1) Yes, it seems more likely to me that IFPs express emotions subtly & indirectly.
2) People project a lot onto quiet people, and it's something I've heard INFPs complain of before (not just me). I know it's been a pattern in my life to have "aloof, unfriendly, and/or grouchy" stuck on me when I am just reserved and inexpressive at times because that is natural for me. The gaps & stony silences are me thinking deeply about stuff, not sending a message to other people about how I feel. Lack of interaction is a preference for me because I am introverted, not because I am punishing people out of bitterness.
If overall, even in positive & emotionally mature moments, this person turns their feeling judgments inward ("it's wrong/right for me to do X") and not outward ("people shouldn't do X because it's wrong"), then there's a sign they may be an FP.
Consider the premise for their valuations - is something good/bad because of some moral principle they've derived by considering the basic needs of humans, or is the moral principle derived by considering visible effects on society &/or because their trusted group/authority says so? The former is Fi thinking - an inner ideal is the basis. The latter is Fe - using real world criteria. Look for whole patterns in their thinking, not isolated moments where they give one opinion. Beware of Ti & Te sneaking in, as well as perceptions.
Sure. Agreeing with someone to their face, enthusiastically even, then later stating an opposite opinion when in different company. In the moment, it is obvious the person is not truthful because they are over-compensating with their face, voice, phasing, etc. Yet, they'll deny they do not truly feel that way in the moment if called out on it. I truly believe they feel that way in the moment, that they get caught up in it, and it's not until they are removed from that situation that they even realize their individual feeling again.Can I ask what you would describe as an example of "being fake" or "adjusting your appearance/expression in a less than genuine way", from your INFP perspective?
It is clear the agreeing was done to create a bond & promote consensus, etc, which must be felt as more valuable than their own feeling in order to abandon their own so readily. However, it still amounted to deception because it was not their true feeling on the matter once all is said & done. Such people allow their true feeling to be eclipsed by the desire of the moment to be pleasing. No one is saying it's better to be a disruptive dissenter, but to outright obscure your real feeling to prevent making waves is hardly admirable. That's when it looks like manipulation or brainless people-pleasing. You wonder, "What does this person really think? Or can they even think for themselves?". It seems they adopt whatever opinion will make them most loved & admired.
It is also very selfish, because the motive is to prevent making waves, but it's according to their own measure of what peace even is, which often amounts to their own comfort & attractiveness. But they will never admit this, because they always see it as "the group's needs". They are always making a "sacrifice". They're just "too perfect" & "too loving"....
I notice such people resent when others aren't easily persuaded also, when they don't readily go along with the crowd. Integrity to them means loyalty to their chosen group.
In a weird way, this also leads to the previous scenario I gave - expressing emotions in an escalating manner until they receive validation. When people don't validate them, then they get mad and/or guilt-trip. It's all a manipulation to create a consensus of feeling, either by abandoning their own feeling or pushing their feeling on others.
This just sounds like enneagram 4 - it screams it actually - and INFPs don't have a monopoly on being 4s. I've seen 2s disintegrating to 4s act this way as well though, in addition to 3s with heavy 4 wings.Interestingly, my young friend tends to make judgments about other people, not that they're being "fake" (as in, putting a brave face on difficult emotions), but that they simply don't have problems and difficulties in their own lives, or not much. She has often said things like that. That it's obvious that so-and-so has a pretty easy life and doesn't have major problems causing really painful emotions. I have tried to point out that some people are going through horrendous things emotionally, but they may choose to not show a great deal of it. I'm not sure she believes me. This could however be mainly self-centeredness caused by depression.
She certainly is deeply concerned with authenticity and identity, as is the other friend I've mentioned. Based on what you've said as well I would think this is more Fi. I think INFJs are concerned with authenticity, but less so; because of the Fe it's more about common ground and relating to others. (Or...is this more of an enneagram question?)
I actually think INFJ 4s are more likely to mistype as INFPs than vice versa. This is because average to unhealthy 4s often have problems with routine & structure, they define themselves by their moods (which people will confuse with F-doms), they are preoccupied with identity & uniqueness, etc. Fi-dom 9s don't have a lot of those issues.
Well, I'd argue that "fake" is "selfish"; it's more often a means to an end which suits the person employing it than anything (as I illustrated above).I suppose you can see where my preferences lie partly by the fact that I would hate for someone to call me "fake", but I would hate it even more if I were called "selfish".
I wouldn't want to be called either, equally.
Of course FJs don't have a monopoly on such things, but in regards to theory, this specific style of self-obliviousness is explicitly described for Fe. Another kind of disconnection with the self is alluded to for Pi also (seeing their perceptions as some kind of objective reality). It seems Ji is the most self-aware, for obvious reasons; on the other hand, Ji types can be the mos oblivious to others also. Even these aspects are illustrative of the mindset, not definitive. The way Jung describes this aspect for Fe is to show the dominant influence of "the object" on them, to the point where "the subject" is repressed.Incidentally, I don't think FJs/Fe dom or aux have a monopoly on pointing the fingers at others while ignoring the same behaviour in themselves. I think this can occur in all types. I have seen it suggested quite often on this forum that this is especially or mainly or ONLY the case with FJs and it kind of bothers me.
The problem with using these categories to describe real-life behavior is that there are far too many variables involved to pin it on Fe or Fi. To type someone based on behavior such as this becomes extremely faulty for that reason also. It's one thing to note that many previously typed FPs exhibit the same patterns in behavior, and another to type someone as an FP who fits one piece of the pattern. What happens is, you begin to define types by these behavioral patterns, instead of seeing the patterns as merely illustrative. Then, people even begin to warp the actual definitions of types because they know so-&-so who is supposedly XXXX type & she displays a certain behavior, and now they use that behavior to type others as XXXX, even though that behavior is not any part of a definition for the type and may even contradict it.
I would say that is an average Fi-dom. An INFP in good emotional shape would be more expressive of positive emotions & feelings, IMO.My personal impression is that INFPs in good emotional shape are more likely to come across as very self-contained/a bit disinterested as you describe. INFJs in good emotional shape are more likely to come across as a bit more outgoing and brisk and cheerful, but people may assume that they don't have many feelings of their own (not so much that they are disinterested in others.)
Since enneagram has been mentioned - yeah, I think that comes into play more with emotions than Jungian type. It also seems less faulty to use this info to determine enneagram type for that reason, although I'd still focus on the person as a whole.