• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[MBTI General] a question about INFJ

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Equating base, mindless animal instinct with human higher consciousness.

:huh: You really don't get the concept of an analogy do you? You see, when I compared INFJs to ships as I did earlier, I was not equating us to sea bearing craft. :rofl1:

analogy: drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect

Wiki said:
Analogous objects do not necessarily share a relation, but rather an idea, a pattern, a regularity, an attribute, or an effect.

In the case of a hare to a human, I am comparing the idea of an ability to adapt with new situations or environments, without changing identity. Whether it is a hare changing its fur in the winter or a human adapting alternative perceptions.

Does that help? As intelligent as you are, I can't help but wonder if you are just pretending to not understand in order to annoy me. I mean, analogies are one of the simplest literary devices there are.
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
Your anaology makes human morality seem as trivial as the changing of fur color in seasons. That's the part that is not valid. It's just a a surface color on the rabbit, not an expression of who and what they are and it is also still rabbit fur.

Human actions in relation to their values and beliefs is very much tied to who and what they are inside, it is not a trivial thing to bend and flex based on the latest moral fashion. In order to change their morals and values based on the mood of the moment, they have to lie to others and themselves, to be and act what they are not inside.

In order for your analogy to work, the hare would have willfully to spout feathers and beak to mask itself as bird!

EDIT: I *got* your analogy, I simply don't see it as valid in this case. Changing moral behavior is not comparable to changing fur color, behavior is not a mere surface trait, our deeds are not surface traits, but an outward expression of our inner beliefs and drives. What good are vague ideas of morality or values if not used to navigate external behavior? They are meaningless if not used as compass for our actions.
 

Hotherym

New member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
83
MBTI Type
INFU
I have no internal 'roadmap,' only a huge house or endless rooms. My mind shows me things whether I want to know them or not in a very non-linear fashion.

I get a chance every time I sleep to explore all of this, and I can safely say I can't even imagine having a 'roadmap' in there. The ship sailing through a dark storm is a good enough analogy and my compass shows me the way out the majority of the time.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
Your anaology makes human morality seem as trivial as the changing of fur color in seasons. That's the part that is not valid. It's just a a surface color on the rabbit, not an expression of who and what they are and it is also still rabbit fur.

Human actions in relation to their values and beliefs is very much tied to who and what they are inside, it is not a trivial thing to bend and flex based on the latest moral fashion. In order to change their morals and values based on the mood of the moment, they have to lie to others and themselves, to be and act what they are not inside.

In order for your analogy to work, the hare would have willfully to spout feathers and beak to mask itself as bird!

EDIT: I *got* your analogy, I simply don't see it as valid in this case. Changing moral behavior is not comparable to changing fur color, behavior is not a mere surface trait, our deeds are not surface traits, but an outward expression of our inner beliefs and drives. What good are vague ideas of morality or values if not used to navigate external behavior? They are meaningless if not used as compass for our actions.

I'm confused... How is behavior not external and therefore on the surface? The way I see behavior is that it's influenced by multiple factors... One is you as a person inside... morality, beliefs and drives... Another is the situation... of the people around you, social constrains placed upon you.

You can be forced to do something you normally dislike doing... does that change your inner morality because you did something that is inconsistent with who you are? I doubt it...

haphazard said:
I'm wondering now if INFJs are as capricious as INTJs now. They can be much worse than P types because once they DECIDE that they're finished or that there's nothing more they can do, they leave and move onto the next project without a thought looking back, while a P would most likely go back to tinker.
Depends on how they view things... but I think both INTJs and INFJs will bounce from project to project as soon as they think they're done with it. In some ways, Ni works exactly like Ne in the ENXPs except it occurs mostly inside our heads. So by comparison, the judging dominant INXPs can seem more consistent.
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
You can be forced to do something you normally dislike doing... does that change your inner morality because you did something that is inconsistent with who you are? I doubt it...

Kiddo was talking about making a conscious choice to change morals to flex with the moral mood of the moment, there was no mention in his post of force. So it would be an outward movement of will on the part of the person, not a exertion of force from the external world as in true brute force.

The endpoint of the situation you are talking about, well how far do we go in the name of self preservation? Do we engage in evil acts ourselves to save our skin and if so, haven't we crossed a line at that point? It is a really hard question to face, but certainly a very valid one. If we do evil to innocents to save our own necks, we've become evil ourselves. I am talking adults who have reached mental/emotional maturity here, not children. Just to be clear.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Kiddo was talking about making a conscious choice to change morals to flex with the moral mood of the moment...

No! NO! NOOOO! :steam:

I was suggesting that XNFPs can learn to be more tolerant of the moral standards of others by learning to adopt their perceptions, experiences, ideas, etc. (different fur color) within a certain moment, environment, etc. (the changing seasons). I suggested the exact opposite of what you are now suggesting. I argued that people can't make the concious choice to change their moral standards because those are derived from their original perceptions, experiences, values, etc. (the qualities that make a hare a hare) and those things can never be lost.

You don't change your morals to flex with the moral mood of the moment. You adopt the alternative perception so you can be more tolerant to the other side. If you changed your morals then who the hell would you be? That would be acceptance, not tolerance. That would be like the analogy I made earlier with the hare deciding it can fly. That path could only lead to great pain because there are some qualities that a hare can't change about itself. Likewise, the original experiences, values, culture, etc. of a person is not something they can change, and so the moral standards that are derived from those qualities also cannot change.

Seriously, I've said all this before. Have you not listened to anything I have said in this thread? :huh:
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
You adopt the alternative perception so you can be more tolerant to the other side.

First off, it is strange that you assume this is not done mentally when assessing other's viewpoint, the trying to see things from the other person's perspective.

Please define what tolerance means to you?
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Please define what tolerance means to you?

Tolerance: willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others and a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
Tolerance: willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others and a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior

It really depends on the behavior in question.

It would be impossible to respect some practices of others in the sense of seeing them not up for critique. If I think something is truly wrong, I am not going to gloss over it and pretend I don't or say that I hold that belief up to the same level as I do what I consider the better course. That would be intellectually dishonest.

If I believe a behavior to harmful to other innocent people, I will certainly vote against it when I am able to, I am not going to stand aside and pretend to have some respect for the freedom of choice for those who want to engage in it and if it does not harm others, it is not my place to prevent the action so it does not even apply.
 

Jae Rae

Free-Rangin' Librarian
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
979
MBTI Type
INFJ
Have you heard of the concept of agreeing to disagree? There are some situations where you understand what the other person is saying, but you don't agree with it and no amount of discussion, tolerance or consideration will change that. You simply disagree, that's all there is to it. All that can be agreed upon is that you're intelligent people who see things very, very differently.

Jae Rae
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
It would be impossible to respect some practices of others in the sense of seeing them not up for critique. If I think something is truly wrong, I am not going to gloss over it and pretend I don't or say that I hold that belief up to the same level as I do what I consider the better course. That would be intellectually dishonest.

Well that is the difference between INFPs and INFJs. An INFJ can see a behavior that would be completely unacceptable by their moral standards or within their own culture, and they can find the merit within it by understanding the alternative perceptions, experiences, values, culture, etc. That doesn't mean they accept or approve of that behavior, but they can respect a person's right to feel that way. It isn't "glossing over" or "pretending" but rather understanding that other people have different perceptions, experiences, values, etc. and can have different ways of believing and behaving that one might not agree with. The INFJ therefore argues, "the better course" for them, may not be "the better course" for everyone.
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
It really depends on the behavior in question.

It would be impossible to respect some practices of others in the sense of seeing them not up for critique. If I think something is truly wrong, I am not going to gloss over it and pretend I don't or say that I hold that belief up to the same level as I do what I consider the better course. That would be intellectually dishonest.

If I believe a behavior to harmful to other innocent people, I will certainly vote against it when I am able to, I am not going to stand aside and pretend to have some respect for the freedom of choice for those who want to engage in it and if it does not harm others, it is not my place to prevent the action so it does not even apply.


Well that is the difference between INFPs and INFJs. An INFJ can see a behavior that would be completely unacceptable by their moral standards or within their own culture, and they can find the merit within it by understanding the alternative perceptions, experiences, values, culture, etc. That doesn't mean they accept or approve of that behavior, but they can respect a person's right to feel that way. It isn't "glossing over" or "pretending" but rather understanding that other people have different perceptions, experiences, values, etc. and can have different ways of believing and behaving that one might not agree with. The INFJ therefore argues, "the better course" for them, may not be "the better course" for everyone.

Well, I am quoting the full post that you are replying to. I am talking about behavior that harms others. If it doesn't harm others, it is not my place to try and do anything about it, doesn't matter what I think in the privacy of my own mind or my spoken opinions.

Well, what are we talking here? What behaviors that I find myself unable to *tolerate* because they inflict harmful to innocent others, that you would tolerate it? Why do I have to tolerate abusive behaviors in others?

Sorry but I am never going to look abuse, murder or rape and say "Oh hey, that's just a different and wonderous way of looking at life! Zipty Do Da!"
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Well, I am quoting the full post that you are replying to. I am talking about behavior that harms others.

Well, what are we talking here? What behaviors that I find myself unable to *tolerate* because they inflict harmful to innocent others, that you find so unacceptable that I could not tolerate it? Why do I have to tolerate abusive behaviors in others?

It seems you added a bit since I replied. The entire last paragraph was added after I had already posted. Nonetheless, an INFJ can look past even harmful behaviors to understand the human being behind them. And INFJs don't "pretend" to respect freedom of choice. I could provide a genuine example, but I sincerely doubt that the OP would appreciate if I sent her thread down that road. But allow me to reply to what you have since posted.

If I believe a behavior to harmful to other innocent people, I will certainly vote against it when I am able to, I am not going to stand aside and pretend to have some respect for the freedom of choice for those who want to engage in it and if it does not harm others, it is not my place to prevent the action so it does not even apply.

The problem with that line of thinking is when you accept a behavior is harmful when it isn't or you believe a certain behavior is harmful in every situation regardless of circumstances.

Following that line of thinking, let's assume you found homosexuality harmful to innocent people, as many people do. By your own admission, you would not stand for it. You might even protest and hold up signs at that say things like, "Protect our children from the gay threat" and "Fags will burn in hell". You would not respect a gay person's freedom of choice to be with who they want. You would be completely intolerant of that behavior. All that simply because of your perception that homosexuality is harmful.

Why should you be tolerant to a behavior you may believe is harmful? For one, so you have an opportunity to learn and grow. It will allow you to observe a behavior and determine whether it is always harmful in every situation. For two, so you can sympathize with wrong doers, rather than simply condemning them. And finally, so you are free to change your opinions if they are wrong.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Sorry but I am never going to look abuse, murder or rape and say "Oh hey, that's just a different and wonderous way of looking at life! Zipty Do Da!"

Well I wasn't going to go there, but since you brought it up.

Let's take a situation. Let's say it's an adult having sex with a 14 year old. Chances are an XNFP would simply argue, "That is sexual abuse and it is reprehensible and that adult should be in prison!" Many very good arguments could be made for that point of view. For example, there is a power imbalance and thus it is inherently coercive, and a 14 year old would probably not have the experience necessary to make good decisions. So does that mean a 14 year old having sex with an adult is universally wrong? An XNFP probably would say yes because their internal moral standards say so. An XNFJ would have a much more complex view.

First they would look at a culturally relativistic perspective. Has it always been wrong? Well, no, obviously people used to live much shorter lives, so it wasn't uncommon only a few hundred years ago for people to get married as young as 14. Is it the same everywhere? Well, no, countries like Spain and Denmark have ages of consent as low as 13. Well is it wrong in every situation? Well no, I remember not to long ago reading about a case where a 13 year-old tricked a 20 something year old into believing she was 18. Is it harmful in every situation? No, there are people who have had sex with adults when they were as young as 14, and they haven't suffered any difficulties as a result of it.

Now does any of that mean that we should accept an adult having sex with a 14 year old? Absolutely not! It doesn't dismiss that in this country, in this culture, at this time, that there is usually a power imbalance and thus it is inherently coercive, and a 14 year old would probably not have the experience necessary to make good decisions. But if I were to encounter a sexual offender who had been convicted of having sex with a 14 year old, I would want to know their situation rather than just condemning them for what they did.

I would want to know what their perceptions at the time were, how they had been raised, what culture they had grown up in, what were their experiences, and what values they held. For example, it has been found that most sexual offenders were sexually or physically abused when they were younger. Many came from tough backgrounds. A common profile trait of a sexual offender is a person who has trouble establishing healthy adult relationships. A few even come from cultures where a 14 year old having sex with an adult wouldn't be a big deal. Now of course, none of that changes the previously mentioned arguments, and so within this country, they still would have broken the law and will have to deal with the consequences, but knowing their situation would help me to sympathize with them.

Why would I want to be tolerant of people who engage in behaviors that I perceive as harmful? Because, they are still a human being and deserve to be treated as such. No situation is usually universally wrong, even if it is wrong in this country, in our culture, at this time. And people may have many reasons for behaving the way they do, and people should be respected for having different beliefs and perspectives, even if we find their behaviors to be harmful.

That doesn't mean I think it is ok for an adult to have sex with a 14 year old, nor does that mean I advocate lowering the age of consent, only that I am tolerant of people making their own choices and I realize that what I percieve as "wrong" or "harmful" may not be that way in every single case.
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
It seems you added a bit since I replied. The entire last paragraph was added after I had already posted. Nonetheless, an INFJ can look past even harmful behaviors to understand the human being behind them. And INFJs don't "pretend" to respect freedom of choice. I could provide a genuine example, but I sincerely doubt that the OP would appreciate if I sent her thread down that road. But allow me to reply to what you have since posted.



The problem with that line of thinking is when you accept a behavior is harmful when it isn't or you believe a certain behavior is harmful in every situation regardless of circumstances.

Following that line of thinking, let's assume you found homosexuality harmful to innocent people, as many people do. By your own admission, you would not stand for it. You might even protest and hold up signs at that say things like, "Protect our children from the gay threat" and "Fags will burn in hell". You would not respect a gay person's freedom of choice to be with who they want. You would be completely intolerant of that behavior. All that simply because of your perception that homosexuality is harmful.

Why should you be tolerant to a behavior you may believe is harmful? For one, so you have an opportunity to learn and grow. It will allow you to observe a behavior and determine whether it is always harmful in every situation. For two, so you can sympathize with wrong doers, rather than simply condemning them. And finally, so you are free to change your opinions if they are wrong.

The gay thing is NA for me, come up with something else.

I don't care what adults do with each other as long as they aren't hurting or taking advantage of someone. People who seduce teens under the age of consent are in their own category for me, gay and straight. I can understand the reasons that led a person to seduce a 14 year old and I can have pity for them, but I will never *tolerate* their behaviors.

You make a huge assumption that I have not already thought about whether or not a behavior is harmful before I decide it is.

People who feel as you say above about gays, are people who believe one can be "turned" gay, they lack education. One does not have to have tolerance for a behavior to seek education on it. I read about behaviors that I find intolerable all the time, I want to understand them and I want to be clear in my understanding of them, I would always be open to new education and information, but I don't see how most abuse and crime can be tolerated.

Even like with bullies, I understand a lot about why they do what they do and I even have sympathy for them as indvividuals for what may have put them into their mindset, even while despising them for what they allow themselves to become. I will never tolerate a bully, but I have sought to understand them and I do have a type of sympathy/pity for them.

Even with the metaphorical Devil, one can have sympathy for what he has to be in the scheme of things and try to understand what makes him tick, while hating him for what he does.

kiddo said:
Well I wasn't going to go there, but since you brought it up.

Why not go there? That's what it is all about! What do you think most INFP on here talk about when they say moral compass, whether or not it is moral to gulp down a gallon of rocky road? :huh:
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Well it seems we have come to a shaky consensus then. We both agree that we can tolerate people who do bad things, but we can't tolerate the bad things they do. We just have different approaches to coming to that conclusion.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Wow. What a thread!

Excellent timing too...at times I've wondered whether I'm actually an INFJ, but this thread cements the deal!! I am!! ;) I don't think I can add anything that hasn't already been said by Wandering and Kiddo, but I can relate very much to their approaches and thought processes.

Internal roadmap...this is tricky. I find it quite difficult to articulate what exactly it is that I DO do when it comes to my cognitive functions. But so much of what others wrote has resonated with me, that I defer to their descriptions of Ni/Fe/Ti!! :smile:

Edit: [man, this server sucks] A few more things, regarding the OP. I personally have a hard time with the whole 'hunch' verbage, as I don't see myself following a series of 'hunches' at whim, for no reason. I also have to admit that when I first read the whole 'internal roadmap' thing, I had a hard time understanding what was meant by internal roadmap. I like what others have said, as far as patterns go. Seeing patterns. My perspective on pretty much everything - world events, cultures, big topics, etc, and even myself and my own emotional state and framework and how it fluxes and changes over time, extends extremely far out, and when it comes to things outside myself, it's on a very large timescale -- millenia-- in the past as well as the future (with myself, it extends decades, and this causes problems for me - makes it challenging for me to live in the moment). I build upon my knowledge base, and hypothesize from there. It's a lot of interconnections, and so my 'hunches' aren't just random -- they're based on many things. But it possibly seems chaotic to outside observers, since it would be hard for me to explain how I came to a conclusion about something. Also, regarding myself -- it might seem that with regards to personal life choices I can be random. I can understand why people might think that. But I have good reasons for doing what I do, even if what I am doing doesn't have a defined path -- because I take my life and behaviors into context, project into the future, and then decide based on all of that, and all sorts of variables. So there might be some sort of probability thing that I throw into the mix too -- play the odds, perhaps. But even writing all this...I'm not sure this is exactly what I do...so don't take it too literally. :)
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
Well it seems we have come to a shaky consensus then. We both agree that we can tolerate people who do bad things, but we can't tolerate the bad things they do. We just have different approaches to coming to that conclusion.

Just to be clear:

When I say sympathy, I mean definition 2. B. here.

I don't mean any of this definition of tolerate.
 

halfaninstant

New member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
29
MBTI Type
INFP
Edit: [man, this server sucks] A few more things, regarding the OP. I personally have a hard time with the whole 'hunch' verbage, as I don't see myself following a series of 'hunches' at whim, for no reason. I also have to admit that when I first read the whole 'internal roadmap' thing, I had a hard time understanding what was meant by internal roadmap. I like what others have said, as far as patterns go. Seeing patterns. My perspective on pretty much everything - world events, cultures, big topics, etc, and even myself and my own emotional state and framework and how it fluxes and changes over time, extends extremely far out, and when it comes to things outside myself, it's on a very large timescale -- millenia-- in the past as well as the future (with myself, it extends decades, and this causes problems for me - makes it challenging for me to live in the moment). I build upon my knowledge base, and hypothesize from there. It's a lot of interconnections, and so my 'hunches' aren't just random -- they're based on many things. But it possibly seems chaotic to outside observers, since it would be hard for me to explain how I came to a conclusion about something. Also, regarding myself -- it might seem that with regards to personal life choices I can be random. I can understand why people might think that. But I have good reasons for doing what I do, even if what I am doing doesn't have a defined path -- because I take my life and behaviors into context, project into the future, and then decide based on all of that, and all sorts of variables. So there might be some sort of probability thing that I throw into the mix too -- play the odds, perhaps. But even writing all this...I'm not sure this is exactly what I do...so don't take it too literally. :)

the terms i used - hunch, internal roadmaps, etc.. comes from the text i read regarding INFJ and INFP.

anyway, i'm glad it helps you understand your type. that's the purpose of this thread anyway =D
 
Top