[NF] infj vs infp art

[the state i am in]

Ne = ideas essentially. How are INFPs less idea based?

cognitive functions are based on a developmental notion (over time) that there is a dominant function and then an auxilary function.

for infj, the dominant is a perceiving function based on constructing ideas in the imagination. for infp, the dominant is using feeling tones, subjective values, emotional experiences, to weigh and prioritize judgment. your ne is not your dominant function, it works in accordance with the wishes of Fi. you are not an Enfp. they (dominant Ne) are far more idea based than infp (although as Ne far more tangible and less abstract than Ni).

No not really. I'm always on the look out for someone not being genuine or lying.

the only thing you are saying is that you find me to be wrong, bad, immoral and inauthentic based on my ideas not jiving with your subjective values. you don't attempt to meet me and explain your perspective in terms of ideas. you are calling ideas generalizations (which they are, it is the nature of representational language and abstraction), and make no attempt to understand (map out) the complexities that would make these ideas accurate or inaccurate. in response you just say, i don't like the way you are trying to make me feel. i don't trust you, etc.

BTW INFP's are ideas based too, Values are based on ideas and concepts, that why we get called idealistic.
We react first then break down the idea. I see your intentions aren't bad, but I think you have read too many profiles.

i appreciate your feedback. i agree that ideas play a large part in the life of an infp. but, as stated above, it is far different. your values, feelings, internal resonances of emotion, etc, give birth to your ideas. ideas are an accessory to that, which, when the ideas are insightful, create a very impacting and explosively artistic type. but when they are not, they close out anything that does not fit with them.

I would say, that I would not worry too much about which specific type you are in relation to art, except to help you recognize your strengths and weaknesses and thus to act as a starting point.

this is exactly what i am trying to do. the insight i had felt very disillusioning at first, but i'm putting myself back together and re-arranging my values to fit with my ideas (what i view to be true, accurate, the best information i have available). and trying to merge my own (mal?)lingering desires, dreams, etc in line with what i feel like i can, ought, hope to do from here.

I don't think being INFP makes one communicate emotion through art better than another type; in fact, it can sometimes be a hindrance that keeps you from seeing the forest for the trees...

it totally depends on the medium and the perspective of the art. i was wallowing in self-pity bc... the TREES, the TREES. i know i see the forest. it is my greatest skill. but i felt disappointed and waxing nostalgic for a past that never existed bc i wanted to see the TREES, to look up at them from below and climb them with my eyes, to swing on the branches from limb to limb, to crash my flying kite into them and throw frisbees around them on frolf courses all across the land. etc.



i also think it pertinent to mention that i understand infp generally doesn't like to be categorized by an objective idea that undermines or limits/clarifies its intentionally fuzzy boundaries in a way that threatens its subjective values and internally held beliefs, but i want to better understand this (which is the whole point of the thread in the first place).

 

[Xellotath]

Now I'm an ENFP, and I know there's a lot of differences between us and INFPs.

Me and my INFJ friend -just- got into this discussion not two weeks ago.
He's a poet and a writer and he was telling how he could not -feel- like other poets did and that he was bitingly jealous of those whose feelings simply seemed to flow more smoothly.

Our appreciation of art is almost completely different.

Music: He will be entranced by the lyrics first, the symbols of the mood later. I will be momentarily overtaken by the overall -tone- of a song and build meaning immediately according to my imagination, and the visions that mood gives me - then integrate the actual lyrics. I tend to integrate the words faster if the lyrics are spoken clearly. But he focuses on them regardless of clarity.

Poetry: Take for example, Sylvia Plath. Both of us are pretty much obsessed with her. He finds secret things in her work that I could only hope to find after a shot of vodka or two. I, on the other hand get literally transported to that asylum and through imagination alone enact and feel. When thinking of the belljar metaphor, I find myself there.. suffocating in my own insanity, feeling-imagining the brutality of hopelessness. He seems to take the long way there... it takes him awhile to dance around his own constructs.

He is incapable of imagining red without the word red first.
I see INFJ art as inherently bound by language itself.

Do know, that the envy flows both ways.

He has a certain clarity in his work, that I find undeniable and irresistible. A concreteness and truthfulness to the artistic concept that makes me feel like I'm not all that special for being easily emotionally moved - I feel a little cheap and common, to be honest.

Not to mention I seek to inspire others with my art.. to feel like I am misleading others by my own natural vagueness feels like .... IaWetu3w490vyhtoeahra39yct234qht93a4wthpow3iaej

...it's painful and infuriating to say the least.


Edit:

It's funny. How both sides are so quick to throw the charge of inauthenticity at each other.

A ) I am more conceptually correct!
B ) Well, I feel the concepts more strongly!

Which is more important? I'll leave that discussion on aesthetics to the philosophers.

 

[the state i am in]

this is a really helpful response.

it takes him awhile to dance around his own constructs.

yes! you are very very perceptive and i imagine a damn good friend.

He is incapable of imagining red without the word red first.
I see INFJ art as inherently bound by language itself.

we need symbolization to access concentrated feeling. external symbols allow us to engage via Fe. we connect with things outside of ourselves more than we take our own internal temperature.

He has a certain clarity in his work, that I find undeniable and irresistible. A concreteness and truthfulness to the artistic concept that makes me feel like I'm not all that special for being easily emotionally moved - I feel a little cheap and common, to be honest.

insight is great, but passion is what moves men's hearts. both of course are needed.

 

[Costrin]

cognitive functions are based on a developmental notion (over time) that there is a dominant function and then an auxilary function.

for infj, the dominant is a perceiving function based on constructing ideas in the imagination. for infp, the dominant is using feeling tones, subjective values, emotional experiences, to weigh and prioritize judgment. your ne is not your dominant function, it works in accordance with the wishes of Fi. you are not an Enfp. they (dominant Ne) are far more idea based than infp (although as Ne far more tangible and less abstract than Ni).

Fi manipulates and judges ideas provided by Ne. Fe manipulates and judges ideas provided by Ni. Ne gathers ideas. Ni gathers ideas.

Therefore, INFPs have more focus on manipulating the ideas they have, and less on gathering ideas. INFJs have more focus on gathering ideas, and less on developing them.

Neither is superior. They are both equally "idea based", just have different focus on different aspects of the idea process. Gathering vs developing .

 

[mysterio]

To the OP,
Whether you like or not, every INFP is going to react badly to your post, the minute they see INFJ's are intellectuality superior.
Great, I can write pretty poems, and draw pretty pictures, but I just can't think because I'm too busy being emo.
And people wonder INFP's have such low self esteem.

Your self-esteem shouldn’t depend on what people on a discussion board say about your type, for God’s sake. One could easily ruin a lot of lives here just by posting something like, “INFPs have more artistic talent than INFJs”. Not that this doesn’t make for fairly good entertainment.

 

[Riva]

we ENTPs love art too you know.

proof -

 

[CrystalViolet]

Your self-esteem shouldn’t depend on what people on a discussion board say about your type, for God’s sake. One could easily ruin a lot of lives here just by posting something like, “INFPs have more artistic talent than INFJs”. Not that this doesn’t make for fairly good entertainment.

It shouldn't, but there isn't a whole lot of INFP love out there, here or out in the world.
BTW, I didn't mean myself. I have loads of self esteem.

 

[mysterio]

It shouldn't, but there isn't a whole lot of INFP love out there, here or out in the world.
BTW, I didn't mean myself. I have loads of self esteem.

“Self-esteem” is one of those bubble gum self help-speak terms which makes me vaguely nauseous, that I end up being forced to use for convenience. All I meant to say is that people here in general, not just INFPs, overreact to things they don’t like that other people post about their types, as if they’re afraid this has some immense power to make them true. And to other stuff. On the Bullying thread someone made a remark which was obviously meant to be ironic, that people freaked out over. I won’t deny that such drama makes for more compelling reading, but a part of me wants to shout, girls, lighten up! Stop skipping your meds and therapy sessions.

You do have a point about INFPs. They’re probably the least compatible with reality of all the types and have to do the most adapting to get by in the world. Whenever they fail at adjusting to “normal” people’s preferences, they’re viewed as boneheads or flakes. The chosen ones, the small minority of Stephen Kings who end up in some creative niche that pays the bills and pretty much have it made, are the exceptions.

 

[the state i am in]

“You do have a point about INFPs. They’re probably the least compatible with reality of all the types and have to do the most adapting to get by in the world. Whenever they fail at adjusting to “normal” people’s preferences, they’re viewed as boneheads or flakes. The chosen ones, the small minority of Stephen Kings who end up in some creative niche that pays the bills and pretty much have it made, are the exceptions.

stephen king is the most distasteful example of infps who have made it- most of them end up od'ing young or going all salinger.

also, give me your take on infj.

finally, we take our feelings very seriously. our identities are predicated on our subjective values, feeling-tones, etc. what do you base your identity on, and why is identity such a less serious topic for you than it is for us?

 

[mysterio]

stephen king is the most distasteful example of infps who have made it- most of them end up od'ing young or going all salinger.

also, give me your take on infj.

finally, we take our feelings very seriously. our identities are predicated on our subjective values, feeling-tones, etc. what do you base your identity on, and why is identity such a less serious topic for you than it is for us?

The importance of your identity, feelings and what you think of Stephen King – though thanks a lot for sharing your opinion about him - were beside the point (sigh).

 

[Costrin]

stephen king is the most distasteful example of infps who have made it- most of them end up od'ing young or going all salinger.

Why so biased?

 

[cascadeco]

stephen king is the most distasteful example of infps who have made it- most of them end up od'ing young or going all salinger.

also, give me your take on infj.

finally, we take our feelings very seriously. our identities are predicated on our subjective values, feeling-tones, etc. what do you base your identity on, and why is identity such a less serious topic for you than it is for us?

Actually I appreciated mysterio's post and viewpoint, and didn't see anything that offensive or off-base about it. I thought he did compose a serious response to the topic. (?)

 

[the state i am in]

the first comment about stephen king was just a joke.

idealists (nf) take their values seriously. they view their lives as an endorsement for ideas, subjective values, feeling-tones, beliefs, dreams, etc. their entire self-image is wrapped up in these ideals, and it is difficult for them to disregard the strong responses that occur when those ideals feel threatened externally (and socially rejected). as if somehow the seriousness and commitment they have to those aspects/projections of themselves will be shown to have holes, leak, be vulnerable, discardable, worthless after all, etc.

commitment sucks. conviction is difficult to achieve. information is abundant and always in flux.


but what i was trying to get at is that i am still struggling to comprehend how others perceive their own identities without the same kind of adolescent wavering. how this total detachment works and where are the threads that hold an sp or an nt together as an integrated personality (altho it generally seems that nf and sj beat themselves up about "integrity" far more than the other types).

 

[BlackCat]

Wow. Way to be stereotypical there buddy.

 

[CrystalViolet]

“Self-esteem” is one of those bubble gum self help-speak terms which makes me vaguely nauseous, that I end up being forced to use for convenience. All I meant to say is that people here in general, not just INFPs, overreact to things they don’t like that other people post about their types, as if they’re afraid this has some immense power to make them true. And to other stuff. On the Bullying thread someone made a remark which was obviously meant to be ironic, that people freaked out over. I won’t deny that such drama makes for more compelling reading, but a part of me wants to shout, girls, lighten up! Stop skipping your meds and therapy sessions.

You do have a point about INFPs. They’re probably the least compatible with reality of all the types and have to do the most adapting to get by in the world. Whenever they fail at adjusting to “normal” people’s preferences, they’re viewed as boneheads or flakes. The chosen ones, the small minority of Stephen Kings who end up in some creative niche that pays the bills and pretty much have it made, are the exceptions.

We're pretty rare and it seems pretty hard to understand (although not on this board), and some of us have a dramatic streak. Some of us rarer types are probably going to identify much more strongly with our types, then you are with yours, simply because it is an explanation for some of our troubles out there.
I agree with you that some take it too far....and when I posted my intial protest I was getting a bit annoyed that day, admittly because I get quite sick of being told I couldn't possibly think logically and I'm a scientist for god sake's.

 

[BlackCat]

because I get quite sick of being told I couldn't possibly think logically and I'm a scientist for god sake's.

We can't logically reason ANYTHING. A certain person on here preaches that so he must be right. Our inferior thinking really just makes everything a blob of emotions, it's impossible to be logical.

Heh. Joking, I had you there for a second didn't I? I lament the people who actually think the stereotypes are always true.

 

[Costrin]

We can't logically reason ANYTHING. A certain person on here preaches that so he must be right. Our inferior thinking really just makes everything a blob of emotions, it's impossible to be logical.

Heh. Joking, I had you there for a second didn't I? I lament the people who actually think the stereotypes are always true.

Any logical reasoning expressed by an INFP is luck/they had help/they're not actually INFP.

My proof is introspection.

 

[the state i am in]

We can't logically reason ANYTHING. A certain person on here preaches that so he must be right. Our inferior thinking really just makes everything a blob of emotions, it's impossible to be logical.

Heh. Joking, I had you there for a second didn't I? I lament the people who actually think the stereotypes are always true.

you're being hyperbolic and dramatic. what i said was a rather meaningless generalization that should be brushed aside, bc it was a poorly conceived thought. get over it.

i've said nothing of the sort that infps are totally and completely and absolutely and definitively unable to use thinking functions (which are not just logic, as linguistic is probably more of a relevant term for Ti than logic). however; you don't seem to use yours. you should take this time to consider that possibility.

i have many infp friends, i am attracted to them more than any other type. i've met a lot of brilliant and talented infps who are perceptive, insightful, imaginative, and articulate. it's just PAINFULLY obvious when they aren't. again, you should consider this possibility.

i struggle to see the purpose of identifying with a type on a messageboard based on an application of a generalized typology theory and then decrying every discussion of said theory as pertains to you as "stereotype." the nature of the messageboard is to refine individual understandings of the types with shared empirical experience, and the theorizing is an attempt to understand that conceptually.

 

[Costrin]

you're being hyperbolic and dramatic. what i said was a rather meaningless generalization that should be brushed aside, bc it was a poorly conceived thought. get over it.

i've said nothing of the sort that infps are totally and completely and absolutely and definitively unable to use thinking functions (which are not just logic, as linguistic is probably more of a relevant term for Ti than logic). however; you don't seem to use yours. you should take this time to consider that possibility.

psst... He was referring to someone else.

i struggle to see the purpose of identifying with a type on a messageboard based on an application of a generalized typology theory and then decrying every discussion of said theory as pertains to you as "stereotype." the nature of the messageboard is to refine individual understandings of the types with shared empirical experience, and the theorizing is an attempt to understand that conceptually.

Well see... the problem is, your wrong.

 

[the state i am in]

psst... He was referring to someone else.



Well see... the problem is, your wrong.

no talking in the movie theatre! i'm trying to watch the movie!