[MBTI General] Tips from INFPs for INTJs

[heart]

Cultivating lovers does require a certain extra amount of effort, or why are you bothering to see them that way?

Can one have a friendship that means much to the heart and is worth much time and effort without a sexual/romantic payoff?

 

[surgery]

The thing I most dislike about INFPs is that I will state a neutral observation, and it will be taken as a direct insult.

That's very true for me. When I react like this, it's usually because what someone has said struck a "nerve", or insecurity that I've been dealing with internally. INFPs are generally very self-critical, and consequently, very sensitive to anything that they feel affirms their doubts. So, if this happens in the future, DO NOT GET UPSET. Just have patience. Maybe try apologizing (if you feel it's appropriate) and/or gently asking why that was offensive. You don't have to agree that her reaction was rational (eventually, she probably feel sorry for getting upset), but know that, for her, there's some sort of half logic behind it.

 

[GZA]

Have fun trying to become "good friends" with a girl you are infatuated with. By "have fun" I mean you're walking yourself into a living hell I did the same thing, once. Seriously. Don't do it. Go big or go home.

But if I can't convince you, I won't bother. Do whatever you want. There is no teacher like experience.

As others have said, try to tolerate the irrational/crazy/emo qualities she may exhibit (although no one calls it "being emo" when a girl does it, do they?). Try to understand that underneath the apparent insanity there is a seriously deep well of observation, imagination, ideas, and emotions. Don't dismiss it. Dismissing it is bad, it's pretty offensive even to have someone treat you like you're an idiot or insane. It feels like being disqualified as a human. Whether or not that is "logical" or reasonable, thats how it feels, so avoid it.

So yah, tolerance, patience, and understanding are the key, here.

And seriously, you're setting yourself up for a BIG fall by "becoming good friends" when you seem to be infatuated. So proceed with caution, or don't proceed at all. Or ask her out. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[songofcalamity]

Alright, I use to have a crush on her, I sort of do still, but I rationalized that it wouldn't be possible because of difference in educational tracks. And the fact that she doesn't have a desire for a relationship at this point in her life.

Now that I have rationalized that, I don't really have a crush anymore. But I still have the desire there to have someone in which I can talk to on a deeper level than just friends.

But she still sees me as pressing the front to go out, I think, when really all I am doing is pressing the front to be closer friends...

I am an INFP, and I think I have similar problems as yours. I used to have a crush on an INTJ, but now I sincerely just want to be close friends with him, but I don't know how to go about being friends with him, because sometimes he seemed so hostile and .... errr unfriendly. and at other times he seemed so approachable and nice.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

This all has gotten horribly complex, all I wanted was some tips from INFPs on how to better understand them...

I see we are making some progress then.

My tip: INFPs really appreciate balls-on-the-line honesty. If they think you're trying to get an angle on them for unstated (presumably evil) purposes, they will shut down around you in no uncertain terms. However, if you make your communication authentic and even vulnerable, you're on a sure thing. Of course, I realize that this is a prospect which tends to make INTXs squirm with revulsion. This is probably because they often seem to confuse being vulnerable with being emotional.

Another key reason I think INTJs may struggle to befriend INFPs is that INFPs tend to have a marked difference between their "public face" and their "private face". INTJs from what I've seen don't seem to have much of a "private face". This can be quite a big deal when not understood.

 

[heart]

Is this really true? Don't all introverts have a more private face that they show to intimiates? T's more so than F I would think. Feeling is inferior and they might feel comfortable showing to select few. My INTJ father showed a face to my mother that he showed no one else. No body who knew him believes some of the things he would say or do when with her at home.

 

[nightning]

Can one have a friendship that means much to the heart and is worth much time and effort without a sexual/romantic payoff?

It doesn't sound as if he was looking for just a friendship. But my stance for close friendship is that these things happens naturally. I don't go around specifically looking for them. Forced friendships doesn't work in the long run anyhow.

Is this really true? Don't all introverts have a more private face that they show to intimiates? T's more so than F I would think. Feeling is inferior and they might feel comfortable showing to select few. My INTJ father showed a face to my mother that he showed no one else. No body who knew him believes some of the things he would say or do when with her at home.

Contrary to popular believes... INTJs can be warm to a selective few. Tertiary Fi and all

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Is this really true? Don't all introverts have a more private face that they show to intimiates? T's more so than F I would think. Feeling is inferior and they might feel comfortable showing to select few. My INTJ father showed a face to my mother that he showed no one else. No body who knew him believes some of the things he would say or do when with her at home.

I think some introverts are far, far more reticent about showing their private face than others. INFPs will drop their guards hugely within the space of one unexpectedly meaningful conversation. I think it takes much more than this to get an INTJ to drop their guard. And I suspect that when they do so, it isn't always apparent.

Contrary to popular believes... INTJs can be warm to a selective few. Tertiary Fi and all

Yes they can. It just doesn't look very warm. Which is fine.

 

[sriv]

Is this really true? Don't all introverts have a more private face that they show to intimiates? T's more so than F I would think. Feeling is inferior and they might feel comfortable showing to select few. My INTJ father showed a face to my mother that he showed no one else. No body who knew him believes some of the things he would say or do when with her at home.

I definitely have a private face. I express emotion much more freely to my family than the public. My behavior is not even IxTJ with family it is more ExTP. Radical transformation. When it comes to deep discussion, I am myself.

 

[heart]

It doesn't sound as if he was looking for just a friendship. But my stance for close friendship is that these things happens naturally. I don't go around specifically looking for them. Forced friendships doesn't work in the long run anyhow.

I said nothing about *forced* friendships.

 

[runvardh]

Can one have a friendship that means much to the heart and is worth much time and effort without a sexual/romantic payoff?

Honestly, I've found good friends easier to get than the romantic; but that's probably because I am a guy. For me romance isn't just some game I play with someone I care about; it is part of the level I care about that particular person. When I get married, my friends will have to take a back seat to my wife. That does not mean my friends become unimportant, the order of my values just go, God, wife, children/parents, friends. This is my value system, however, so whoever can take it or leave it I guess.

 

[heart]

I think some introverts are far, far more reticent about showing their private face than others. INFPs will drop their guards hugely within the space of one unexpectedly meaningful conversation. I think it takes much more than this to get an INTJ to drop their guard. And I suspect that when they do so, it isn't always apparent.

I didn't drop my guard with non-initimates for a very long time, well into my 30s, before that I had a wall up to protect myself from the world.

 

[Metis]

Why can't you just explain to her why you appreciate her, why you want a particular kind of relationship with her, and why it's worth your pursuit?

For example, "You're (kind and honest), and I value your friendship a lot because (of your integrity and your depth of insight into certain interpersonal matters, such as [...]). I consider you a (true, trusted) friend..."

I'm lost for the rest.

If you're as forthcoming as possible, whatever naivete this might expose could endear you a little. So don't worry about it.

Or is this bad advice?

 

[snowflurri]

since INTJs are usually very realistic people(like my friend), and INFPs are usually unrealistic, I guess you could be less harsh on them if you want to put their ideas down. Also learn to accept their point of view and try not to get too over confident.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I certainly listen but I suck with tuning into people. It is hard for me to tell which emotions she is feeling.

The INFP of my interest knows that I have a crush on them, and I fear any compliments I make might be taken as a hit on or a flirt. You see I told this person I like them, however now I only want to be close friends. But I think they still see me and think I am trying to get close because I want to go out. Thus any compliments I make, I fear, would be taken as hit ons, or ways to get them to go out with me, which is entirely not what I want... ugh.

You better buckle up.

You're asking INFPs a question that they cannot answer. In order to get close to them, you must affirm their values. But their values are based on fleeting feelings (becuase the Thinking faculty is weak, it cannot discipline their passions, therefore they lack structure). Their values easily change (even from day to day) and you never know (nor do they) what their values are.

Why can't you just explain to her why you appreciate her, why you want a particular kind of relationship with her, and why it's worth your pursuit?

For example, "You're (kind and honest), and I value your friendship a lot because (of your integrity and your depth of insight into certain interpersonal matters, such as [...]). I consider you a (true, trusted) friend..."

I'm lost for the rest.

If you're as forthcoming as possible, whatever naivete this might expose could endear you a little. So don't worry about it.

Or is this bad advice?

Yes, it is.

That is a totally fatuous endeavor. You cannot talk to an INFP like you talk to a reasonable person and be understood. Whether they appreciate you or not, or give you what you want or they do not has almost nothing to do with what has occured in the real world, but with their irrational and in most cases whimsical interpretation of what has occured.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

@ BW

There's so much misunderstanding packed into your post that I'm starting to wonder if you're trolling intentionally, despite having hitherto shown (good points aside) no indications of a sense of humor. Are you perhaps drunk? Are all of your posts like this? I hadn't noticed. Where to begin?

You're asking INFPs a question that they cannot answer. In order to get close to them, you must affirm their values.

Pff, no more so than you must affirm the logical conclusions of an INTP to get close to him/her.

But their values are based on fleeting feelings

Where do you get this from?

(becuase the Thinking faculty is weak, it cannot discipline their passions, therefore they lack structure). Their values easily change (even from day to day) and you never know (nor do they) what their values are.

Firstly, surely you mean the Thinking function is weak relative to other functions used? I've read nowhere outside of your recent axe-grinding sessions which asserts that INFPs (or any other type) are incapable of using an inferior function. Or did you actually mean that INFPs are intellectually deficient (ie their thinking faculties are weak)? Secondly, where do you get the idea that INFPs have no structure to their values? I devote a considerable amount of time to wrestling with my various values to make sure they're in harmony with each other as well as with my actions, and most INFPs I know do likewise.

As for values changing "easily", perhaps that's so in immature or unhealthy INFPs with respect to lesser values. Just as the ideas of immature or unhealthy INTPs might change easily. But guiding values don't change easily or invisibly.

That is a totally fatuous endeavor. You cannot talk to an INFP like you talk to a reasonable person and be understood. Whether they appreciate you or not, or give you what you want or they do not has almost nothing to do with what has occured in the real world, but with their irrational and in most cases whimsical interpretation of what has occured.

This is patently false. I smell projection. Were you rejected by an INFP recently, BW?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

@ There's so much misunderstanding packed into your post that I'm starting to wonder if you're trolling intentionally, despite having hitherto shown (good points aside) no indications of a sense of humor. Are you perhaps drunk? Are all of your posts like this? I hadn't noticed. Where to begin??

Next time skip this part and proceed straight to pointing out statements that you think contain errors.

Axiom 1: For every proposition that we regard as true, we must provide a logically valid argument. We also must provide reasoning with regard to establishment of the premises that we have elected. In summary, 'where' you get this from is an irrelevant question, what is relevent is 'how you got this'.

@ Pff, no more so than you must affirm the logical conclusions of an INTP to get close to him/her. ??

As a fact of human nature, we feel flattered when someone affirms things that we value. Because we want to endorse positive sentiments in our lives, we will want to be close to the person who makes us feel well.

Accordingly. What makes an INTP feel well? Thinking. Someone just agreeing with your Thinking does not make you think in itself. However, a person who is intellectually stimulating will. An INFP, with dominant Feeling simply enjoys harvesting positive sentiment.

@ Where do you get this from???

Axiom 1: For every proposition that we regard as true, we must provide a logically valid argument. We also must provide reasoning with regard to establishment of the premises that we have elected. In summary, 'where' you get this from is an irrelevant question, what is relevent is 'how you got this'.

Proposition: In order to acquire a skill, practice is necessary. We tend to be competent at the skill we practice a lot and incompetent at the skill we practice little.

Thinking: Synonymous with logical reasoning, or impersonal analysis based on objective principles of reasoning. Also known as logic.

Feeling: Conscious valuation of the external environment. Things are deemed as either good or bad.

Accordingly, Feeling does not tell us what things are. Only how they feel to us. In fact, Feeling does not even tell us what exactly feels a certain way, it only tells us if we feel good or not. In other words, it does not give us structure.

Type: A faculty that our unconscious mind is in closet affinity with.

Thus, for example, a Thinking type most naturally utilizes Thinking, and a Feeling type most naturally utilizes Feeling.

INFPs have Thinking as an inferior function, therefore practice it the least. Hence, tend to be incompetent at providing structure to their worldview. To lack structure means to lack a solid foundation, thus if you lack structure all you have is fleeting passion. Feeling is the only alternative to Thinking, as there is no other way to pass conscious judgment. Intuition and Sensation are unconscious faculties of perception. Thus, because INFPs are incompetent at Thinking, their principles are based on fleeting sentiments.

@ Firstly, surely you mean the Thinking function is weak relative to other functions used? I've read nowhere outside of your recent axe-grinding sessions which asserts that INFPs (or any other type) are incapable of using an inferior function.???

See Axiom 1, and the Proposition.

@ (or any other type) are incapable of using an inferior function. Or did you actually mean that INFPs are intellectually deficient (ie their thinking faculties are weak)?.???

For the most part, INFPs merely dwell on their sentiments, or process emotion, in other words use Feeling without Thinking. When they do use Thinking, their logical reasoning often contains errors and is heavily influenced by their sentiments (which is a notable reason why their Thinking tends to contain errors).

Hegel's Master slave dialect in Typology: A dominant function by definition is the most prevalent in our psyche. This means that it enslaves the less potent functions. Thinking is the weakest function in the psyche of an INFP, and Feeling is the strongest. Thus, Thinking is the most subordinate to Feeling. Therefore the INFP only Feels like they are bringing clarity and logical consistency to their values, when in reality their Thinking is primitive, therefore unproductive and self-serving. INFPs are also intellectually deficient because of their incompetence at logical analysis. It is Thinking, or logical analysis is what evinces to us the true structure and the essence of all things.

Of course you may be one of those exceptional INFPs with a well developed Thinking. It is possible to go against our nature and practice skills associated with our inferior function more than you naturally would, but difficult. Perhaps you are one of those exceptional INFPs with a well developed Thinking. I, of course, do not know that!

@ (or any other type) are incapable of using an inferior function. Or did you actually mean that INFPs are intellectually deficient (ie their thinking faculties are weak)?)?.???

In summary, an inferior function is the one that we are predisposed against practicing a lot and for this reason tend to be incompetent at the skills associated with such a function. It is possible to acquire competence in that department, though quite difficult and most of us fail to do so.

Thinking is necessary to provide structure for all things. Therefore passions without structure are fleeting. It is also close to impossible to handle ideas clearly or be intellectually proficient without the skill of seeing the underlying structure of how things work. Therefore INFPs tend to have fuzzy values and also tend to be intellectually incompetent, only a few of them, the INFPs who are truly outstanding manage to overcome these defects.

@ As for values changing "easily", perhaps that's so in immature or unhealthy INFPs with respect to lesser values. Just as the ideas of immature or unhealthy INTPs might change easily. But guiding values don't change easily or invisibly.)?)?.???

INFPs are driven by fickle emotions as established above. Only INFPs who are competent at the use of Thinking will be able to avoid changing easily. INTPs do not change easily because they have a clear idea of who they are and what they stand for, such is the consequences of clearly analyzing one's situation and identity.

INFPs do not have guiding values. Only fuzzy sentiments that they regard as values. They do not understand what those sentiments are, but naively convince themselves that they do.

Reasons for this.

1)They do not understand what their sentiments are because they cannot analyze them due to poor logical reasoning skills.
2)They convince themselves that they do understand their values because their Thinking faculty is subservient to the fiat of their passions conjured by the dominant Introverted Feeling.

@ This is patently false. I smell projection. Were you rejected by an INFP recently, BW?

In a rational discourse you have four options.

A)Agree with the conclusion.
B)Disagree with the conclusion, point out the invalidity of the argument.
C)Disagree with the conclusion, argue why one or more of the premises should not be granted.
D)Disagree with the conclusion without pointing out the invalidity of the argument or the error(s) in election of the premises, and in effect declare yourself unreasonable as well as unfit to participate in rational discourse.

You have elected option D.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Note 1: please refrain from altering my posts as you quote them. I refer specifically to the insertion of multiple question-marks. No, I don't think this is insignificant - I think it's a deliberate and misleading rhetorical device.

Note 2: this could take a while. I may have to do this in parts.

Next time skip this part and proceed straight to pointing out statements that you think contain errors.

Thanks for the advice , but given the nature of this forum in general and this thread in particular, I'll include anything in my posts I deem relevant. My main concern here is not convincing you so much as challenging your assertions for the benefit of the original poster. Since they might otherwise go unchallenged. You clearly have a particular interest in INFPs lately, and given that you are offering strongly-worded advice to someone who is dealing with a delicate personal situation involving an INFP, I think your agenda in tendering said advice is relevant and deserves questioning.

As a fact of human nature, we feel flattered when someone affirms things that we value. Because we want to endorse positive sentiments in our lives, we will want to be close to the person who makes us feel well.

Accordingly. What makes an INTP feel well? Thinking. Someone just agreeing with your Thinking does not make you think in itself. However, a person who is intellectually stimulating will. An INFP, with dominant Feeling simply enjoys harvesting positive sentiment.

If an INTP is made to feel well by the process of thinking, so too is an INFP made to feel well by the process of valuing. Someone just agreeing with your Valuing does not make you value in itself. However, a person who is ethically/aesthetically stimulating will. This could be someone who stimulates your ethics by living by standards you aspire to. It could be someone who questions the internal consistency of your values. Thus (in regards to your earlier post) you do not have to affirm the values (ie the conclusions of the valuing process) of an INFP in order to get close to them. Challenging them in their values - if done in the right spirit - works just as well. Before you bristle at the caveat ("if done in the right spirit"), I'll point out that you are likewise unlikely to get close to an INTP by engaging their thinking in a hostile context - even though it might prove intellectually stimulating for them. Saying dominant Feeling simply enjoys harvesting positive sentiment is true only to the extent that it's also true for dominant Thinking or dominant Intuition for that matter. Yes, we each enjoy doing what we enjoy doing, and like to do what we enjoy.

Axiom 1: For every proposition that we regard as true, we must provide a logically valid argument. We also must provide reasoning with regard to establishment of the premises that we have elected. In summary, 'where' you get this from is an irrelevant question, what is relevent is 'how you got this'.

In asking "where" you got this from, I was asking for insight into "how you got this". If you consider "how you got this" to be relevent, why didn't you include it to support your assertion? In other words, you were not practicing what you are (now) preaching. There was no reasoning with regard to establishing the premises you had elected. In this case, I was questioning your unsubstantiated use of the word "fleeting".

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Wow, this is a really long post to make a point-by-point rebuttal to.

*discouraged*

There are things in the middle of your post I do want to address, but it will take a while. Meanwhile, I'll skip to here:

In a rational discourse you have four options.

A)Agree with the conclusion.
B)Disagree with the conclusion, point out the invalidity of the argument.
C)Disagree with the conclusion, argue why one or more of the premises should not be granted.
D)Disagree with the conclusion without pointing out the invalidity of the argument or the error(s) in election of the premises, and in effect declare yourself unreasonable as well as unfit to participate in rational discourse.

You have elected option D.

While not allowing that I chose option D as defined by you, I will say that I would have preferred options B or C. Sadly, your discourse (at least the part I was addressing) is not transparently rational.

Let me unpack that for you.

You cannot talk to an INFP like you talk to a reasonable person and be understood.

Especially the bolded. Unless you're defining "reasonable person" and "being understood" in novel ways, it's ridiculous to claim this. If you could have talked ("like you would talk to a reasonable person") to Shakespeare, Milton or Kierkegaard, for instance, would you expect to be understood by them? If so, then your assertion is false. You're saying all INFPs are incapable of understanding reasonable communication. You made no qualifications.

Whether they appreciate you or not, or give you what you want or they do not has almost nothing to do with what has occured in the real world, but with their irrational and in most cases whimsical interpretation of what has occured.

Essentially, you're saying that how they treat you depends on how they interpret what actually happened. Which is exactly what all other types do. What you're also saying is that their judgement is almost never accurate, is irrational and "in most cases" whimsical. How do you substantiate this? You don't.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

3rd installment.

Proposition: In order to acquire a skill, practice is necessary. We tend to be competent at the skill we practice a lot and incompetent at the skill we practice little.

Firstly, "tend" is a significant word here which frequently seems to get lost in your subsequent applications. There was certainly no evidence of it in your earlier post which I originally responded to. Secondly, I would suggest instead that we tend to be more competent at the skill we practice a lot and less competent at the skill we practice little, relative to each other. This says little of value about how competent our skills might be relative to those of other people. Example: could an INTP with an IQ of 85 reason more soundly than an INFP with an IQ of 170? Unlikely, because even though the INFP may be naturally weaker in his use of logical analysis than he is in his use of valuing, he is still likely to be stronger in his use of logical analysis than the INTP even though logical analysis is the INTP's natural strength. In summary: a lot of practice does not guarantee competence, and less practice does not guarantee incompetence. Which leads us to here:

INFPs have Thinking as an inferior function, therefore practice it the least. Hence, tend to be incompetent at providing structure to their worldview. To lack structure means to lack a solid foundation, thus if you lack structure all you have is fleeting passion. Feeling is the only alternative to Thinking, as there is no other way to pass conscious judgment. Intuition and Sensation are unconscious faculties of perception. Thus, because INFPs are incompetent at Thinking, their principles are based on fleeting sentiments.

"Tend to be incompetent at providing structure to their worldview" at least seems a bit more qualified than "becuase the Thinking faculty is weak, it cannot discipline their passions, therefore they lack structure". A bit. And yes, INFPs do have Thinking as an inferior function, and therefore practice it the least. No problem with that. Your conclusion that they "tend to be incompetent at providing structure to their worldview" is what I take issue with, for the reason mentioned earlier. "Incompetent" is a strong word, meaning an inability to do something successfully. Possibly you didn't mean to use such strong language, but it's exactly the strength of the language I'm disagreeing with. Also, claiming that logical analysis is necessary to provide structure to values is a bit simplistic to me. Proposition: stronger values tend to take precedence over weaker values. If you have three values, the stongest will tend to have the most priority, followed by the next strongest and finally the weakest. Guess what you have there? Structure. Was logical analysis necessary to obtain it? Not as you seem to want to define it. This is saying nothing of INFPs with the superhuman ability to apply logic to their values despite being INFPs. And it says nothing of your definition of Feeling (which does not resonate with my understanding or experience of it at all).