[NF] INFJ and NF sub-categories.

[Billy]

I want to further classify INFJs and possibly all NFs.

The 2 most glaring categories I can think of would be:

False Idealists - Idealism
True Idealists - Realism


False Idealist:
Idealism to the max, you would rather destroy all just to prove your point of idealism. These types of INFJs/NF's will often forcefully defend ridiculous and absurd ideas that are ideal in nature, but do not work so well in reality because not everyone thinks the same. Usually young and naive, this is an NF who hasn't actually had much experience in dealing with the real world or who has lived a more comfortable life in general. They claim to be idealists, but their narrow vision of reality and their tenacious grip on their unflinching emotionally based idealism makes them more harmful than good because they will inevitably end up trampling someone elses freedom in order to push their views.

True Idealist:
Idealism within logical reason. This is a person who sees an ideal and then strives and works towards it in a more ethical way. This person will usually understand that an ideal may not be possible, but we can get closer than we are, an so goes to effect that true positive change within the framework of our society's system. Instead of ignoring that not everyone can agree, the true idealist will offer solutions that include concessions for opposing view points. Because they are more realistic in this fashion they will effect more positive change over time than a false idealist ever can. This in essence will improve lives of people for real and not just in theory. True idealists deal with reality 1st then bring their creative talents to the table. This is a person who has likely tasted reality and knows both triumph and defeat. More than likely has lived a life that has had periods of intense pain and suffering and as such knows what true penalties can lay in wait for a person just short of death. This kind of INFJ/NF knows the boundaries of reality and works to ensure their vision is fulfilled as fully as possible within those limits.

 

[PoprocksAndCoke]

That sucks, I'm a "True Idealist".

 

[sgman]

Do you have any examples (historical figures) of a "True idealist"? I was just wondering, because I really can't think of any.

I am also a little skeptical of calling them "true idealists", since from your description, it sounds more like a idealist who has been forcibly made more realist. So a balance between realism and idealism.

 

[Billy]

Do you have any examples (historical figures) of a "True idealist"? I was just wondering, because I really can't think of any.

I am also a little skeptical of calling them "true idealists", since from your description, it sounds more like a idealist who has been forcibly made more realist. So a balance between realism and idealism.

I cant think of any true idealists who didn't get killed for their beliefs anyway lol.

But I think thats because those kinds of idealists dont take the spot light with thier insane positions. They tend to work more within the structure. And get noticed way less.

And a balance between Idealism and realism IMO makes a True idealist because they will often times achieve more progress in terms of making their ideals come true then their blind zealot of a cousin who will often times not be able to effect much change because their unflinching vision is not palatable to enough people to take effect.

 

[Keps Mnemnosyne]

I don't mean to be offensive, but your sub-categories seem to be INFJs who are like Billy are awesome and INFJs not like Billy suck. Or was that the point?

 

[Billy]

I don't mean to be offensive, but your sub-categories seem to be INFJs who are like Billy are awesome and INFJs not like Billy suck. Or was that the point?

Oh thats definitely how I feel personally, I find it tiresome to deal with unrealistic idealists. I didn't make an attempt to hide that or pretend to be objective in my wording, but I think I am still onto something with my categories. I think they still have merit and describe 2 actual types of INFJs. Or did you just want to talk about me?

 

[Keps Mnemnosyne]

No, I just wanted to understand. Thanks for the quick reply.

I would have to disagree with your categories as they are. I would most likely be known as somebody who has unrealistic ideals, but I am not naive. I also don't find myself doing more harm than good. Granted I do hide this very well under a mask of realism or what my friends call pessimism only showing my dreams to close friends.

May I ask why the non-objectivity? For you seem to be causing more harm than good, by posing this topic as you have. I do think this theory has it's merits (realism versus idealism, how much does each one sway a person), just without objectivity it will be dismissed quite quickly.

 

[Billy]

No, I just wanted to understand. Thanks for the quick reply.

I would have to disagree with your categories as they are. I would most likely be known as somebody who has unrealistic ideals, but I am not naive. I also don't find myself doing more harm than good. Granted I do hide this very well under a mask of realism or what my friends call pessimism only showing my dreams to close friends.

May I ask why the non-objectivity? For you seem to be causing more harm than good, by posing this topic as you have. I do think this theory has it's merits (realism versus idealism, how much does each one sway a person), just without objectivity it will be dismissed quite quickly.

Honestly I was too lazy to figure out how to word it objectively. It was much easier to just go with how I felt. If you would like to help me reword it so that the its not as me biased that would be a good start.

 

[Keps Mnemnosyne]

Do it when you have time, no rush is needed. But yes, I think this would be a good discussion idea.

 

[Rebe]

I very much disagree with your categories. You're trying to put some kind of rational limit to idealism and the definition of idealism is not 'naive' but rather, almost 'impossible'. That's what ideals are. People strive for what is extremely hard to obtain and sure, maybe most of the population won't agree with you, but that's because INFPs and INFJs sees through all the bullshit. If the majority agree with your ideals, they are not quite ideals, but just regular 'dreams' or 'beliefs'. The idea of idealism contradicts with rationality, it is more tied with a high sense of morals and extreme emotions. Idealism by nature is impractical. Now, INFPs/INFJs vary greatly on the spectrum of idealism. What exactly is naive idealism? Was Gandhi naively idealistic to think he could change the political power of his country without violence?

 

[cascadeco]

I don't really have a problem with the categories, but I don't think they're strictly INFJ - so it's good in the title you also include NF's in general. [But actually I wouldn't even say it's restricted to NF's either - there are many unrealistic non-NF's out there too]

I do think there are those who are so caught up in their ideals, and severed from the real world as it actually exists right now, such that their ideals can't really be used in a constructive way because they're unable to bridge their ideal world to the actual world. Now I'm all for holding views that are your own and that you believe very much in, even if the views would oppose how people/the world actually operate (and I think that's how many of us NF's are anyway), but the views are going to stay completely in your own mind - you won't be able to make any difference whatsoever - if you aren't able to communicate those views, or try to change people, in a constructive way, given how people/the world actually is.l Hmm, I'm not being clear. Basically, it's fine to have a message, but if you can't translate that message and make it somehow applicable to the world as it is right now, while accounting for the fact that there are a multitude of equally [perhaps] valid perspectives out there, with a variety of personalities whose nature differs quite a lot from yours, nothing is going to change. Doesn't mean that's a 'good' thing, necessarily, but I think that's just how it is.

 

[visaisahero]

Time and time again, unrealistic idealists who've been labelled anything and everything from lunatics to heretics have gone on to change the world. Most of what we take for granted today was considered unrealistic in the past. Remember that.

 

[Quinlan]

There already is a label for realists and idealists, it's called S and N.

 

[Billy]

Have any of you ever read the play "Enemy of the people" by Henrik Ibsen?

Dr. Stockmann = false idealist. He is so intent on telling the "truth" or at least 1 version of the truth that he wold prefer to isolate his family form society, and destroy his towns only source of income thus dooming all the people there to economic destruction.

 

[Gerbah]

There already is a label for realists and idealists, it's called S and N.

Please! Not that sort of thing again, even if it was meant as a joke!

Why do S and N, realists/idealists, whatever you want to call it, have to be opposed? They are both part of the one unity of existence we all occupy.

The idea of idealism contradicts with rationality, it is more tied with a high sense of morals and extreme emotions. Idealism by nature is impractical.

I disagree with this. Idealism is inherently rational, and by rational I mean it makes sense and is the most healthy way to be (when achieved). If this is not the case, there is an error in the ideal being proposed. If the idealist has a “high sense of morals” then s/he has to acknowledge his responsibility to work toward effecting real, practical change in the world, step by step. It's not enough to enjoy the dream and lament about how stupid the ignorant masses are.

What exactly is naive idealism? Was Gandhi naively idealistic to think he could change the political power of his country without violence?

Ghandi was an idealist but also an ultimate realist and strategist. He had the non-violent ideal but it was also appropriate for the context of occupied India. Many people died in this non-violent movement but even more would have died if they had tried to form a militant movement and fight fire with fire against the British who had the technological advantage with their firearms. However, if violence in a certain case is the most appropriate response, he acknowledged that violence was then necessary: “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”

He also didn't look down on people who couldn't live his ideal and acknowledged the reality that every person's heart is in a different stage of development. This did not contradict his ideal:

“If non-violence does not appeal to your heart, you should discard it.”

“No doubt the non-violent way is always the best, but where that does not come naturally the violent way is both necessary and honourable. Inaction here is rank cowardice and unmanly. It must be shunned at all cost.”

(Taken from Ganhdi, Non-Violence in Peace and War)

 

[Mad Hatter]

I want to further classify INFJs and possibly all NFs.

Have fun.

 

[Rebe]

Gerbah,

"I disagree with this. Idealism is inherently rational, and by rational I mean it makes sense and is the most healthy way to be (when achieved). If this is not the case, there is an error in the ideal being proposed. If the idealist has a “high sense of morals” then s/he has to acknowledge his responsibility to work toward effecting real, practical change in the world, step by step. It's not enough to enjoy the dream and lament about how stupid the ignorant masses are."

If Idealism is rational, we wouldn't be Idealists, we would also very simply be Rationals. I understand the point you're trying to make and I agree with that, just not how you have categorized so simply between false and true idealists.

A false idealist can mature to take action and develop efficient strategies as they come to have more knowledge and experience. Just as a true idealist can go backwards and lose faith in their humanitarian mission and hide from action for a while. No one wants to be a false idealist. I believe the ones who don't take action are either not confident enough in their abilities or do not have enough resources. Some people are just naturally more take-charge while others need time to figure out every angle.

I acknowledge the importance of taking action and not just ranting, but I believe these two categories are much too simplistic. And both INFJs and INFPs are very, very complex types.

 

[Gerbah]

Ok, if that is how you see it. I just personally don't see any conflict on a holistic level between being idealistic and being rational, even taking the complexity of each individually into account. Which is why I don't see what the importance is of the exclusivity of the label of Idealist and why people who have a connection to reality are automatically blinded by that and cannot be Idealists. I also don't see what extreme emotions have to do with the purity or strength of a person's ideal.

It's just that I have had the experience of being judged by people who have a certain style in the way they express their frustration and emotions about why things aren't better and who seem to equate their emotionality with how dearly they hold an ideal and if I'm not expressing myself in the same way as them then I'm inferior and not on the level of their dedication or intelligence. I just saw something of that kind of thing in this whole discussion.

 

[BlueScreen]

Time and time again, unrealistic idealists who've been labelled anything and everything from lunatics to heretics have gone on to change the world. Most of what we take for granted today was considered unrealistic in the past. Remember that.

I'm agreeing with this.