[INFJ] INFJ Hate Thread

[Siúil a Rúin]

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.

This approach is an important one to balance the anecdotal nature of many discussions. I also make posts that are anecdotal and do agree that they are not always likely to apply to others. Sometimes the anecdotes of a group of people align, and there is a sense of comradey which can be a pleasant surprise. It serves this social function of bringing people together based on sharing specific personal experiences. It might be compared to finding out you share a love for the same sports team, or you both lived in the same part of the world, or went to the same High School.

On the other hand... My aunt is an evil, passive aggressive [XXXX] who acts sweet, but then she will stab you in the back like all [XXXX] when you really need her the most. I've given up on people of [XXXX] type. You know Hitler was an [XXXX], and that means that everyone of that type is a little like Hitler when they are pissed off.

That approach to typology wearies me and at times makes me think I should give up on it because it isn't useful and only adds to the negative social soup of overly defensive interaction. The motivation is to take the experience of personal hurts, try to make sense of it in a way that future hurts can be avoided. If [XXXX] are people who have caused personal pain, then avoiding all such people in the future, or being extra wary of them, will prevent future pain. It is like a Golden Retriever who hates little blond boys because one pulled his ears while a puppy.

SolitaryWalker, your approach is at the other end of the spectrum. I think sometimes people don't know how to bridge that gap, and don't have a toolkit for approaching typology in another way. It could be useful to have a thread that examines different ways to approach this topic because there is something worthwhile in keeping it theoretical rather than distorting it based on personal fear and bias. This could include suggested reading among other things.

 

[visaisahero]

I am hopelessly attracted to (and turned on) by female INFJs to no end. I'm helpless- even their flaws are so damn endearing (or a hell of a challenge.)

 

[SolitaryWalker]

This approach is an important one to balance the anecdotal nature of many discussions. I also make posts that are anecdotal and do agree that they are not always likely to apply to others. Sometimes the anecdotes of a group of people align, and there is a sense of comradey which can be a pleasant surprise. It serves this social function of bringing people together based on sharing specific personal experiences. It might be compared to finding out you share a love for the same sports team, or you both lived in the same part of the world, or went to the same High School.

On the other hand... My aunt is an evil, passive aggressive [XXXX] who acts sweet, but then she will stab you in the back like all [XXXX] when you really need her the most. I've given up on people of [XXXX] type. You know Hitler was an [XXXX], and that means that everyone of that type is a little like Hitler when they are pissed off.

That approach to typology wearies me and at times makes me think I should give up on it because it isn't useful and only adds to the negative social soup of overly defensive interaction. The motivation is to take the experience of personal hurts, try to make sense of it in a way that future hurts can be avoided. If [XXXX] are people who have caused personal pain, then avoiding all such people in the future, or being extra wary of them, will prevent future pain. It is like a Golden Retriever who hates little blond boys because one pulled his ears while a puppy.

SolitaryWalker, your approach is at the other end of the spectrum. I think sometimes people don't know how to bridge that gap, and don't have a toolkit for approaching typology in another way. It could be useful to have a thread that examines different ways to approach this topic because there is something worthwhile in keeping it theoretical rather than distorting it based on personal fear and bias. This could include suggested reading among other things.

You have an apt point, there are two ways we can approach typology, use it as a topic to create a certain social effect, or regard it as something that should be studied from a scholarly standpoint. With regard to the first, you mentioned that a discussion of typology can indeed help people establish rapport with one another just like a discussion about a sports team. No argument from me.

The implication of what you said is that there is something good about that kind of a discussion of typology, I never disagreed with that. All I claimed is that such a discourse creates a breeding ground for false beliefs. By itself, this proposition is purely factual. Whether that is good or bad is another question that I do not wish to comment on a great deal.


However, I do acknowledge that just because a belief is false, it does not follow that it is also bad and should not be discussed. Hence, just because most people on this forum who talk about typology utter preposterous things does not mean that they should stop doing that. After all, making false statements if done properly, can create benign environments. Notably, if it is to be done improperly it can entail hostility as you've mentioned. But that is more along the lines of discourses of how Hitler was an INFJ and how we all should hate INFJs because my evil grandma was one.

In any case, I don't have a problem with people making false statements about typology that actually lead to a social good of some kind, however, I also don't see any reason why I shouldn't point out that their statements are false. After all, some people come here not only to socialize but also to learn and indeed for this very reason; many posters who responded to my views voiced their appreciation of the proffered insights.

 

[the state i am in]

You have an apt point, there are two ways we can approach typology, use it as a topic to discuss to bring people closer together, or regard it as something that should be studied from a scholarly standpoint. With regard to the first, you mentioned that a discussion of typology can indeed help people establish rapport with one another just like a discussion about a sports team. I agree with this.

The implication of what you said is that there is something good about that kind of a discussion of typology, I never disagreed with that. All I claimed is that such a discourse creates a breeding ground for false beliefs. By itself, this proposition is purely factual. Whether that is good or bad is another question that I do not wish to comment on a great deal.

However, I do acknowledge that just because a belief is false, it does not follow that it is also bad and should not be discussed. Hence, just because most people on this forum who talk about typology utter preposterous things does not mean that they should stop doing that. After all, making false statements if done properly, can create benign environments. Notably, if it is to be done improperly it can entail hostility as you've mentioned. But that is more along the lines of discourses of how Hitler was an INFJ and how we all should hate INFJs because my evil grandma was one.

In any case, I don't have a problem with people making false statements about typology that actually lead to a social good of some kind, however, I also don't see any reason why I shouldn't point out that their statements are false. After all, some people come here not only to socialize but also to learn and indeed for this very reason; many posters who responded to my views voiced their appreciation of the proffered insights.

the anecdotal nature of evidence, or the shift of the group's thinking doesn't really matter. i would like to think that the overall discourse improves with better discussion, but it improves with discussion involving smart people and good thinkers. when this is not the case, it is not the case. who knows who has the idea that will bind to the right receptor site?

i'm sure you, like me, find other thinkers you gravitate towards and others you don't. my evidence is about 60% theoretical and 40% anecdotal (numbers are only vague proportions to me). when i rely on the evidence of others, i judge them in addition to their evidence (via Fe, understanding their internal holism and how put together their writing/thinking voice is). does it work?-sometimes yes, sometimes no. i propose various claims and sometimes they get shot down, sometimes they are exposed for being messy or vague or poorly constructed or flat out false. this is ok, revision is the process i am seeking. contradiction creates complexity, emergent intelligence, synthesis. many people take evidence at face value, or completely ignore all forms of evidence that are not internal. others fixate on specific judgments that prevent them from seeing a larger picture and more angles, and as such the image they see may be a misleading or distorted one. to think that you can communicate equally well with all methods of processing information, or see all images to weigh the value of something, to think that your methods are necessary to judge and jury all others, is an unnecessary direction. discourse takes on its own life, but being strategic about how you want to influence it, recognizing what the most important objectives are, and gleaning what ideas can be created from the process keep purpose intact, even if the outcome is unknowable.

 

[cascadeco]

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.

Actually I agree, and it's a reason I don't respond to half of the INFJ-specific threads...it's because I don't relate to half of what's said; much of it is not specific to INFJ's as a whole, especially when you get into some of the more behavioral aspects (but not all). That said, it's pretty easy to note the trends/commonalities amongst type. Just have to sift through the details that might not apply to the whole.

But there's no getting around any of it, really, given the nature of forums and the way in which mbti is applied. Also, the other thing is that many of the comments aren't meant to be taken super seriously, or as you say it's left to the reader to decide whether the comment really speaks to the whole type or whether it's more individual.

 

[Infidel]

I like most INFJ's, but some, man, they are just so fucking emotionally manipulative. They'll pretend to listen and consider alternatives when in reality they've already made up their minds. And they believe they understand you better than you understand yourself. The condescension is sickening. Anyone who does not come around to their illogical and highly subjective way of thinking, is branded "immature" or "lacking" in some significant way. Fortunately, only a small minority seem to be like this, most aren't that bad.

 

[eirlysmorissey]

Expecting other people to be as 'perfect' as they are.

 

[KLessard]

Do you have a mean, judgmental, somewhat punitive streak showing sometimes?

I notice this at work. Once in a while, customers don't like me or get mad and are afraid to ask me to help them. Some people get annoyed and say "I feel like I'm disturbing you." And yes, I sometimes think they are disturbing me and I shouldn't. I don't have to say anything to make them feel this way. Just my face or attitude.

I wonder if it has to do with Ti? Jung's description of Introverted thinking in Psychological Types describes this to a hair.

I want to change that. Any suggestions? Must I hit Ti over the head with Fe?

 

[Billy]

 

[mochajava]

Disturbing... so much is happening in this picture that there are layers of disturbing...

 

[Jeyssika]

Funniest thing about this is that you're listing things that make them less than perfect then have a go at them for trying to be perfect ... Crazy world.

 

[Sarcasticus]

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.

 

[Crescent Fresh]

I am hopelessly attracted to (and turned on) by female INFJs to no end. I'm helpless- even their flaws are so damn endearing (or a hell of a challenge.)

Care to elaborate further?

Expecting other people to be as 'perfect' as they are.

I'm not sure if I project an absolute perfection from others, but I do expect them to be as 'considerate' as I do--which can ruin a party, at times.

 

[Belle of Kilronan]

Quoted from an INTJ forum post. I saved it as I thought it accurate:

I have come to not trust INFJ types in general. Or any Fe types for that matter. All down through the line, phony, self-serving and narcissistic all while posing to have concern about their downtrodden brother or sister. In reality, they only exhibit sympathy for pet projects that they adopt at whatever time. If you are deemed unsympathetic in their eyes or dare challenge their delusions with facts, you will see the passive aggression and attempts at manipulation come through, then finally emotional exile. Very cruel, inefficient and phony.

But to focus on INFJs... I know one. I sacrificed a lot for this person and protected this person, as a person who has loyalty to someone their close with should. But we were close enough in age to relate to one another. I don't have much intuitives around me, so opportunities for deep conversation were sparse. But with her it was easy for me to divulge my insights. Little did I know that there was a note of resentment in what I thought to be her beguiling silences. Here's what I despise about Fe. They will go through the motions of making the other offensive party feel comfortable and even understood, while lending none of the actual feelings or cognitive empathy required to fulfill that act. At the end of that discussion, the offensive party walks away feeling slightly inferior, but good about the interaction that just transpired, because miss or mister Fe was so forgiving, so nice and so conciliatory toward them.

In actuality, Mr and Miss Fe may walk away from the situation hating this person and may not actually feel any goodwill toward them at all. They were concerned about what appropriate actions they had to enact in order to be seen as good, nice and understanding. Their actual, "inappropriate" feelings tend to be exposed against their will, where they can be found lying, denying, and sniveling their way out of taking responsibility for essentially being manipulative. A close INFJ would accuse me of carrying an unearned air of certitude in statements that I actually took great time to think about. But she is just as judgmental as anyone else can be and is unsympathetic toward ideas and attitudes she doesn't understand or doesn't deem acceptable according to arbitrary Fe ethics and sentiments...

Basically.

 

[Mustafa]

Quoted from an INTJ forum post. I saved it as I thought it accurate:


Basically.

INFPs are dreamers and they dream about 'drawing a circle, big one' and include many others in it. They need need to be opinionated as NF are authentic but their 'kindness' covers on so they 'hold back' as religion is about holding back. That is i think what NF does. Whereas NT 'lets go' and can't dream like our feelers does, they are executors.

I do think we have narrscism and manipulation, but we are supposed to as NFs operate within the life and not cold sience. Everyone has their role.

 

[Norrsken]

So empathetic, yet super duper critical and judgmental. Holier than thou. Definitely noticeable in unhealthy INFJs, and healthy ones are a blessing to be around.

 

[1487610420]

 

[Aquarelle]

 

[1487610420]

 

[GIjade]

Yep, I'd say this is definitely an INFJ hate thread.