[MBTI General] What do other types think of INFP's

[OrangeAppled]

I think it would provide an interesting contrast. NT's approach the world differently from NF's; thus wouldn't be as slanted/biased towards NF approaches. NF's getting feedback from other NF's will in general tend to be more warm and fuzzy, and biased; NF's getting feedback from NT's, SP's, and SJ's would be that much more interesting and perhaps more objective. After all, we are talking about perceptions of a type; doesn't mean the perceptions are 'accurate' in all ways, and doesn't mean the NT's/SP's/SJ's are really gonna peg the correct motivation for said behavior or anything - it's just how said behavior is perceived.

Just as SP's would get a different perception/feedback/slant from non-SP's, just as SJ's would get different feedback from non-SJ's than from fellow SJ's, etc.

Exactly...why not the SP or SJ forum?

I disagree about warm/fuzzy feedback anyway. Read this thread; it's mostly negative even though negative feedback was not all that was asked for.

 

[cascadeco]

Exactly...why not the SP or SJ forum?

I disagree about warm/fuzzy feedback anyway. Read this thread; it's mostly negative even though negative feedback was not all that was asked for.

Eh...I wasn't taking the NT forum thing super literally, I guess...I was just taking it as an example location of where the thread might be better placed.

As for warm/fuzzy, I didn't mean that didn't imply negative feedback, it was more the manner in which the feedback was provided. NF's tend to at least attempt to take a more diplomatic, softer approach to providing negatives, whereas NT's tend to not care so much about the manner of delivery. (and yes, of course I'm making generalizations here )

Anyhow...it's not like the other NF's don't receive just as much criticism. I mean, there's so much Fe-hate/dislike/distrust out there, there's the whole J/P divide and strengths/weaknesses tied to that...INFP's certainly aren't the only NF's who get negative feedback.

 

[runvardh]

Most of us just can't take it worth shit, that's all...

 

[Glycerine]

define unhealthy infp.

The opposite of healthy... highly cynical, JADED (probably crushed idealism), constantly moody, closed minded w/ their beliefs, "woe is me", "the world is out to get me", "no one likes the nice guy", nonconformist elitism. Unhealthy INFP is pretty much the cariciture (sp?) of the type.

 

[runvardh]

The opposite of healthy... highly cynical, JADED (probably crushed idealism), constantly moody, closed minded w/ their beliefs, "woe is me", "the world is out to get me", "no one likes the nice guy", nonconformist elitism. Unhealthy INFP is pretty much the cariciture (sp?) of the type.

Sounds like me only I'm more sure most of my problems are my own doing.

 

[Lex Talionis]

Well, you can't blame other types for playing what is essentially type favoritism. It's natural to think that what's yours is best.

On that note, INFPs cannot be blamed for responding to the claims made by others, nor can the other types be rebuked for making what are perceived as "negative" remarks about INFPs. When people are painted in an unfavorable manner, they naturally wish to defend themselves and "correct" the unflattering comments made about them. These types of threads are inevitably doomed to descend into a state of perpetual contention between the indignant side receiving the critique, and the increasingly annoyed side that delivers it.

 

[Glycerine]

Sounds like me only I'm more sure most of my problems are my own doing.

sorry. I wasn't aiming it at you. That was just my general impression of what I noticed about unhealthy INFPs. I hope that you didn't take it personally because I do like reading your posts and such. ENFJs and any other type can be unhealthy too.

Well, you can't blame other types for playing what is essentially type favoritism. It's natural to think that what's yours is best.

On that note, INFPs cannot be blamed for responding to the claims made by others, nor can the other types be rebuked for making what are perceived as "negative" remarks about INFPs. When people are painted in an unfavorable manner, they naturally wish to defend themselves and "correct" the unflattering comments made about them. These types of threads are inevitably doomed to descend into a state of perpetual contention between the indignant side receiving the critique, and the increasingly annoyed side that delivers it.

If you are referring to what I posted, I was just defining what I thought was an unhealthy INFP in response to what someone asked. In fact, INFPs are actually one of my favorite types. My original comment was something like "I tend to like INFPs. The healthy ones are awesome to the max and the unhealthy ones are awful. haha, that applies to pretty much any type but they (INFPs) are one of my favorites"

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

The opposite of healthy... highly cynical, JADED (probably crushed idealism), constantly moody, closed minded w/ their beliefs, "woe is me", "the world is out to get me", "no one likes the nice guy", nonconformist elitism. Unhealthy INFP is pretty much the cariciture (sp?) of the type.

Sounds like you're describing half of the 40-60yos I know.

 

[runvardh]

sorry. I wasn't aiming it at you. That was just my general impression of what I noticed about unhealthy INFPs. I hope that you didn't take it personally because I do like reading your posts and such. ENFJs and any other type can be unhealthy too.

I didn't see a direct reference to me there so I have a hard time being justified in taking it personally espeically since the observation is valid. However, I am slightly entertained that you would think I'd take it personal having read my posts. If you had flat out called me a cold, unfeeling bastard, then I may take that a little more personal; though since we aren't close the effect on me would be minimal. Actually, bastard doesn't really do much to me since I am one by the word's older definition.

 

[Lex Talionis]

This is why we need a type war, to settle our claims of supremacy once and for all.

 

[Southern Kross]

Well, you can't blame other types for playing what is essentially type favoritism. It's natural to think that what's yours is best.

On that note, INFPs cannot be blamed for responding to the claims made by others, nor can the other types be rebuked for making what are perceived as "negative" remarks about INFPs. When people are painted in an unfavorable manner, they naturally wish to defend themselves and "correct" the unflattering comments made about them. These types of threads are inevitably doomed to descend into a state of perpetual contention between the indignant side receiving the critique, and the increasingly annoyed side that delivers it.

Fair comment.

We do tend to be sensitive to criticism and I am cautious about getting too defensive but I could handle it more if it was more observant and truthful (in fact this goes for positive comments too). I feel like a lot of people read the description for INFP (or any type for that matter) then project the stereotype on to the nearest INFP, in order to then extract their opinion of them. Its a backwards process which fails to result in new or interesting (or realistic) information.

But then this is the general trap that is created by any type theory.

 

[Lex Talionis]

Fair comment.

We do tend to be sensitive to criticism and I am cautious about getting too defensive but I could handle it more if it was more observant and truthful (in fact this goes for positive comments too). I feel like a lot of people read the description for INFP (or any type for that matter) then project the stereotype on to the nearest INFP, in order to then extract their opinion of them. Its a backwards process which fails to result in new or interesting (or realistic) information.

But then this is the general trap that is created by any type theory.

I don't understand the meaning of your post. In no way was my comment supposed to imply that the Myer-Briggs typology is flawed, or that its descriptions are inaccurate. The theory has its irregularities and gray areas, but type description isn't one of them.

The test's largest (and only, in my opinion) problem area is its rigidity, it isn't versatile enough. Like all other personality tests, it allows people to choose their answers in a preferential manner, which results in some type misplacement. Apart from the lack of nuance and potential for mistype (which is unavoidable, really), it's a pretty solid test.

 

[Southern Kross]

I don't understand the meaning of your post. In no way was my comment supposed to imply that the Myer-Briggs typology is flawed, or that its descriptions are inaccurate. The theory has its irregularities and gray areas, but type description isn't one of them.

The test's largest (and only, in my opinion) problem area is its rigidity, it isn't versatile enough. Like all other personality tests, it allows people to choose their answers in a preferential manner, which results in some type misplacement. Apart from the lack of nuance and potential for mistype (which is unavoidable, really), it's a pretty solid test.

I didn't mean the theory itself is inherently flawed but rather how people apply it. People try to apply type generalisations to those around them, rather than using type theory to explain and understand them. Instead of finding a box that fits people, we take a box that's supposed to fit them and attempt to cram them into it. Of course we all do this and there is some use in it but it can be misleading as you can end up distorting the reality in order to fit the idea.

Sorry, I'm not so great at explaining myself.

 

[William K]

Oh, interesting about the reasearch. My question with this is that there seems to be always more things to consider or discuss. Why interact with people at all if you can perfectly capture every scenario in your head? This sounds similar to the NT complaining that everthing is mechanical in our bodies so there is no reason to even try because nothing is "real."

There is always a danger that I will just say "Forget it, it will never be good enough" or "Who cares about what other people think, I know I'm right" and just keep it to myself. I think it's common for INFPs that for each forum post we make, there are probably many more than don't make it past the internal reviewer.
Probably why INFPs make good hermits too I guess, just happily living within our ideal worlds

 

[Fluffywolf]

I know several INFP's, and they're like worlds apart.

So I don't have an opinion toward INFP in general.

 

[Snuggletron]

I'm an INFP with typical Ne/Fi dominance but I find that I'm usually on strange grounds with other INFPs. I value NFs for their creative ideas but I don't find myself being as people-focused as them. I've read many INFP descriptors and while I do fit them fairly well I don't like it how they're made out to be incredibly fuzzy. I used to fit into that 'INFP nice guy' mold, and in ways I still do but I've found it to be useless and a doormat invitation. Maybe I'm a bit jaded from the times where my INFP selflessness has doomed me but I consciously strive to avoid that particular infp mold and be a bit more set-apart.

My INFP/ENFP friends are always immediately ready to help one person but this neglects something else (another person or objective that needs to be done). I've been on both sides with them, I don't take it personally anymore but I'd wish they'd think before they drop everything they're doing just to help someone to get friend-points (or whatever it is), because when you're the thing they drop you can't help but guess who or what they consider valuable or more important. I hope that made sense.

 

[The Outsider]

It does make sense, and I relate to what you said.

...and you have a lovely avatar.

 

[Snuggletron]

It does make sense, and I relate to what you said.

...and you have a lovely avatar.

haha, thanks. I just started reading his work.

 

[BlackCat]

I'm an INFP with typical Ne/Fi dominance but I find that I'm usually on strange grounds with other INFPs. I value NFs for their creative ideas but I don't find myself being as people-focused as them. I've read many INFP descriptors and while I do fit them fairly well I don't like it how they're made out to be incredibly fuzzy. I used to fit into that 'INFP nice guy' mold, and in ways I still do but I've found it to be useless and a doormat invitation. Maybe I'm a bit jaded from the times where my INFP selflessness has doomed me but I consciously strive to avoid that particular infp mold and be a bit more set-apart.

My INFP/ENFP friends are always immediately ready to help one person but this neglects something else (another person or objective that needs to be done). I've been on both sides with them, I don't take it personally anymore but I'd wish they'd think before they drop everything they're doing just to help someone to get friend-points (or whatever it is), because when you're the thing they drop you can't help but guess who or what they consider valuable or more important. I hope that made sense.

I think enneagram might be a result of this. Lots of INFPs are enneagram 4's, and the type descriptions are going to be biased based on that. What is your enneagram type? That may give you some insight into why you don't relate.

 

[Bamboo]

I'm not sure if it was already said in this thread, but from my perspective (ISTP) INFPs:

- are really nice people
- genuine
- appreciate having someone to listen to them, which isn't so bad for ISTP because we generally do that well
- will have fun with outdoor activities

The main thing that stands out and causes a lot of concern is their inability to remove themselves from bad relationships. It's frustrating to watch. It's like they can't see past conflict or confrontation - so they just stay put in what they would be willing to admit is a bad situation.