[Jungian Cognitive Functions] INTP and INFP similarities

[Doctor Cringelord]

INTP vs. INFP: Similarities, Differences, & Paths to Growth

As touched on in my post, Introverted Feeling (Fi) vs. Introverted Thinking (Ti), both Fi and Ti use a subjective approach to judging, that is, their preferred evaluative criteria derives from the self rather than from external sources. Both Fi and Ti make independent subjective judgments, the validity of which is experienced as self-evident. They are thus relatively unconcerned with the degree to which others agree with their methods or conclusions.

The upshot of this is that both INTPs and INFPs are apt to be idiosyncratic and unconventional. Both types exhibit a deep concern for staying true to themselves—their own ideas, interests, values, and methods—rather than blindly conforming to world around them. The appearance of adaptability conferred by their P preference belies their inner craving for authenticity and self-direction. The idea that INPs are spontaneous with respect to the outside world is in many respects fallacious. They may be spontaneous in responding to their own inner impulses, but they are inclined to avoid or flee from externalities that have the potential to disrupt the peace and comfort derived from following their own inner compass (which is why many INPs score high as Enneagram Nines).

Part of being a self-guided individual is clarifying one’s beliefs, values, and identity. This is why INPs invest so much time working to understand themselves and figure out what they believe; in order to effectively be themselves, they must first know themselves. This of course is where typology often proves useful, furnishing insight into the essential nature of their personality.

While Fi / Ti compels INPs to clarify and hold true to their own path, their auxiliary function, Extraverted Intuition (Ne), prompts them to explore external ideas and possibilities that inform, enrich, or otherwise interface with that path. Indeed, even the most introverted INPs eventually tire of running around in their own minds and feel compelled to redirect their gaze outward. Not only is Ne keen to entertain and absorb circulating ideas, but it excels at seeing patterns and connections among those ideas. Exploring new ideas and possibilities can be deeply refreshing and invigorating for INPs, particularly after extensive periods of solitude or self-absorption. In many respects, Ne functions like a “reset button” for INPs, removing their introverted blinders and offering them a fresh set of ideas to explore.

Ne can also have the effect of opening up or casting doubt on previously established judgments, which can be both a blessing and a curse for INPs. On the one hand, INPs appreciate the novelty and refreshment that Ne can bring. On the other hand, Ne is a potent destabilizer, injecting doubt, even chaos, into INPs’ self-understanding and worldview. As discussed in my post, INTPs’ & INFPs’ Quest for Convergence & Certainty, INPs who regularly employ Ne discover that, however earnest their attempts, ideational certainty perpetually eludes them. When it comes to Ne, there is only one thing one can be certain of: uncertainty.

Because of the divergent and unpredictable nature of Ne, INPs are best understood as seekers and creatives rather than as knowers or doctrinaires. In my view, this is one of the most important things INPs can understand and embrace about themselves. Among other things, it can help them let go of the idea that, in order to be successful or move forward with their lives, they must first arrive at firm answers to all their questions. Put differently, self-identifying as seekers / creators helps INPs avoid the pitfalls of what we might call “NJ envy,” that is, of trying to operate as convergent knowers.

As discussed in my book, The 16 Personality Types, all types struggle to effectively navigate the tensions and power struggles transpiring among their four functions. Of particular salience is the struggle between the dominant and inferior function, which represents the greatest power imbalance within the functional stack.

Because INTPs’ dominant function is Ti, they often feel disconnected from the world of feeling, as well as the sense of meaning that feeling confers. Hence, one of their deepest fears is that life will prove to be utterly meaningless and that they will thus be condemned to a nihilistic existence. To assuage this fear, the psyche prompts INTPs to engage with the F world, be it through interpersonal relationships or in less direct ways, such as exploring subjects like philosophy, psychology, literature, religion, etc.

The INFP’s deepest fear is in many respects the opposite of the INTP’s. Rather than being disconnected from F matters, the INFP feels estranged from, or insecure about, the world of T. INFPs tend not to fret about life lacking meaning or value, but about things like structure and organization, time and financial management, and other logistical matters. In attempt to overcome their T shortcomings, they commonly take interest in subjects like math, science, computers, engineering, law, finance, accounting, etc. Doing so helps temper their T concerns, reassuring them that psychological wholeness is within reach and that they will never be cut off from their Te function.

That being said, we know that not all INPs pattern their careers around the needs and desires of their inferior function. In reality, we may find similar numbers of INTPs and INFPs in both the sciences and humanities. However, I suspect that INTPs studying the humanities are more likely to mistype as F types, and vice-versa for INFPs in the sciences. Both types may see themselves as more capable with respect to their inferior function than they actually are. This is just one of many ways in which the inferior function can generate type confusion among INPs, causing them to mistake a dream (i.e., having a developed and reconciled inferior function) for reality. Of course, this is not to say that these types cannot grow and develop their inferior functions, but only that their self-assessments are often skewed by inferior function ideals.

There are at least a couple ways INPs may approach the challenge of integrating their dominant and inferior functions. The lowest hanging fruit is to use a piecemeal approach, attempting to satisfy both functions separately, as commonly seen in Phase II of type development. INTPs taking this approach will often try to satisfy their Fe through a relationship and their Ti through some form of self-directed work. Similarly, INFPs may satisfy their Fi by caring for children or pets, while simultaneously working to advance their career (Te).

An alternative route to reconciling the dominant and inferior functions is by employing and developing what we might call the “bridge functions” (i.e., the auxiliary and tertiary functions), which are sandwiched between the dominant and inferior functions in the functional stack. As we’ve seen, these functions are identical for these two types. Thus, INPs hoping to build a bridge between their dominant and inferior functions, which in my view is a more effective and sustainable route to individuation, will share a lot in common.

Perhaps the most important function with respect to INPs growth and development is Ne, the function of exploration and creativity. Rarely is it clear to INPs exactly how Ne can move them toward psychological wholeness. This lack of clarity, in combination with the destabilizing effects of Ne, helps us understand why letting go of the piecemeal approach can prove difficult for INPs. So despite the fact that building an Ne-Si bridge is a more reliable route to integration and wholeness for INPs, it requires a greater measure of faith, patience, and courage, since the inferior function is being approached in a more subtle and less direct way.

This harkens back to my earlier point about INPs self-identifying as seekers / creators (Ne) vs. convergent knowers. Seeing themselves as knowers would be suggestive of identification with their inferior extraverted judging function (Fe or Te). But the truth is that INPs can’t authentically reach a point of knowing without first employing their top three functions. Before they can know anything with confidence, they must introspect (Fi / Ti), explore related ideas (Ne), and consider past information (Si). Not only that, but knowing often proves to be less rewarding for INPs than the process of seeking and creating—something they may not realize until the dog actually catches its own tail. Little is more deflating for these types than the sense that there is nothing more for them to explore or create. This sentiment is nicely captured in Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground:

“Man loves creating…But why does he so passionately love destructions and chaos as well?…Can it be that he has such a love…because he is instinctively afraid of achieving the goal and completing the edifice he is creating? How do you know, maybe he likes the edifice only from far off, and by no means up close; maybe he only likes creating it, and not living in it…”

Introverted Feeling (Fi) vs Introverted Thinking (Ti)

 

[Dreamer]

INTP vs. INFP: Similarities, Differences, & Paths to Growth

Introverted Feeling (Fi) vs Introverted Thinking (Ti)

Actually haven't read the links yet haha but I'm super excited to read through these! I always felt Ti was easier to understand when examining my own understanding of Fi. I personally run into walls when I tried to learn the functions by comparing the I/E counterparts. This is especially true of Se for me. As simple as many people say it is, I found it almost TOO simplistic. Like, nah, there HAS to be more to it. Thinking of Se in terms of Ne though, ya, now I feel I have the appreciation for Se that I feel it deserves.

 

[Totenkindly]

I resemble those remarks.

At this point, I have mostly come to peace with my divergent (vs convergent) nature and realize I will never have ultimate specific clarity in general to questions of life. For a long time, I felt inadequate because of this. While I've learned to generate closure on items, it always left me uncomfortable; and now I simply have learned to come to closure regardless if I think it rationally makes sense for a given question, while acknowledging my natural approach is still holding the question/issue open for further information. It's just me, and there's no sense in getting bent about it especially when it provides impetus to always keep exploring.

I do have a strong 9 wing to my enneagram tritype.

I found it interesting about comparing inferiors as a way to find peace / security, since I still align strongly with INTP in that regard and the statement there best describes me (struggling with nihilism and finding meaning/stability through some form of humanistic approach, whether working at relationships as best I can and/or human-related topics). While I've also had to develop Te skills throughout life, it's far more a practical thing meant to help me accomplish tasks, rather than something that provides some fundamental personal stability for me.

But seeker/creator? Yup. Life is a search. And chaos is always a part of that, no matter whether on occasion I'd like life to be a little more efficient and rational. you just can't keep the chaos out; life will find a way.

 

[Population: 1]

I believe my closest friend is an INTP though he'd scoff at the idea of taking a test to find out. I lean towards the T side so we have a tendency to relate well. The two types definitely share similarities and can compliment one another nicely.

Seeker is an apt title. I'm filled with questions so many of which I know I'll never receive a satisfactory answer to. It certainly doesn't stop me from trying though. No road is truly an isolated path. Every one of them has exit ramps to tempt the traveler. Divergent thinking is a highway to everywhere.

 

[Straylight]

I have quite a few feeler friends and through a lot of observation I managed to nail down what I believe to be the significant categorical difference between thinkers and feelers in practice.

Every feeler I have ever met is reading what I say and is largely concerned with the connotation of my words. Do they sound aggressive? Unfair? Rude? Inconsiderate? There is always this humanitarian concern (especially with NF types) about the implications of whatever I have to say. For them, it is less important whether a statement is technically accurate, and more important that it is not harmful. Even if I say something that is precise and accurate, if it has a negative connotation, it puts them off and they become reluctant to accept what I am saying, or in some way concerned (again this humanitarian streak to their judgment).

To put a contrast to this, I myself (a thinker) find this to be extremely difficult most of the time, because it were as if I am not allowed to be objective if it would hurt someone's feelings or bring up anything "negative". Certain subject matter is just off the table in extreme cases where someone is a very strong feeling type. Certain topics of discussion for these types of people are so offensive to them that they are not acceptable things to think about, and I'm certain they never do, not even privately to themselves, because it makes them extremely uncomfortable and nervous to do so.

Where I notice a similarity between myself and INFPs, it is because we are both INPs, and as such, we are strongly independent, insightful, and speculative rather than decisive. We like to throw ideas around without committing to them, play devil's advocate without really having a side or a stake or a personal opinion in things. However, the subject matter of discussion differs. INFPs I encounter are more interested in social critique, talking about the failings of society, or cynical talk about politicians, or their negative predictions regarding certain technology. They usually have an unfavorable opinion of corporations and dehumanizing technology and such. Again, you see the humanitarian streak subtly show itself, and after awhile this causes us to diverge into our respective categories of feeler vs thinker.

What I mean by this is, I don't share their cynical attitude or agree with their humanitarian concerns regarding society, politics, economics, and technology. My viewpoint is more like a machine trying to find the optimal algorithm for solving something, which (I'm sorry to admit this but it's true) can come across as almost psychopathic sometimes. Whereas their unspoken biases take the form of humanitarian concerns that try to steer the discussion towards the morality of my arguments, I am making my arguments from the perspective of "given the principles of the system, this is a possibility." I have little concern with the moral implications, I'm simply concerned with whether or not my predictions are technically possible, given the principles of the system we are discussing (politics, economy, society, etc).

But I do find it a good exercise in forcing myself to consider the moral implications of my predictions, as an after-thought. My primary concern is not moral, or humanitarian, but I am not a monster either. At the end of the day, I do not want to be labeled a sociopath or seen as rude and uncaring, so (especially now that I'm older and more mature) I force myself to consider the arguments of feelers in order to see if there is a way to find a compromise with their concerns that would produce an optimal outcome, and then I tell people that I support that outcome when I'm asked what my opinion is.