[INFJ] INFJ Hate Thread

[SolitaryWalker]

I do not wish to spoil your enjoyment of this thread by making irrelevant and negative remarks, though I did make an observation that is both amusing and descriptive of how people have approached this topic. My remark has more to do with the method that people have used rather than the conclusions they arrived at.

The method is this: My friend, family member or an SO is an INFJ and he has this quality that I don't like. Therefore I will assume that this is how INFJs are, and on the basis of this I can say why somebody should hate an INFJ.

Some of you will say that you know more than one INFJ and spent a lot of time observing them. Exactly how many did you observe? Ten? Twenty? One-hundred? Where did you observe them? In your local town? In your state? How do you know that the qualities you observed are to be attributed to the person's type rather than their personal idiosyncrasies or their culture? Your claims would be plausible if you observed thousands of people of this type from a variety of different cultures and they all exhibited the same behaviors, but I don't think any of you have done this.

Moreover, what exactly do you think a type is other than some vague and inconsistent characteristics you read about types in online profiles and Keirsey's book? Have you done your homework? Have you thought about what exactly a type is or have you just opened some online page where it says INFJs are exceptionally creative, reserved, thin-skinned as well as fastidious and have gone on to assume that every person who fits this description is an INFJ?


Just because your conclusions are poorly supported and frequently wrong altogether does not mean that you have to stop making them. After all, the pursuit of truth is not for everybody and there is such a thing as a useful illusion, or ideas that are false yet benefit us somehow. So I am all in support of your right to be able to say something that is completely preposterous without worrying about being censored. However, since you get the right to say what you please, I reserve such a prerogative as well and therefore wish to point out where you've gone wrong. Regard my post as purely informative rather than as a set of commands with regard to what you should do or how you should believe.

 

[cascadeco]

How do you know that the qualities you observed are to be attributed to the person's type rather than their personal idiosyncrasies or their culture? Your claims would be understandable if you observed thousands of people of this type from a variety of different cultures and they all exhibited the same behaviors, but I don't think any of you have done this.

An excellent point. However this same blurb should probably be added to pretty much every thread on this forum, as the same is done for every single type, as well as in approaching type theory in general.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

An excellent point. However this same blurb should probably be added to pretty much every thread on this forum, as the same is done for every single type, as well as in approaching type theory in general.

I would agree that my comment applies to nearly every thread on this forum and it does apply to most discussions on type theory. However, it does not apply to all.

One way to sidestep this problem is to say that when you're talking about typology; you're not talking about people, you're talking about concepts. The concepts in question are solidified unconscious dispositions that manifest in many different ways.

In that regard, we don't need to observe many people as we are simply talking about how the human mind of all people works. For example, we can posit that all people have the faculty of Intuition and all people have a faculty of introversion. Hence, all people have the ability to use intuition in response to phenomena of the inner life. Accordingly, when describing introverted intuition we can simply talk about how this facet of the mind works. Such a discourse need not entail any claim about what any person is like or how he or she will behave in a certain situation.

By this method, what kind of a typological claim could we make about Introverted Intuition? It is very simple and non-context specific: it is a faculty of the mind that allows the person to become inspired to use imagination in response to stimuli that are inherent in the mind rather than in the external world. Now, how a person will use this faculty or how he will behave, or in other words what an Ni person will do shall be heavily influenced by qualities that are specific to his personality and his culture. Psychology and sociology study personality and culture, both of which demand carefully controlled empirical investigation. Since typologists don't do empirical investigations, they must avoid making claims that require empirical investigation. In order to do that, they must restrict themselves to purely conceptual matters.

On that account, my reconstruction of typology in Principles of Typology can be considered a discovery of a new field that can be called conceptual typology or analytic typology.

 

[BlahBlahNounBlah]

Moreover, what exactly do you think a type is other than some vague and inconsistent characteristics you read about types in online profiles and Keirsey's book? Have you done your homework? Have you thought about what exactly a type is or have you just opened some online page where it says INFJs are exceptionally creative, reserved, thin-skinned as well as fastidious and have gone on to assume that every person who fits this description is an INFJ?

I usually like people who identify as INFJ, so I can't comment on hating them or any other type (which is ridiculous). I also don't have a comment on any other responses in this thread. And I agree that people often look at some profiles and assume the person they're dealing with fits the description. Offline, I'd probably be unlikely to be spotted as an ENTP by anyone who hasn't given the subject substantial thought.


But my criticisms were based on observing self-typed INFJ friends/acquaintances. Whether they've mistyped themselves and they're actually ISFJ/ENFJ/INTJ/INTP/INFP is another topic, but I didn't label them INFJ. They did it themselves.

 

[the state i am in]

I neither hate INFJs nor dislike them. I'm not even neutral. I think they're great, and their costs don't even come close to their benefits. But that's off-topic.

- CLOSED!
- WORRY ALL THE TIME!
- PARANOID!
- STUBBORN!
- DEMANDING!
- HAVE AGGRESSION THAT LEAKS OUT IN WEIRD WAYS!
- Lather, rinse, repeat.

all of this is dead-on. yet, as far as the introverted perceivers go, we can become among the most open (vs CLOSED!). enjs talk a good game, but they often hide everything that matters (they feel more difficulty scaling down between their dominant Je and their secondary Ji, less support, more awful terrifying collapse).

also, worry all the time + paranoid are the same. if i had to choose one thing to slough off from myself, it would absolutely be this. but the occasional bouts of counterphobic thinking do propel me into understanding the darkest of thoughts in a way that creates great sensitivity for others dealing with similar issues. the transition from nihilism to life is far more difficult for an introverted perceiver, which is why when it actually happens, we get gandhis, christs, buddhas, the state i am ins, etc.

and yes, damn our stubbornness and demandingness. it makes those closest to us have to sacrifice for what we perceive to be the sins of others. then we turn it on ourselves. then we grow up. it takes a little too long for most of us bc we don't realize how to put all the pieces together quickly enough, to interrelate them all into a larger vision, and to represent this to ourselves/articulate so we can remember where we are and where we can go. it helps us transition from spending far too long rejecting the world rather than accepting what is available to us and making the most of the situation.

 

[Sarcasticus]

the transition from nihilism to life is far more difficult for an introverted perceiver, which is why when it actually happens, we get gandhis, christs, buddhas, the state i am ins, etc.

I see what you did there.

 

[cascadeco]

I would agree that my comment applies to nearly every thread on this forum and it does apply to most discussions on type theory. However, it does not apply to all.

One way to sidestep this problem is to say that when you're talking about typology; you're not talking about people, you're talking about concepts. The concepts in question are solidified unconscious dispositions that manifest in many different ways.

Yes, I think conceptually the 16 types and the 8 cognitive functions are pretty cut and dry. It's a nice little framework. I think there is a disconnect however between the theory (esp. when getting to the nitty gritty like the supposed function orders) and real-world individuals (for reasons you have mentioned), and people like to use mbti/functions to try to explain every facet of every individual, which is silly.

Like you say, individual personality quirks and society/culture will influence the way in which each of the functions would be realized by each individual. There are of course other psychological things that are outside of mbti, such as anxiety, narcissism, and the like, and life experiences, nurture, intelligence, etc, which obviously would influence the individual's perception and behavior, and these leanings could obviously skew one who is trying to self-type, as well as people trying to type them.

Also, I sometimes think people too quickly attribute a certain behavior or disposition to a cognitive function or type, when in reality it's not so much the result of either. I also think it's common for many to say qualities X, Y, and Z define type ABCD, while although that may be true, they miss the fact that qualities X, Y, and Z also apply to types EFGH and IJKL. So someone thinking they're type ABCD because they are X, Y, and Z isn't saying a whole lot. Anyway..yeah. I'm done.

 

[Grace]

Yo, I have a question regarding on of the reasons why I hate INFJs.

Why does it take you so long to get over a breakup? Each one seems to take well over a year to get over.

I'm dealing with an INFJ who freaks out over the mere mention of her most recent ex's name and it has been 15 months now. What's worse is that this ex is my friend and every time I hang out with him I have to slink around her like a criminal because she freaks out otherwise.

Sounds like an ISFJ, not INFJ. I get over breakups in lightning speed while my ISFJ friends take at least a year or two.

 

[cascadeco]

^Nah, I wouldn't say that. Depends on the nature of the relationship/connection, as well as how it ended. If there was any question mark or lingering hope, it could well take a long time to get over the person or want to emotionally put yourself back in the place where you're open to risk/hurt/uncertainty. INFJ's could easily take a long time to let go. But as you say, INFJ's can also move on quickly. Really depends.

 

[Fidelia]

I have taken a long time to get over breakups, but usually it had more to do with things being left in an unresolved state with questions unanswered or with very inconsistent behaviour following. Even in cases where I recognized it was good to break up, I felt like I wanted the answers to it all before I could just be done. If there is resolution, I think INFJs move on in a pretty normal amount of time. We also don't invest all that easily in people, so it makes sense that we would want to be really sure it was over and we were done before we close that book and move on.

 

[cascadeco]

I have taken a long time to get over breakups, but usually it had more to do with things being left in an unresolved state with questions unanswered or with very inconsistent behaviour following. Even in cases where I recognized it was good to break up, I felt like I wanted the answers to it all before I could just be done. If there is resolution, I think INFJs move on in a pretty normal amount of time. We also don't invest all that easily in people, so it makes sense that we would want to be really sure it was over and we were done before we close that book and move on.

You worded this MUCH better than I - this is what I was trying to say with my 'question mark' phrase. It's all about the resolution.

 

[Eileen]

INFJs can be overly cuddly AND cold/distant. And they have temper tantrums. And they hate the idea of being high-maintenance, but they are anyway.

 

[Ginkgo]

Moreover, what exactly do you think a type is other than some vague and inconsistent characteristics you read about types in online profiles and Keirsey's book? Have you done your homework? Have you thought about what exactly a type is or have you just opened some online page where it says INFJs are exceptionally creative, reserved, thin-skinned as well as fastidious and have gone on to assume that every person who fits this description is an INFJ?

I agree with the entirety of your post. Might I add that titling the thread "What are your Subjective Viewpoints and Experiences Involving Those Who are Supposedly of the (Already Questionable) INFJ Archetype?" expunges social provocativeness?

Perhaps those who post here are not operating on individual objective grounds; but are just be reconciling common denominators and patterns for the sake of whimsical Typological integration, socialization, and amusement?

 

[lillyofthevalley]

I do not wish to spoil your enjoyment of this thread by making irrelevant and negative remarks, though did make an observation that is both amusing and descriptive of how people have approached this topic. My remark has more to do with the method that people have used rather than the conclusions they arrived at.

The method is this: My friend, family member or an SO is an INFJ and he has this quality that I don't like. Therefore I will assume that this is how INFJs are, and on the basis of this I can say why somebody should hate an INFJ.

Some of you will say that you know more than one INFJ and spent a lot of time observing them. Exactly how many did you observe? Ten? Twenty? One-hundred? Where did you observe them? In your local town? In your state? How do you know that the qualities you observed are to be attributed to the person's type rather than their personal idiosyncrasies or their culture? Your claims would be understandable if you observed thousands of people of this type from a variety of different cultures and they all exhibited the same behaviors, but I don't think any of you have done this.

Moreover, what exactly do you think a type is other than some vague and inconsistent characteristics you read about types in online profiles and Keirsey's book? Have you done your homework? Have you thought about what exactly a type is or have you just opened some online page where it says INFJs are exceptionally creative, reserved, thin-skinned as well as fastidious and have gone on to assume that every person who fits this description is an INFJ?


Just because your conclusions are poorly supported and frequently wrong altogether does not mean that you have to stop making them. After all, the pursuit of truth is not for everybody and there is such a thing as a useful illusion, or ideas that are false yet benefit us somehow. So I am all in support of your right to be able to say something that is completely preposterous without worrying about being censored. However, since you get the right to say what you please, I reserve such a prerogative as well and therefore wish to point out where you've gone wrong. Regard my post as purely informative rather than as a set of commands with regard to what you should do or what you should believe.

+

Yawn.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

INFJs can be overly cuddly AND cold/distant. And they have temper tantrums. And they hate the idea of being high-maintenance, but they are anyway.

This would be a true statement if we are to replace 'INFJs' with Eileen and people who she thinks have the INFJ temperament. What does she think an INFJ temperament is? Who knows!? Does she even have a clear and self-consistent definition of an INFJ? We may never know. Regarding whatever definition of an INFJ that she does have, if she has one, do people that she typed as INFJ fit that description? It is difficult for us to know that.

Is this statement informative to anyone who is seriously trying to study typology? Let the reader decide. Is this statement informative in any respect at all? Yes, it is informative of Eileen's psychology. It is stating that she thinks that there are some people and those people are INFJs. Whatever information this offers about her psychology, it is quite scant as we don't know what she means by 'INFJ'.

Needless to say, if most typological assertions on this forum are not altogether meaningless, they are not far from it. Eileen's post is a good example of what a typical post around here is on the subject.

 

[weakshadeofblue]

INFJs can be overly cuddly AND cold/distant. And they have temper tantrums. And they hate the idea of being high-maintenance, but they are anyway.

AHHH. This is so me!!!
Grrrr I hate that I do this.

(everything you wrote in the post above and what was quoted by someone above )

You make very good points, and it's a great reminder of how we shouldn't take this as complete truth, but regard them as subjective viewpoints from experiences of others with a particular type.

I didn't think that this thread was necessarily meant to be taken incredibly seriously, though. Definitely not a thread from which to derive factual information for serious academic study on typology. I view it as more of a place to vent the negative experiences one has had with a certain type.

Obviously MBTI has some great applications and can help a person learn about him/herself and others, but to say that all 6 billion people on Earth fit into one of 16 different types makes no sense. There's obviously great variation within types and types aren't clones of each other.

You make great points, and I enjoyed reading your insight.

Might I add that titling the thread "What are your Subjective Viewpoints and Experiences Involving Those Who are Supposedly of the (Already Questionable) INFJ Archetype?" expunges social provocativeness?

LOL! I like it!

 

[Eileen]

This would be a true statement if we are to replace 'INFJs' with Eileen and people who she thinks have the INFJ temperament. What does she think an INFJ temperament is? Who knows!? Does she even have a clear and self-consistent definition of an INFJ? We may never know. Regarding whatever definition of an INFJ that she does have, if she has one, do people that she typed as INFJ fit that description? It is difficult for us to know that.

Is this statement informative to anyone who is seriously trying to study typology? Let the reader decide. Is this statement informative in any respect at all? Yes, it is informative of Eileen's psychology. It is stating that she thinks that there are some people and those people are INFJs. Whatever information this offers about her psychology, it is quite scant as we don't know what she means by 'INFJ'.

Needless to say, if most typological assertions on this forum are not altogether meaningless, they are not far from it. Eileen's post is a good example of what a typical post around here is on the subject.

If you are "seriously trying to study typology," I recommend going elsewhere on the site. If you would like to read posts of INFJs being self-deprecating, stay right where you are. But know the purpose of the thread, dude. Read critically.

And remember:

It is

just.

the.

internet.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

If you are "seriously trying to study typology," I recommend going elsewhere on the site. If you would like to read posts of INFJs being self-deprecating, stay right where you are. But know the purpose of the thread, dude. Read critically.

And remember:

It is

just.

the.

internet.

Yeah, you're right, it is just the internet. However, I interpret that statement differently from the way you do. You seem to have the idea that its a place for carefree, friendly chat. I would agree with you about that; however, I think the internet serves more social purposes in addition to that. It offers a laid back and an unstructured venue for people to express their views on just about any matter. Hence, people who want to seriously study typology have every right to voice their views here just as you do.

I do realize that as a moderator you very much would like to believe that this forum is a more organized place than that, yet it truly is not. If it was, many of our members would find this place much too rigid for their tastes. We all deal with bureaucracy a great deal in our lives that forces us to needlessly follow stringent and arbitrary rules; it is quite fitting for us to get a break from that here.

 

[Grace]

This would be a true statement if we are to replace 'INFJs' with Eileen and people who she thinks have the INFJ temperament. What does she think an INFJ temperament is? Who knows!? Does she even have a clear and self-consistent definition of an INFJ? We may never know. Regarding whatever definition of an INFJ that she does have, if she has one, do people that she typed as INFJ fit that description? It is difficult for us to know that.

Is this statement informative to anyone who is seriously trying to study typology? Let the reader decide. Is this statement informative in any respect at all? Yes, it is informative of Eileen's psychology. It is stating that she thinks that there are some people and those people are INFJs. Whatever information this offers about her psychology, it is quite scant as we don't know what she means by 'INFJ'.

Needless to say, if most typological assertions on this forum are not altogether meaningless, they are not far from it. Eileen's post is a good example of what a typical post around here is on the subject.

:zzz:

Why don't you start your own topic about the ridiculousness of this site. Mmmk?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

:zzz:

Why don't you start your own topic about the ridiculousness of this site. Mmmk?

Never implied that this site is ridiculous but you certainly are free to interpret my post as having said that directly or implied it.