ones assigned to MBTI types.

Here's kind of what I think, though, on the subject of a foundation for the theory. Functional orders are based on gradation between some set formula, and that formula is what indicates a particular type. Although the formula indicates one type over another, it does not completely define it. The gradation would. In other words, you can say INTP is Ti, Ne, Si, Fe... but you can't say that the appearance of Ti, Ne, Si, Fe... = INTP. The gradation, let's say, between an INTP with strong Ti-weak Ne and another with strong Ne-weak Ti is great enough that a person could easily appear Ne dominant. But here's the crux: I would like to show somehow that an INTP always has Ti dominance and that even the strongest INTP Ne is always undergirding Ti, even when it doesn't seem that way. Possibly the strong Ne sheds a more intuitive light on introverted thinking. I'm pretty sure, however, that to actually be Ne dominant - Ti auxillary would change the type to ENTP. An ENTP could look very much like an INTP, of course, but is set apart by the relationship I already pointed to. Actually, I think it's two or three relationship. The one is "intrafunctionally" and the other is "interfunctionally." The possible third has to do with interrelatedness between types, and the functions therein. Anyway. that just came to me and might be a stretch.

I'm just guessing here. I still haven't had time to make graphs, but I hope it will clear up some of the confusion and either show that, yes, these MBTI functional orders are valid and make sense on a grander scale, or that no, they do not seem to work from what we know by experience. This is by no means a model to show what I know to be correct. It is a model to reveal what works and what does not.

I'll come back to this later. Thanks for your input.
It is very easy to see who is ENTP and who is INTP. If you have any doubt, take the Cognitive Processes test. It is based on declension. ENTP has Ne-Ti as the first and the second function, respectively. If you in addition have Fe as the seventh and Si as the eighth function you are unquestionably ENTP. Take the test more than one time, in different days.

[waxwing]

It is very easy to see who is ENTP and who is INTP. If you have any doubt, take the Cognitive Processes test. It is based on declension. ENTP has Ne-Ti as the first and the second function, respectively. If you in addition have Fe as the seventh and Si as the eighth function you are unquestionably ENTP. Take the test more than one time, in different days.

Debatably.

My results have always shown ENTP/ENTP.

I always either get this:

Ne Ti Ni Se Te Fi Fe Si

or:

Ne Ti Ni Te Se Fe Fi Si .

I don't think the cognitive processes test either proves or disproves the accuracy of the given MBTI orders, though.

I'm still not convinced I'm MBTI ENTP. Socionics, ENTp, yes.

[Snowflake]

It is very easy to see who is ENTP and who is INTP. If you have any doubt, take the Cognitive Processes test. It is based on declension. ENTP has Ne-Ti as the first and the second function, respectively. If you in addition have Fe as the seventh and Si as the eighth function you are unquestionably ENTP. Take the test more than one time, in different days.

This is what I thought, which is why I typed myself as ENTP for a while. But function order doesn't determine the type, the type determines the function order, in MBTI, at least that is how I understand it.

I always test as having more Ne than Ti.

I'm willing to accept the notion that I'm not an introvert, but honestly I don't care, and after I had changed my type to ENTP, people kept informing me I was acting too INTP to be ENTP, so I changed it back to fit the INTP profile.

[April]

Snowflake, you may test as being Ne dominant because of your functional development. According to theory, INTPs begin to fully develop their Ne at your age. Ti may be taking a back seat.

[wildcat]

This is what I thought, which is why I typed myself as ENTP for a while. But function order doesn't determine the type, the type determines the function order, in MBTI, at least that is how I understand it.

I always test as having more Ne than Ti.

I'm willing to accept the notion that I'm not an introvert, but honestly I don't care, and after I had changed my type to ENTP, people kept informing me I was acting too INTP to be ENTP, so I changed it back to fit the INTP profile.
Snowflake, you are an INTP.
I checked your results in the Cognitive Processes. Your Ne is 45 and your Ti is 43- there is no great difference there. For an ENTP your Te is too low, your Fi is too high, your Si is too high. Your Fe is at the bottom as it should be.
You are a genuine article.

ENTP Ne Ti Te Ni Se Fi Fe Si