[INFP] INFPs: Which type do you think is your ideal romantic match?

[Heddy]

Too many years of Fe in a box... yep. Nice summary. You get touchy. It feels like everyone wants this crazy amount of accommodation from you and yet none of them have any clue what's in your head so you don't get that accommodation back. After awhile the whole blowsy race looks like a degenerate and especially vicious wolf pack: just tearing to shreds whatever is weak. I don't think, even on sober analysis, that it's just private perspective either. Everyone has weak points but mine is more public and makes me more socially vulnerable than other ladies, so I have had plenty of chances to find out what society does to the weak. I think I was actually born with a very open, trusting, highly affectionate temperament but that kind of thing cannot survive. Now I'm pretty misanthropic.

I voted INTP on behalf of my husband, who says ENFJ is a close second to my type. Apparently the ENFJ is sparkly and sexy but my honesty and sincerity are refreshing because he doesn't really like playing those games, either, at least not at home.

 

[_eric_]

Heehee, I voted INFJ because the guy I'm currently seeing is INFJ, but I have to say I've never been more compatible with anyone ever nor have I felt such an instant connection and understanding.

I'm pretty sure my last boyfriend was an INTJ and that was a really terrible match because he saw my sensitivity as a weakness and would often get annoyed if I got too emotional or sentimental. He liked how strongly I felt about him, but anything else I cared about was stupid and trite.

Dating this new INFJ guy has been amazing though, he's just so loving and understanding and sensitive just like me but much stronger and likes to take care of me. I feel like I can trust and depend upon him.

That is exactly how it was with the INFP girl I was with for three years. I miss it...

 

[Salomé]

You're in the NF forum. The first rule is not to immediately expect a good debate the second is not to expect a well informed opponent and the third is not to expect your opponent to not be a self-righteous noob.

I don't expect any of these things. Still, one lives in hope...of meeting someone like you.

I've withdrawn the previous idea I mentioned about simulated functions as 1) I knew it was bullshit but was the best theory I had for the phenomena and 2) I had never heard of Nardi and am now studying the work on type's brain activity to supercede said bullshit I previously mentioned.

And why not, I say. One lot of bullshit is as good as another.

I do have a question and can apologise if it has already been answered or difficult to answer, it is rooted in my ignorance of Ti's workings. What happens with the Ti when you use Fi? For me Fi likes to make value judgment which essentially involves tipping the scale in one direction simply because I want it to, when weighing pro's and con's it allows me to just stick e.g. +2 to something simply because I want to (e.g. like the sound of it) and not on how it operates/amount efficiency etc. This is placing irrational value and IMO completely audacious. Does this occur for you and when it occurs does your Ti essentially go apeshit? I assume your Ti would stop working for the brief moment Fi is in effect and return a moment later. Does it declare the Fi action as a breach of internal logical consistence, see the internal logic in what Fi did or what? Or does (from what I know of Nardi's work) the apparent lack of overlap in brain areas which the two types use cause there to be no conflict at all?

Apologies if it is too difficult a question.

I think you're taking the cognitive function metaphor too literally (much as Nardi does).

But I will try to answer (in spite of thinking your question somewhat absurd, cos that's just how I roll).

In my case, I can flip in and out of "pure rationality". I think the main advantage Ts have (and it may be the only one, and it may even be a disadvantage - for the rest of the world) is that we can consider truly vile things that Fs tend to shrink from in horror. At least that's what I've noticed. We can do that because we can detach from the emotional context of a situation with relative ease. We just choose not to feel anything about a particular thing, so that we can think without "interference". We probably do this because our brains are more compartmentalised, and it's just easier for us to focus on one thing at a time. Now, sometimes this leads to great insight, and sometimes it leads to very dark places indeed. And of course, the emotions that we aren't feeling are really going on all the time, just underground where we can't see them or notice their existence. This is how brilliant people like Oppenheimer can create WMDs and not realise that they have become "Death and the Destroyer of Worlds" until after the event (i.e. be kinda dumb). I think "Fness", for want of a better word, acts as a kind of brake on intellectual depravity, if you will. That's because it pays attention to emotional and social context. The incompatibility between these two modes of being, or modes of attention, leads to the development of Tness vs Fness.

You speak about Fi as if it were a thing of whimsy. I don't see it that way. I experience it in this way: I can look at a situation and know that there is no logical reason to prefer one thing over another, and know that objectively there is no right or wrong in a given situation, and yet feel in my heart what the "right" thing is, and fight tooth and nail for it, while simultaneously knowing that my choice is probably fairly arbitrary and perhaps unjustifiable to anyone else. And not caring about that. That, to me, is Fi (modified by Ti, which deadens the more mystical/spiritual aspects of its worst excesses). It really feels like a decision that takes place in the gut, or in the chest, rather than anywhere cerebral. More instinctual and visceral. Embodied. Rationalizations happen, but they're an afterthought. And it's not a case of Ti "switching off" or "going apeshit" about an "irrational" decision. (Ti doesn't go apeshit and Fi values are not necessarily irrational.) The fact is Ti has a pretty limited range of applications and it really isn't much use where there are no clearly objective criteria to evaluate. As with moral dilemmas, for example. Ti knows its place, it doesn't get involved with things that don't concern it.
This is why immature INTPs (or stressed out ones) frequently become crippled by indecision, because they are relying on a dominant function that can't do much for them, or else are thrown back onto an inferior one (Fe), which tends to be batshit crazy.
Which is why it's so important to develop Fi and some kind of emotional intelligence, to compensate for the robotic, clinical, hyper-focussed nature of Ti.

[MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]. It's really Fi. (Well, what did you expect me to say?)
Your illustration says nothing about INTP Fi use. It suggest we have inferior Fe, and yes, we know this. The problem most people seem to struggle with is understanding that having inferior Fe does not preclude one from developing Fi, in fact, it's almost a prerequisite...

 

[Society]

@Mane. It's really Fi. (Well, what did you expect me to say?)
Your illustration says nothing about INTP Fi use. It suggest we have inferior Fe, and yes, we know this. The problem most people seem to struggle with is understanding that having inferior Fe does not preclude one from developing Fi, in fact, it's almost a prerequisite...

my illustration suggests that frustrations stemming from inferior Fe can take a form and shape that resembles Fi.

the problem after that depends on how you chose to approach MBTI:

• if Fi is simply a metaphor for a certain appearance or pattern of a behavior, then as far as the usefulness of function terminology goes - might as well be Fi, since the term wouldn't refer to anything other then the resulting behavior.
• if we are referring to Fi as something more concrete with it's own substance, a specific combination of mental processes that stem from something on it's own right, then there is room to question whether the Fi-like behavior of INTPs is or isn't Fi.

it was under the second terminology in which my illustration can suggests it can be the emotional reaction to inferior Fe masquerading as Fi, and i saw an opportunity to explore the matter within those terms (thus unavoidably exploring possible assumptions regarding the causes behind the functions).

that's being said, i can see why you might prefer the first approach - any form the second terminology takes will unavoidably carry more assumptions about what the functions stem from, and be less probably until the assumptions are somehow proven. in contrast, the first approach is entirely self contained.

 

[Salomé]

my illustration suggests that frustrations stemming from inferior Fe can take a form and shape that resembles Fi.

Your illustration suggests that you don't understand Fi. (I didn't say ENTPs had it..)
It's not the peevish domain of emos, you know.

To the rest, it doesn't have to have a fiercely concrete manifestation in order to be a logically sound concept that is easily distinguishable from the petulance with which you are conflating it.

And appearance and patterns of behaviour are not important when discerning Fi from Fe. Motivation is much more so. Of course, you can't easily measure that. So you'll just have to take my word for it.

 

[Society]

Your illustration suggests that you don't understand Fi. (I didn't say ENTPs had it..)

or your claim for having it suggests you don't understand what Fi actually is

 

[Salomé]

or your claim for having it suggests you don't understand what Fi actually is

Explain.

 

[Standuble]

or your claim for having it suggests you don't understand what Fi actually is

Are you saying INTPs can't have it? I found Salome's description of her Fi to excellent, describing the inner mechanics of how it operates in a succint way. I'm convinced she is using authentic Fi as she claims as I relate completely.

 

[Society]

Explain.

i was ilustrating that the claim is pointless - the ignorance can sit on either side of the problem, depending on which of the above described PoV you chose to adhere too.

you have something that behaves like Fi, and if you choose to view functions as behavioral descriptions only, then it can be said that you have Fi, in which case my illustration would suggest i am ignorant to what Fi is simply because i am suggesting that the "Fi-like" behavior can stem from something else altogether, as in the first philosophy there's no question to what it stems from in the first place, and thus it wouldn't matter, there's no distinction between "Fi" and "Fi-like", since the likeness is the only criteria.

if you choose to take the (somewhat higher risk and more presumptuous) endeavor of thinking of functions as more then that, a.k.a. a more detailed phenomena then just the surface manifestation which has deeper cognitive origin, then the question of whether something is Fi or Fi-like but with a different origin, then the possibility you have something which acts like Fi but has alternative origins is likely.

such as the one i suggested, your version of Fi-like-behavior being "Fe in a box", or any other. the first version is more reliable, but the second version is a lot more interesting. for example, in myself i know that Fe+Si, can resemble Fi at times, but when examined deeper its very distinct from Fi, it's about feeling when there's a contrast with what is basically "habits[Si] of thoughtfulness[Fe]" rather then any deep seated moral sense of right and wrong. likewise, Ti+Ne can manifest in ways which resemble Ni without actually being Ni or carrying much of the implications that Ni has. in this manner, the exploration of function theory can become less metaphorical and a lot more meaningful.

 

[Salomé]

Are you saying INTPs can't have it? I found Salome's description of her Fi to excellent, describing the inner mechanics of how it operates in a succint way. I'm convinced she is using authentic Fi as she claims as I relate completely.

Thank you.

i was ilustrating that the claim is pointless - the ignorance can sit on either side of the problem, depending on which of the above described PoV you chose to adhere too.

you have something that behaves like Fi, and if you choose to view functions as behavioral descriptions only, then it can be said that you have Fi, in which case my illustration would suggest i am ignorant to what Fi is simply because i am suggesting that the "Fi-like" behavior can stem from something else altogether, as in the first philosophy there's no question to what it stems from in the first place, and thus it wouldn't matter, there's no distinction between "Fi" and "Fi-like", since the likeness is the only criteria.

Didn't you get the part about behaviour not being important?

if you choose to take the (somewhat higher risk and more presumptuous) endeavor of thinking of functions as more then that, a.k.a. a more detailed phenomena then just the surface manifestation which has deeper cognitive origin, then the question of whether something is Fi or Fi-like but with a different origin, then the possibility you have something which acts like Fi but has alternative origins is likely.

Why is it likely? If it could be Fi, why insist that it isn't? That's the part I'm not following.

such as the one i suggested, your version of Fi-like-behavior being "Fe in a box", or any other. the first version is more reliable, but the second version is a lot more interesting.

I don't find it more interesting, it's just more speculative. In fact, it makes the whole thing pointless, because we can end up redefining every "simple" function as a complex of two other functions, and where's the value in that? Superficially, it might look like a "deep" interpretation, but it's really just a meaningless contortion of the facts to fit some unsubstantiated theory about who MUST have what. Which I find rather disturbing.

for example, in myself i know that Fe+Si, can resemble Fi at times, but when examined deeper its very distinct from Fi, it's about feeling when there's a contrast with what is basically "habits[Si] of thoughtfulness[Fe]" rather then any deep seated moral sense of right and wrong. likewise, Ti+Ne can manifest in ways which resemble Ni without actually being Ni or carrying much of the implications that Ni has.

That may be true, in your case. It isn't true in mine.

 

[Society]

Why is it likely? If it could be Fi, why insist that it isn't? That's the part I'm not following.

i'm not insisting that it isn't, i'm trying to open a debate about whether it is or isn't.

 

[disregard]

I think my husband is an ISFJ and we are great for each other. He is responsible with money and very loving and forgiving and moral, whereas I am the crazy one with the irrational emotions and spending habits.

We are both happily introverted.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

[MENTION=5143]Salomé[/MENTION] - what is intp function order according to your theory? Are you saying they use Te as their 4th function or that they don't use a Je function at all? I thought we all needed a "Ji-Pe-Pi-Je" (in any given order) as our first four functions? And don't Pi-Je/Je-Pi/Pe-Ji/Ji-Pe need to be used in conjunction as pairs? So does this mean intp's use Si-Te as 3rd/4th functions?

IDK - I am Ti dom (90% sure not an extravert) and I do not use Fi, it is the function I can least understand or identify with. When I interact with Fe dom/aux we definitely are "speaking the same language" even if in opposition. Like two poltiical opponents (or sometimes allies) within the same country. But two opposite poles of the same "whole".

With Fi, it's a different language. I am looking in on something alien. They may either be opponents or allies, but from a different framework. If that makes sense.

 

[Salomé]

[MENTION=5143]Salomé[/MENTION] - what is intp function order according to your theory?

I don't think it is rigidly fixed. All I can say with certainty is that it's nonsensical and contradictory to claim INTPs are competent Fe-users. This isn't my theory. It's JCF theory, properly understood. *

Individual circumstances lead people to develop functions according to their specific needs. However, INTPs consistently report Fi > Fe, and this is unsurprising given that Fe is diametrically opposed to their dominant function and therefore likely to be the least available to conscious expression.
It's not uncommon for someone to be unsure about whether they are INTP or INFP. (Which makes no sense if these types have opposite dom functions. Far less common for INTPs and INFJs to get mixed up, and yet they are supposed to share Fe/Ti ...)

Are you saying they use Te as their 4th function or that they don't use a Je function at all?

Most INTPs have better developed Te than Fe. Te is a sibling of Ti, they are not incompatible. They share similar goals.

I thought we all needed a "Ji-Pe-Pi-Je" (in any given order) as our first four functions?

People get too hung up on this. It has no foundation. It's an arbitrary formulation.
In my own case, I would say I have excellent Ti and Ne. Good Fi and Te use (the latter when I'm pushed to use it - I dislike having to do so and find it very dull). Pretty good Se. The rest (Fe, Si, Ni) are not well developed and have a largely negative aspect. I also sometimes react negatively or with frustration towards their expression in others (and others with these functions in leading positions similarly often react negatively or fail to understand me) which is another indication that they are not differentiated within my personality.
While individual circumstances will have played a part, I don't find this to be an uncommon pattern for INTPs.

IDK - I am Ti dom (90% sure not an extravert) and I do not use Fi, it is the function I can least understand or identify with. When I interact with Fe dom/aux we definitely are "speaking the same language" even if in opposition. Like two poltiical opponents (or sometimes allies) within the same country. But two opposite poles of the same "whole".

With Fi, it's a different language. I am looking in on something alien. They may either be opponents or allies, but from a different framework. If that makes sense.

That makes sense, since it's exactly how I feel (with the functions switched). Even Berens (who champions the Fe > Fi model for INTPs) acknowledges that function development is almost never "by the book". People are too complex to be described by neat little recipes.

FWIW, you strike me as more ExTP than IxTP. And I do think they are more likely to favour Fe at the expense of Fi. This is unsurprising, given an extroverted nature and drive to make things happen in the real world. Fe is much more utilitarian / pragmatic than Fi.

*Lenore Thomson has the function order for INTPs as:
[Ti/Ne/Fi/Se]/[Ni/Te/Si/Fe]

This pattern is closer to tested results than those which have Si/Fe 3rd and 4th respectively. So if I were going to endorse any model, it would be this one.
It fits logically, too, with the idea of a polarity between Ti and Fe, Ne and Si, such that development of one implies neglect of the other. Though it's still dangerous to insist on this kind of symmetry. Real things are seldom symmetrical.

Thomson's theory is that personality types are brain types. And that Ps are essentially right-brained. (Js, left). The right-brained functions are (according to her) Ti, Ne, Fi and Se.
This intuitively feels right to me on some level**, and there is some evidence to support such a view, but I don't think it's quite that simple.

Ne, Se, and Fi, seem to be pretty right-brained. (Te, Fe, Si and Ni, left). Ti, I'm not sure about. On one level, it's very left-brained - analytical, abstract, detached, clinical, interested in precision. On another, it's right - more visual than verbal, sensitive to the "aesthetic" of an idea. Interested in the bigger picture, the congruity and cohesiveness, relatedness and holism of ideas, as opposed to their practical application. (I don't know how much of this is the influence of Ne, in my case). It may straddle the divide in some way. Jury's still out for me.

** it also goes some way to explain why there are two modes of "thinking", "feeling", "sensing" etc - each reflects the approach of the hemisphere in which they arise towards the domain of use. I think the conflation of the introversion/extroversion continuum with the "attitude" of functions confuses the picture somewhat. It might be more illuminating to call it "left"-feeling vs "right"-feeling, or something else entirely. (Although there is an association of right hemisphere with introversion, left with extroversion.)

If you think of a function as a melody, it will have a very different quality played on a brass vs a stringed instrument, even if the notes and phrasing remain the same.

 

[Aesthete]

Honestly, I think it's INFP, but I can find plenty of faults in some of them. There's one girl I know who's INFP: she had a serious fight with friends she trusted and then her life started to go downhill. She's better now, but she has this need to constantly remind anybody who criticizes her that they "don't know what she's been through"; I understand that she's hurt, but you can't go living your life constantly reflecting on some stupid friend and reducing all of your faults to one event: you must take the reins some time. We're friends, but I'm not interested in her.

Then there was another one who I got really close to. Everything was fine, but she was expecting public displays of affection from me: it's not that I wouldn't do it, but she's the first person who ever would do things - such as rub her shoulder against mine - so I didn't know how to react. Some other things happened, and I blew everything (I think she began to misinterpret my intentions, and when I tried to explain everything to her, it was too late: she wasn't interested in talking to me); I think it's best now that we just go on our own separate ways, but I still reflect quite a lot on how I screwed up. By the way, I didn't find any faults in this one, which is what drew me to her.

 

[Standuble]

Honestly, I think it's INFP, but I can find plenty of faults in some of them. There's one girl I know who's INFP: she had a serious fight with friends she trusted and then her life started to go downhill. She's better now, but she has this need to constantly remind anybody who criticizes her that they "don't know what she's been through"; I understand that she's hurt, but you can't go living your life constantly reflecting on some stupid friend and reducing all of your faults to one event: you must take the reins some time. We're friends, but I'm not interested in her.

Then there was another one who I got really close to. Everything was fine, but she was expecting public displays of affection from me: it's not that I wouldn't do it, but she's the first person who ever would do things - such as rub her shoulder against mine - so I didn't know how to react. Some other things happened, and I blew everything (I think she began to misinterpret my intentions, and when I tried to explain everything to her, it was too late: she wasn't interested in talking to me); I think it's best now that we just go on our own separate ways, but I still reflect quite a lot on how I screwed up. By the way, I didn't find any faults in this one, which is what drew me to her.

In regards to the first girl, are you sure she wasn't referring to a cumulative effect rather than a single event? For example it may have been the biggest blow in a very long line of many: the former number are all painful but all internalised until said event causes things to boil over.

 

[Aesthete]

In regards to the first girl, are you sure she wasn't referring to a cumulative effect rather than a single event? For example it may have been the biggest blow in a very long line of many: the former number are all painful but all internalised until said event causes things to boil over.

From the way she described it to me, it was only one event; or from the way I see it anyway: basically a fight with somebody who seemed like a very good friend to her, and then that person turned others against her. But they have no more contact nowadays (this happened in the last year of school prior to high school, and she went to a different high school from them). Any conflict (for lack of a better term) that occurs between her and her parents - as far as I know - is a result of her depressed state, so it only started after the event.

Have you ever seen one of those movies where a person is damaged by some traumatic event in their lives, and then puts on a bad attitude because of it: the type that constantly needs to remind others of all the things they went through? Sure, you can be their friend and try not to judge them, but, ultimately, only they can help themselves.

 

[KDude]

Te is a sibling of Ti, they are not incompatible. They share similar goals.

I would have diagree with this more than not. If it's a peer and/or working relationship, there's a much better chance of mutual respect. If the Te has a position of power, not even close (and if the Ti has a position of power instead, the subordinate Te will be a ninny of some kind, insisting on less experimental procedures or change in tactics). In a position of authority, Te is more of a conceptual thinker, they see reality in a whole "block" of sorts. Many things are decided and categorized, everything has it's neat little place. It doesn't matter if they came about them rationally - once it's decided, they can hold on to their methods in an irrational way. Ti questions the specifics, finds room for improvement, and doesn't adopt a singular worldview or process that clouds their judgement. Extroverted Perception causes judgement to sometimes change. If they see something that works better, they bring it up. This could cause problems in an employee/stubborn employer relationship. And if it's pre-adult stage, it's probably worse. An ISTJ gym teacher, for example, might want everyone to conform to some dress code and wear specific shorts (often of the gay thigh high variety). If you question them, you'll just get a "Because I said so". If you bring slightly different shorts but the same color, it's still not up to snuff. They won't budge from their methods and codes, once decided, and bark this shit down on subordinates. I think some get off more on this type of relationship.. one of management and directing. So, the Ti types will probably be a thorn in their side. They might even get in fights with them. The Fi types don't like it either, but they get outright bullied. Jung was more inclined to paint a bigger dichotomy between general extroversion and introversion, I think.

 

[527468]

My ideal match has definitely been ESTJ. I'm speaking of those who are Te + Si and extroverted rational in Jung, not the shallow mbti portrait. You have to read Jung on Te + Si to get the ESTJ type.

This relationship can take more investment than with intuitives but soon enough totally pays off. I don't find myself fluidly adapting and relating to types with conflicting functions like INTPs--their thought process and explanations are confusing, and Ti's resorting reliance on Fe gets quite annoying as they never seem to grasp my feeling level, ENTJs--our basic interests and imaginations are just too different and undervalued (Ni/Se), and INFPs are too similar and mundane for the long-term. My ESTJ relationships have been simply comfortable and refreshingly balanced in their assertive Te 'kick,' which seems to gets things rolling for me in a thoughtful and peaceful way. Te as a rule is pretty emotionally restrained compared to feeling, so my role finally feels natural, and invited and needed in the relationship. We have a lot of immediate mutual understanding compared to others since we're both Fi and Ne oriented and we both take rationally decisive evaluations on Si/Ne, and I find a lot of comfort and promise in this. The more I realize how complementing their Te is to my understanding of things the more I realize it's what I need. I truly think it's pure, balanced Fi Ne<->Te Si interchange and cannot think of a better long-term "dual."

Wow, I do see ENFJ is a frequent choice on the poll. I think there's been some major misleading mbti influence on your typings. As Jung describes, Fe and Fi are completely dousing, disorienting, barbaric thought processes to one another. INFPs and ENFJs easily miscommunicate and struggle between Fx, Nx, Sx, and Tx, having much all around relational difference and discomfort. I've never had a meaningful relationship with an ENFJ and have never been able to feel anywhat close to them without serious problems occurring. I honestly believe you're mistaking what INFP and ENFJ are, as never do these types coexist like this relationally.

Source http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

 

[Glycerine]

My brother married an INFJ. INFP 4w5 sp/sx and INFJ 1w2 so/sx
My mother seems inherently drawn to ESFJs.