Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandy
As an INFP with a 55% Feeling, I recognize that I can idealize someone/something because of my feelings over thinking, however, since I believe my thinking facilities are fairly high (45%), I recognize that I can be wrong about things, too; I adjust my internal feeling-meter accordingly. This, however, has been something I work hard on. When I was younger, what you had stated above definitely rings true to me.
(FYI - I'm not stating this because I feel like you are attacking the very emotional INFP in me...  ) |
What makes you a Feeler is not your ability to use F well, but rather the primacy of the unconscious tendencies that we associate with Feeling. Feeling is the strongest function of the INFP because it comes first. (So it is at least 80/20 due to its primacy). Feeling is also an Introverted function for the INFP, therefore it means that it is even further up in the order of procedure because introverted functions are closer to our psyche than extroverted. As they all necessarily derive from within. (Extroverted function do not derive from without, but also from within, we call them extroverted because they are merely stimulated most proficiently from the outside) Thus, because Feeling is an introverted function, we add another 10 points to our 80/20 statement. Hence, 90/10 with all circumstances considered so far. Intuition adds to the arsenal of feeling, as we know that NFs are most Feeling oriented temperament and NTs the most thinking oriented temperament. Therefore, we now are up to 95/5.
An INFP with a developed Inferior Thinking(5), is merely more comfortable using the Thinking faculties invested in their psyche. However, it is ti be called inferior function (inferior does not mean weakest, but last in rank) because Extroverted Thinking can only proceed after the Introverted Feeling (first), Extroverted Intuition (second) and Introverted Sensing (third).
It is better that we use first, second and third terminology, rather than dominant/inferior. The latter proves to be highly misleading because it confuses the order that the functions proceed in for their strength. There can be no doubt that the strength of functions is closely associated with the order they proceed in, in fact their strength is defined by the order they proceed in. However, I still recommend that we use the former terminology for the sake of preserving the integrity of the notion of 'temperament', as distinct from personality. If we use the latter terminology, we are in danger of thinking that the strength of those functions is all about our personal proficiency with using them. This is not the case at all. When we study temperaments, we are not interested in our personal strengths and weaknesses but merely the tendencies of our unconscious mind. Such an inquiry is better categorized in the empire of philosophy of mind rather than the science of psychology.
*Every INFP is 95/5, though some use the 5% better than others.