[MBTI General] INFP and ISFP: The Biggest Difference Is...?

[Magic Poriferan]

Feeling is not "what feels right" in a body sensation way.

It's not what feels right in any specifically perceptual way, because it's not perception. However, no human being ever operates Fi on its own, it works in conjunction with the information collected by perception, and this colors the nature of it. I attempted to represent two ends of it anyhow, not just the sensational way.

An INFP might skip meals when out of touch with their bodies. But they might just as easily overindulge on certain foods when under stress and using their 3rd childlike function, Si, for self comfort. So I am not personally seeing the tendancy to "glut" on foods as an indicator of the ISFP over the INFP.

And the moral of the tortoise and the hare was not that all people who lose races are hares. You seem to be missing the point. You're putting the emphasis on the wrong details, which as I said in my previous post, is the great risk anyone takes when they try to use examples.

You probaby also totally disregarded may warning in advance about how caraciturized my examples were going to be.

I also don't think your example would be the ISFP's internal judgement process if they were using Fi to temper Se. it wouldn't just be pure, Oh if it feels good eat. The ISFP I know seem very aware of food's power to be a means to health for themselves and those they care about and they seem more intune with self care and eating healthy. Fi as judgement process would say "In order to care for those I love, I must be healthy."

The following is a real statement from an ISFP I know:
"Last time I had a sugar binge, I crashed and I was so crabby the rest of the evening. I know how it feels when my Mom is in one of her dragonlady moods, I don't want to do that to my kids. So I am going to really try to watch my sugar intake."

You are trying to paint a real life ISFP. They are all different. This is pointless. You know, no one should even ask the question "what is [such and such type] like?". It's not a productive question. One should ask "what are [such and such processes] like?" and "what processes does [such and such type] prefer?". That will get you much closer to figuring things out.

But I don't blame the people who ask, because they're usually newbies. What annoys me, is how any attempt to answer, that does not encompass the full nuances of complete individual human being and every possible individual within a type, is struck down. Neither I, nor you, nor anyone else can make sense of a type system that way.

I'm not going to trade ridiculously specific examples with you, because putting so much emphasis on most of those extaneous details misses the point in entirety. The OPs question was apparently unanswerable within the perameters it gave. I'm never going to do this again, I've made this mistake too many times. From now on, I'm going to tell people to accept answers in the form of cognitive constructs, or take no answers at all, because trying to give any tangible examples is hopeless. There's too much information for quibbling over.

 

[heart]

The problem is that you have the INFP responding with some vague sort of values based judgement (that'd be the Fi) on whether or not to eat and then you have the ISFP just by-passing any sort of values related judgement (no Fi used at all) on whether or not to "glut" on food.

My take on pure Se verses Ne in a food example? Here's my attempt: All day yesturday I daydreamed of eatting strawberries. Now I've been to the store and I have my strawberries but I can't fully experience the strawberries because now I am wondering what it'd be like to have mango or star fruit instead.

I don't think ISFP would be that prone to this sort of problem. Everything would seem more immediate and direct to them?

On Food:

The ISFP says "Life is an experience, why not make it an enjoyable experience? Certain foods are delicious!" and promply goes to glut on more of those foods.

The INFP says "I find, though I struggle, that when I fast, I seem to achieve a higher state of mind that's really more rewarding than indulging in food" and proceeds to give a bunch of unique Ne driven connections to speculate on all the benefits of fasting (of varrying credibility).

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Your example was pure Ne verses pure Se and neither the ISFP nor the INFP is pure perception, they aren't even perception doms.

Your idea of what feeling is sounds very related to instinct. If it feels good, eat. That's not what I perceive Fi to be. That sounds more like just S.

In contemporary neuroscience, very little distinction is made between Feeling and instinct. I could imagine that someone who is an NF type could think that their dominant function isn't about instinct as they don't see themselves as chiefly an instinctual person. The inference is illegitimate because one can't infer the nature of his type from personality alone.

In many cases, their personality is more cerebral than instinctual because of the influence their environment had upon them rather than their type. The second contributing factor is Intuition, which is their secondary function.

However, feeling in itself is indeed just an instinct and a person has that as their dominant faculty can very much avoid being largely instinctually driven by relying on their auxiliary faculties and seeking out cerebral activities.

Fi as judgement process would say "In order to care for those I love, I must be healthy.".

No, actually Fi would not say anything, its only capable of leading a person to experience either a positive or a negative instinct. A person of this type may say that or have that thought, but they'd be able to do so by virtue of not Fi, but their more cerebral faculties such as Intuition or Thinking. No doubt their thoughts would have been influenced by Fi and they'd tend to be different from the thoughts of a person who has a different dominant function, but there is no reason to suppose that Fi alone makes such judgments or let alone constructs complete and coherent sentences!

 

[Magic Poriferan]

The problem is that you have the INFP responding with some vague sort of values based judgement (that'd be the Fi) on whether or not to eat and then you have the ISFP just by-passing any sort of values related judgement (no Fi used at all) on whether or not to "glut" on food.

I don't see the ISFP as by-passing value judgment. Why do you? Deciding to eat and deciding not to eat are not particular more or less value driven than the other. And is fasting and more intelligent than glutting? Both are probably making poor decisions. That's not the point, anyway.

My take on pure Se verses Ne in a food example? Here's my attempt: All day yesturday I daydreamed of eatting strawberries. Now I've been to the store and I have my strawberries but I can't fully experience the strawberries because now I am wondering what it'd be like to have mango or star fruit instead.

I don't think ISFP would be that prone to this sort of problem. Everything would seem more immediate and direct to them?

Immediate and direct, yes, because Se is the paragon of immediate reaction, hence my example. All you did was give Ne, and then say "the ISFP is not this". Could you give an affirmative example of Se and food?

EDIT: And note how after my examples, I explicitly stated that both of them involved the type in question getting carried away. That was a part of the example. It is not a given that the people of those types will get carried away like that.

 

[heart]

MP: On the last quote, I suppose I'd like to wait and see if a ISFP will come along and challenge or agree with what I've said. Hence the question mark I made. A challenge or addition from one of them on what I've said would interest me more at this point.

 

[wolfy]

Yeah, if I want strawberries I get strawberries and make sure I enjoy them. I tend go straight for what is on my mind at the time. I do sometimes have an issue with rushing to the next experience but that is probably a different thing.

 

[Jeffster]

Comparison using 80's piano-based pop music:


INFP


ISFP

 

[ayoitsStepho]

Well, I understood Magic Poriferan description quite well. I don't really under stand the confusion.

From what he wrote, this is what I understood of it. Let me know if I'm wrong though MP.

ISFP's just enjoy the experience. Whatever they're going to do, they're going to put their whole attention on it and just enjoy it. Its the Se in us that allows us to experience whats in front of us to the fullest (from what I understand). So when the example was used that ISFPs would maybe gorge in the yummy food, it's not to say that we're mindless pigs or anything, it's to say we're enjoying that moment, the taste and the feel in our mouths. It could also be said that if we're in a garden, our Se would want to completely engulf itself in the smells and colors. It's about the here and now.

 

[OrangeAppled]

My problem with it is that it makes the ISFP sound like a human pie hole and the INFP as some sort of supersensual creature living on a higher plane of pure thought.

haha...exactly....the ISFP is like, "Me likey food. Food is good."
and the INFP is like, "What is the meaning of food, and how I can save humanity?".


------

In order to discuss Fi in full, you have to get into the collective unconscious & primordial images, etc.

The idea is that Fi is a source of significant ideas that are fundamental and broad and come from some innate, impalpable source ("primordial images" - my interpretation of Jung's definition is that these are basic ideas, archaic and universal in nature). It's almost like a very strong inborn conscience, if you want to over-simplify it.

You could also compare Fi to a sharp internal compass of right and wrong, which has a connection to a universal moral instinct that all humans possess. Sort of how Se-doms are very in-touch with their physical senses, but we all have physical senses.

However, Fi is more than just being very in-touch with an inborn conscience, because it goes beyond the moral realm. The principles it holds are very vague and broad, and they are interpreted personally by each Fi-dom and often re-interpreted for different situations. The principles themselves do not change much - they are so broad & basic they do not have to. The vastness & vagueness of these feeling-thoughts are difficult to express, which is why Fi-doms often become very creative.

When something "feels right" it is no capricious judgment based on emotion. It is linked to some rudimentary concept of right, one which seems to come out of nowhere, yet has a universal ring of truth to it. Being more prone to theory, INFPs tend to discover these truths by creating theoretical concepts of what is ideal, and ISFPs tend to trust their experience to reveal them.

Wolfy quoted an older post in here where I had discussed in more detail how Fi takes a different face with Se and Ne.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Well, I understood Magic Poriferan description quite well. I don't really under stand the confusion.

From what he wrote, this is what I understood of it. Let me know if I'm wrong though MP.

ISFP's just enjoy the experience. Whatever they're going to do, they're going to put their whole attention on it and just enjoy it. Its the Se in us that allows us to experience whats in front of us to the fullest (from what I understand). So when the example was used that ISFPs would maybe gorge in the yummy food, it's not to say that we're mindless pigs or anything, it's to say we're enjoying that moment, the taste and the feel in our mouths. It could also be said that if we're in a garden, our Se would want to completely engulf itself in the smells and colors. It's about the here and now.

Well, essentially yes. I feel that what I've been seeing here should almost seem redundantly obvious on this forum. The INFP is laying Fi judgement onto speculative, interprative things, perhaps far removed, perhaps not literally experienced, not guaranteed to pass (Ne has a high risk of false promises). The ISFP is, thanks to Se, going to be way more grounded in here and now, what it can reach out and touch, in terms of what it applies its Fi rationale to. Because they are both Fi-doms, this is about the only difference between them.

haha...exactly....the ISFP is like, "Me likey food. Food is good."
and the INFP is like, "What is the meaning of food, and how I can save humanity?".

Oh come on! You over-simplified the ISFP and you added something onto the INFP I never alluded to at all. You're just revealing your unwarranted connotative extrapolations.

In order to discuss Fi in full, you have to get into the collective unconscious & primordial images, etc.

The idea is that Fi is a source of significant ideas that are fundamental and broad and come from some innate, impalpable source ("primordial images" - my interpretation of Jung's definition is that these are basic ideas, archaic and universal in nature). It's almost like a very strong inborn conscience, if you want to over-simplify it.

You could also compare Fi to a sharp internal compass of right and wrong, which has a connection to a universal moral instinct that all humans possess. Sort of how Se-doms are very in-touch with their physical senses, but we all have physical senses.

However, Fi is more than just being very in-touch with an inborn conscience, because it goes beyond the moral realm. The principles it holds are very vague and broad, and they are interpreted personally by each Fi-dom and often re-interpreted for different situations. The principles themselves do not change much - they are so broad & basic they do not have to. The vastness & vagueness of these feeling-thoughts are difficult to express, which is why Fi-doms often become very creative.

When something "feels right" it is no capricious judgment based on emotion. It is linked to some rudimentary concept of right, one which seems to come out of nowhere, yet has a universal ring of truth to it. Being more prone to theory, INFPs tend to discover these truths by creating theoretical concepts of what is ideal, and ISFPs tend to trust their experience to reveal them.

Wolfy quoted an older post in here where I had discussed in more detail how Fi takes a different face with Se and Ne.

I am immedietely skeptical of any universal right and wrong. But that point aside, in what way does this definition of Fi conflict with my examples?

 

[OrangeAppled]

Oh come on! You over-simplified the ISFP and you added something onto the INFP I never alluded to at all. You're just revealing your unwarranted connotative extrapolations.

It's called exaggeration to make a point, and for humorous effect.

I am immedietely skeptical of any universal right and wrong. But that point aside, in what way does this definition of Fi conflict with my examples?

It's not a universal right and wrong. Read it again. The interpretation of what the Fi-dom feels from their collective unconscious is very personal, but the collective unconscious is not personal - that's where the universal aspect comes in. Maybe you don't like the idea of the collective unconscious - well, that's your opinion then, but it's a part of Jung's theory....

[the collective unconscious] does not derive from personal experience and is not a personal acquisition but is inborn...universal...[and] more or less the same everywhere and in all individuals.

My problem with the examples was the way they made both types seem ridiculous. Hence, my response which mocked it.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

It's called exaggeration to make a point, and for humorous effect.

This response is... The word I'm looking for is not ironic, though people would frequently misuse the word ironic here. I'll get to it later...

It's not a universal right and wrong. Read it again. The interpretation of what the Fi-dom feels from their collective unconscious is very personal, but the collective unconscious is not personal - that's where the universal aspect comes in. Maybe you don't like the idea of the collective unconscious - well, that's your opinion then, but it's a part of Jung's theory....

I do disagree with collective conscious. I know it's a part of Jung's theories. The MBTI is heavily drawn from but not precisely Jung's ideas.

My problem with the examples was the way they made both types seem ridiculous. Hence, my response which mocked it.

Yes, both types seem ridiculous, so no N or S bias. And did you just assume that because they were both Fi-doms, I was making Fi to be ridiculous? Look back at what I said in my first post.

It's really hard to give situational examples that aren't overly simple stereotypes...

But if you want me to make a massively general characterization, it goes like this:

In my silly example, the ISFP gets carried away with the practical experiences, while the INFP gets carried away with the theoretical speculations.

I made it explicitly clear that the viewer was looking at caricature. This does not inherently discredit an example, though. The examples, however colorful, are fine if they still make the vital points. We can talk about what qualities define Fi, Se, or Ne, but debating it by going after rather trivial details of a knowingly absurd example is not the way to go about it (my choice of the word glut might have been a give away).

Conveying abstract parts of the human condition through exaggerated characters is literally an ancient practice. The reason this is done is because it's very hard to convey the abstractions. As I said previously, my only aternative was to make a theoretical model, which is what I usually do, by far. I had actually started writing quite a bit along those lines before I scrapped it all, because I realized that's not what they OP asked for.

But the thing is, since I do have a lot of experience with presenting the bare bones of cognitive type, I find that when people don't just ignore it all together, they tend to respond with "I don't get it. " or "I coudn't really get into what Magic was writing", the main exceptions being people who I already know are seasoned scholars of this subject and don't need me to inform them.

Soooo... When I actually decide, once in a blue moon, to respect the wishes of someone else to have a more tangible example, I'm reminded why I don't usually do that. I can never see what error it will be in my example that will be exploited. Sometimes I'm completely blind-sided with irrelevant details I never anticipated causing contention. "Well, in your example, you said Sally was wearing purple, and I don't think that's a very ISTJ color" .

 

[Kastor]

I've always had difficult understanding the order of functions, how they work, etc. But I suppose I'll just gave to read into it.

And yeah, specific examples are difficult because no one is purely Si or Ni, I s'pose. Like myself, personally, I enjoy a bit happier movies these days because I have my own issues with getting too deeply into disturbing subjects and freaking myself out.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I'm noticing as I look over this again that there also seems to be an assumed premise that right and wrong cannot concern/pertain to aesthetics, and I have no idea why.

 

[Kastor]

I'm noticing as I look over this again that there also seems to be an assumed premise that right and wrong cannot concern/pertain to aesthetics, and I have no idea why.

Could you explain this further, please?

 

[OrangeAppled]

Yes, both types seem ridiculous, so no N or S bias. And did you just assume that because they were both Fi-doms, I was making Fi to be ridiculous? Look back at what I said in my first post.

I made it explicitly clear that the viewer was looking at caricature. This does not inherently discredit an example, though. The examples, however colorful, are fine if they still make the vital points. We can talk about what qualities define Fi, Se, or Ne, but debating it by going after rather trivial details of a knowingly absurd example is not the way to go about it (my choice of the word glut might have been a give away).

Conveying abstract parts of the human condition through exaggerated characters is literally an ancient practice. The reason this is done is because it's very hard to convey the abstractions. As I said previously, my only aternative was to make a theoretical model, which is what I usually do, by far. I had actually started writing quite a bit along those lines before I scrapped it all, because I realized that's not what they OP asked for.

But the thing is, since I do have a lot of experience with presenting the bare bones of cognitive type, I find that when people don't just ignore it all together, they tend to respond with "I don't get it. " or "I coudn't really get into what Magic was writing", the main exceptions being people who I already know are seasoned scholars of this subject and don't need me to inform them.

Soooo... When I actually decide, once in a blue moon, to respect the wishes of someone else to have a more tangible example, I'm reminded why I don't usually do that. I can never see what error it will be in my example that will be exploited. Sometimes I'm completely blind-sided with irrelevant details I never anticipated causing contention. "Well, in your example, you said Sally was wearing purple, and I don't think that's a very ISTJ color" .

It's typical for NTs to speak of Feeling in "silly" examples, yet not so much with Thinking functions. Besides, your examples did not ring true for me. That was my point. I don't feel the need to discuss this any further. I didn't like your post....get over it.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Could you explain this further, please?

Oh, I just meant that one of the remarks about my painting of Fi-Se seems to be that Fi can't really be about right and wrong in terms of aesthetics or tastes, like in food, music, art, etc... If I leave it to abstract ideas, then the Fi is acknowledged, but if I talk about those more concrete things, I have apparently left Fi out and am only talking about Se.

Though, it should be considered that pure Se could never, ever be shown reasoning something as right or wrong. Reasoning, right, and wrong, being the words that don't belong in Se.

It's typical for NTs to speak of Feeling in "silly" examples, yet not so much with Thinking functions. Besides, your examples did not ring true for me.

You know, I didn't really like you having to bring up that I was NT then, and I don't like it now. It's ad hominem, and it creates circular problems to discuss type in terms of the types discussing it.

That was my point. I don't feel the need to discuss this any further. I didn't like your post....get over it.

I can get over anyone not liking my posts. It might take longer for me to get over the reason that someone disliked my posts. Besides, why would I just cut off? You should have expected response to a critique.

But no matter, be on your way.

 

[Kastor]

I'm not sure what the big deal is. Your post seems fine to me, MP o.o