[MBTI General] Tips from INFPs for INTJs

[OnlyGood]

Heh, okay sorry about that. I missed your irony. I'll turn the floor over to the mature INFPs and probably a lot more BW.

Also, I did not mean to say that the INFP's that are here are not mature; please don't think that's what I meant! I was just hoping that some additional INFP's would join the conversation.

 

[INTJMom]

Jesus, BlueWing, the "unrational" feeling that I get from your posts is that you're a pompous prick. Now, I can sit here and wade through all that shit you posted about us and attempt to convey my disgust with your "logic" through my own, that action itself being illogical, or I could simply tell you that feelings aren't something you can just quantify and catagorize. Who cares if its logical or not? In my opinion, logic is overrated.

Woo-hoo!!

 

[Anja]

Hee. Look like BW had a good fishing run there.

Filled up a few lonely hours, I imagine.

Suggestion to Tees: avoid talking in absolutes such as everybody, nobody, always, never. This makes a person sound unobservant and irrational. (I might add that it sounds to this reader also like something emotional - eekers! - might be going on.)

 

[disregard]

Shhh! Don't wake the baby into another tantrum.

 

[Anja]

What if "they" gave a tantrum and nobody came?

 

[fill_more]

You don't really know who you are unless you analyze yourself. Older INFPs know themselves better than the younger, but far from well as their reasoning skills are poor still, unless of course they happen to be exceptional people. It takes a lot of effort to be good at things that we have little natural talent towards.

Generally INFPs have poor analytical skills and therefore do not know themselves.

Even when we are healthy , we still struggle with the use of our inferior function. Normal INFPs have exactly the problems I have described, the unhealthy ones have it even worse. The deal with the normal INFPs is that they have some kind of rationality to them and self-control (so able to use Thinking to some degree), though not a lot. So people just take it easy on them and try to affirm their values as much as possible, in effect the INFP's irrationality and lack of Thinking skills do not manifest easily. People generally are forced to confront only the unhealthy INFPs because they act out on their vulgar and irrational passions. We know how 'out there' those folks are. Yet we do not see the chaos going on in the mind of a healthy INFP because we rarely place them in the position where they show their true colors.

I usually lurk but I felt compelled to write. I think blue wing's descriptions are pretty damn accurate. I was in a 3 year relationship with an infp. This isn't to be mean or say that infps are inferior... I've seen that chaos in a healthier infp (it exists) and its not pretty but no ones perfect.

 

[disregard]

Yet we do not see the chaos going on in the mind of a healthy INFP because we rarely place them in the position where they show their true colors.

Oh.. and what kind of position would that be? Perhaps where the other person is a moody, selfish, communicatively-challenged, toxic asshole?

You're leaving out that part.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Hee. Look like BW had a good fishing run there.

Filled up a few lonely hours, I imagine.

Suggestion to Tees: avoid talking in absolutes such as everybody, nobody, always, never. This makes a person sound unobservant and irrational. (I might add that it sounds to this reader also like something emotional - eekers! - might be going on.)

Ts dont get lonely. They enjoy emotional affirmation from others but do not need it to be sound. ETs, experience something akin to loneliness when they spend a lot of time alone, they get restless, but this is rectified not through spending time with people, but through impersonal interaction with the world.

But thank you for your concern!

Oh.. and what kind of position would that be? Perhaps where the other person is a moody, selfish, communicatively-challenged, toxic asshole?

You're leaving out that part.

This is a general INFP state, in other words, under all circumstances. Under the circumstances you mentioned it goes from bad to worse, but it is never better than 'bad'.

 

[Mycroft]

Bluewing, wouldn't the "cut finger" example be more indicative of attunement to the Extraverted Sensing function in the MBTI model?

Despite sharing a common basis (and, often, names) with those of MBTI, the terms you use in supporting your argument seem to be idiosyncratic.

 

[INTJMom]

Ts dont get lonely. ...

Actually, I have taken part in more than one thread where the NTs confessed they frequently felt a deep sense of loneliness.

 

[disregard]

This is a general INFP state, in other words, under all circumstances. Under the circumstances you mentioned it goes from bad to worse, but it is never better than 'bad'.

A circumstance would have never happened were it not for it being good. So, it goes from good to bad. When, precisely? When the INFP begins to stand up for her values. You say INFPs don't know what they want, but what you see may be the result of the conflict between a desire to keep something of great value good (despite, in my example, his being a very difficult person when he decides to be) and a need to preserve the self (from the unpredictable pain inflicted by the other). Why are these two values mutually exclusive? They aren't, but they can be with two people with avoidant inclinations, which can be overcome with courage.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Bluewing, wouldn't the "cut finger" example be more indicative of attunement to the Extraverted Sensing function in the MBTI model?

Despite sharing a common basis (and, often, names) with those of MBTI, the terms you use in supporting your argument seem to be idiosyncratic.

Sensation gives us accurate perceptions of the external world. This tends to be highly conducive to a very realistic view of the world.

However, we should note that Sensation is a perceiving function. It does not give one a clear-cut perspective, it only provides impressions which need to be organized accordingly in order for a perspective to be concocted.

Thinking on the other hand is a rational function. It is concerned with the basic logical analysis of the matter. Thus, if one wishes to understand things for what they are, quite obviously one needs to think about them very carefully, as the understanding does not occur on its own endeavor. In other words, most of us, especially dominant Sensing types( a claim I make in support of why Thinking is more conducive to a clear perspective), appears to know things by default.



Let me know if I have misunderstood your question. You seem to be addressing my earlier claim that Thinking is what you need in order to know what you want, you suggest that Sensation is a more significant requirement. In this post I have endeavored to show that this is not so.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Actually, I have taken part in more than one thread where the NTs confessed they frequently felt a deep sense of loneliness.

The term lonely is very often equivocated. It is not uncommon to see all kinds of different people who suffer from a lack of proper interaction with others describe themselves as lonely. It is highly likely the case that NTs who have described themselves as lonely to you were using this word in a very different manner than Fs.

 

[Synarch]

By the way, one of the main reasons I joined this forum (after lurking) was due to BlueWing's incisive posts. I feel a burgeoning bromance building.

 

[Mycroft]

Sensation gives us accurate perceptions of the external world. This tends to be highly conducive to a very realistic view of the world.

However, we should note that Sensation is a perceiving function. It does not give one a clear-cut perspective, it only provides impressions which need to be organized accordingly in order for a perspective to be concocted.

Thinking on the other hand is a rational function. It is concerned with the basic logical analysis of the matter. Thus, if one wishes to understand things for what they are, quite obviously one needs to think about them very carefully, as the understanding does not occur on its own endeavor. In other words, most of us, especially dominant Sensing types( a claim I make in support of why Thinking is more conducive to a clear perspective), appears to know things by default.



Let me know if I have misunderstood your question. You seem to be addressing my earlier claim that Thinking is what you need in order to know what you want, you suggest that Sensation is a more significant requirement. In this post I have endeavored to show that this is not so.

Okay, reading this I understand and agree with your assertion that Extraverted Sensing would only provide the "material" of perception upon which Thinking or Feeling would act. I'm unclear how this would lead to "know[ing] things by default", however. From what I've seen, the ability to resist the urge to project and to process external information in an objective manner requires patience and mental discipline - the antithesis of "by default".

I should add, at this point, that I believe the NF's unconscious tendency to interpose emotion- and value-based material between raw perception and personal experience is precisely what makes them such excellent poets, artists and musicians, and I don't entirely understand why many NFs on this board seem so prepared to deny or even denounce this personality strength.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Okay, reading this I understand and agree with your assertion that Extraverted Sensing would only provide the "material" of perception upon which Thinking or Feeling would act. I'm unclear how this would lead to "know[ing] things by default", however. From what I've seen, the ability to resist the urge to project and to process external information in an objective manner requires patience and mental discipline - the antithesis of "by default".

I should add, at this point, that I believe the NF's unconscious tendency to interpose emotion- and value-based material between raw perception and personal experience is precisely what makes them such excellent poets, artists and musicians, and I don't entirely understand why many NFs on this board seem so prepared to deny or even denounce this personality strength.

I have maintained that noone knows things by default, especially not a dominant Sensing type. The Thinking type has a clear view of the world primarily because he has devoted much effort to understanding it.

 

[Mycroft]

I have maintained that noone knows things by default, especially not a dominant Sensing type. The Thinking type has a clear view of the world primarily because he has devoted much effort to understanding it.

Reading your earlier post once more, I see how you stressed this with the following comment:

Thinking on the other hand is a rational function. It is concerned with the basic logical analysis of the matter. Thus, if one wishes to understand things for what they are, quite obviously one needs to think about them very carefully, as the understanding does not occur on its own endeavor.

That being the case, I'm unclear what you mean by this:

In other words, most of us, especially dominant Sensing types( a claim I make in support of why Thinking is more conducive to a clear perspective), appears to know things by default.

Is this "us" in reference to Thinkers, or human beings in general?

I'd like to stress that I ask of interest and that I'm not simply trying to be argumentative. (The main reason I stopped posting my type in my profile for a while was on account of this rather annoying assumption.)

 

[Oleander]

It helps not to be in English here. Feelers and Thinkers Know but in other languages there are two words for that: German Feelers Kennen and Thinkers Wissen while French Connaissent and Sachent. Maybe there is something similar in English Understand and Know.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Reading your earlier post once more, I see how you stressed this with the following comment:



That being the case, I'm unclear what you mean by this:



Is this "us" in reference to Thinkers, or human beings in general?

I'd like to stress that I ask of interest and that I'm not simply trying to be argumentative. (The main reason I stopped posting my type in my profile for a while was on account of this rather annoying assumption.)

Apparently there is a logistical error in the post you have quoted.

I meant to say noone, especially not the Sensing type can know things by default or without prior contemplation.

This message, "In other words, most of us, especially dominant Sensing types( a claim I make in support of why Thinking is more conducive to a clear perspective), appears to know things by default. "



This message was meant to be read as follows, In other words, most of us, especially dominant Sensing types( a claim I make in support of why Thinking is more conducive to a clear perspective), cannot to know things by default.

 

[Orangey]

It helps not to be in English here. Feelers and Thinkers Know but in other languages there are two words for that: German Feelers Kennen and Thinkers Wissen while French Connaissent and Sachent. Maybe there is something similar in English Understand and Know.

Any particular reason why you put the French ones in the third-person singular present subjunctive?