• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[MBTI General] a question about INFJ

Wandering

Highly Hollow
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
873
MBTI Type
INFJ
Love done unto you is therefore a reflection of your morals. if you are unloved, your morals are probably off - or your actions does not represent your morals - or you are deceiving yourself about your morals.
I wish it were that simple. But I just have to look around me, or read history books, to see that many wonderful, highly moral and loving people are not loved back, while many selfish, arrogant and abusive people are adored. So I'm afraid I have to completely and totally disagree with you on that point. The amount of love that is done unto us has next to NO connection with our morals. Biology, sociology, history: they all confirm that.
 

halfaninstant

New member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
29
MBTI Type
INFP
:rofl1: Are you kidding?

Every individual is the sum of their family bringing, values, experiences, culture, etc. INFJs are as well, the only difference is they learn to read currents outside of that. Typically XNFPs have the idea that their moral standards are derived from the one an only, correct way of perceiving and doing things. Obviously, that is just an illusion they have adopted so they don't have to question the relativity of their own beliefs. But this is the first time I've ever heard an INFP suggest the exact opposite of what INFPs typically believe. Have you not seen heart argue against the culturally relative, changing perspective for all these pages? That is considered "corruption of the core," "selling out," etc.

I know how it is for myself - you know, it maybe just me.. my Fe is 33.9 and my FI is 35.7... my Ni is 38.9 and Ne is 33.6.

i almost want to say i'm I Ni Fi P... but i don't think that's logically possible.

anyway, i think perhaps that i can't draw from my own experience and state that it is INFP... nor INFJ. =/
 

halfaninstant

New member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
29
MBTI Type
INFP
I wish it were that simple. But I just have to look around me, or read history books, to see that many wonderful, highly moral and loving people are not loved back, while many selfish, arrogant and abusive people are adored. So I'm afraid I have to completely and totally disagree with you on that point. The amount of love that is done unto us has next to NO connection with our morals. Biology, sociology, history: they all confirm that.

i say that they have a disconnect between their emotions and their actions and how it is perceived.

it is their lack of communication in a way that connects them with others that fails them, not their morals.
 

Wandering

Highly Hollow
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
873
MBTI Type
INFJ
i think both NF in general strive to match our actions with our thoughts and emotions.
Yes, but what happens when thoughts and emotions don't agree? For INFJs, Ni-Ti is the main intellectual axis, but emotions are mostly carried by Fe.

but if seeing a brain-dead person elicit nothing from me... no emotion, no thought - than what meaning does it have outside of existence? that it is there so that we can refer to it? or them.
Isn't that the same as with "actions"? If an action doesn't touch me, does that mean it has no meaning? Seems like you're agreeing with me: it's not just what we DO that gives it meaning, or WHY we do it, but also how it affects other people. In the end, the principles behind the actions matter no more than their effects on people. (You might want to know that this is something that contradicts other beliefs/principles that I hold, and yet I can't deny it. In typical INFJ way, I'll just keep looking for a way to reconcile those opposing principles.)
 

Wandering

Highly Hollow
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
873
MBTI Type
INFJ
i say that they have a disconnect between their emotions and their actions and how it is perceived.

it is their lack of communication in a way that connects them with others that fails them, not their morals.
No. Most of the time, it's simply that other people do not VALUE being treated the way they are by those people. You can love people as much as you want, or treat them nicely or whatever, but if they don't CARE about being treated that way by you, then it won't have any effect on them, and they won't reciprocate with love towards you.

Think of abused spouses: why do they stay with their abusive partners even after they acknowledge the existence of the abuse, if not because they don't VALUE being treated in a better way? This also works for teams who let their coaches abuse them, or even entire nations who revere tyrants who cruelly mistreat them.

Inversely, think of all those devoted parents and spouses who end up being abused or abandoned by the people they so selflessly and lovingly served. That's because their family members never valued being treated that way. Again, this works for groups, all the way to nations.

Contrarily to what our feel-good culture would have us believe, many people actually do not LIKE being treated nicely and respectfully, even more so if they know you're doing it out of some "good" morality. Many will even actively render evil for good, just so they can break this good morality out of you.

Call me a cynic if you want, but that's just what I see everywhere, in every culture, at all times.
 

halfaninstant

New member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
29
MBTI Type
INFP
Yes, but what happens when thoughts and emotions don't agree? For INFJs, Ni-Ti is the main intellectual axis, but emotions are mostly carried by Fe.

thoughts win out - truth always win out. we work for our emotions, but we work around truth - else our emotions become ineffective.

Isn't that the same as with "actions"? If an action doesn't touch me, does that mean it has no meaning? Seems like you're agreeing with me: it's not just what we DO that gives it meaning, or WHY we do it, but also how it affects other people. In the end, the principles behind the actions matter no more than their effects on people. (You might want to know that this is something that contradicts other beliefs/principles that I hold, and yet I can't deny it. In typical INFJ way, I'll just keep looking for a way to reconcile those opposing principles.)

yes - it is the why we do things that gives meaning - it is the fact that we have morals and those morals guide our action - our morals give meaning to our action... and inaction..

if your morals have no effect on people, it is because you are ineffective in carrying out your actions to match your morals. not because your morals are ineffective.. you are.
 

halfaninstant

New member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
29
MBTI Type
INFP
No. Most of the time, it's simply that other people do not VALUE being treated the way they are by those people. You can love people as much as you want, or treat them nicely or whatever, but if they don't CARE about being treated that way by you, then it won't have any effect on them, and they won't reciprocate with love towards you.

so.. that's what i meant.. you are ineffectivein communicating with others. you are a great person, but you need to portray it in a way that others can understand based on their values.

of course, not everyone is worth the effort to care about, in a pragmatic sense.. you don't have that much time and money to spend on just anyone.

Think of abused spouses: why do they stay with their abusive partners even after they acknowledge the existence of the abuse, if not because they don't VALUE being treated in a better way? This also works for teams who let their coaches abuse them, or even entire nations who revere tyrants who cruelly mistreat them.

they stay because they are dependant - their sense of self is tied to the other person. that has nothing to do with their emotions or morals - they have no self esteem to see that they are worth more than what they have.

Inversely, think of all those devoted parents and spouses who end up being abused or abandoned by the people they so selflessly and lovingly served. That's because their family members never valued being treated that way. Again, this works for groups, all the way to nations.

that is because people don't value the same things. understanding what people value and motivates them allows you to interact with them in the most ideal way.. one that reflects you on their terms.

Contrarily to what our feel-good culture would have us believe, many people actually do not LIKE being treated nicely and respectfully, even more so if they know you're doing it out of some "good" morality. Many will even actively render evil for good, just so they can break this good morality out of you.
they don't like it because they don't feel they deserve it - they mistrust it. they themselves do no good, so in you doing it, you protray yourself as better than them. their social status, emotional status, who they are, is threatened by your very existence. it is not our fault, but theirs - and thus we enlighten and inspire them to develop who they are, or we ignore them.

Call me a cynic if you want, but that's just what I see everywhere, in every culture, at all times.

life isn't perfect. that's why were here. at least that's why i'm here. i want to change it. understandng how to cummincate myself in a manner that matters to others, who don't share my view of the world, is crucial to me - and that's why i'm here at this forum. i need to understand, else my action will not be effective.

and i'm not too sure i'm a good job of it even now =/ well, i try. i'll get better - one step at a time.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I know how it is for myself - you know, it maybe just me.. my Fe is 33.9 and my FI is 35.7... my Ni is 38.9 and Ne is 33.6.

Those are almost exactly my scores. I always have an Fi score higher than my Fe score on that test.

But I am definitely not an INFP. They wouldn't have me even if I declared I was. ;)
 

Wandering

Highly Hollow
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
873
MBTI Type
INFJ
thoughts win out - truth always win out. we work for our emotions, but we work around truth - else our emotions become ineffective.
Exactly: thoughts win out. But Ni-Ti is an *Introverted* axis. For INFJs, thoughts win out - but only on the inside. On the outside, it's Fe that usually wins out in the end.

if your morals have no effect on people, it is because you are ineffective in carrying out your actions to match your morals. not because your morals are ineffective.. you are.
I must say I'm confused about this business of morals being "effective" or not. Why should morals be effective? What does it even mean? How do you measure effectiveness? And what does it matter: are less effective morals somehow less valuable or meaningful? I'm a bit lost here.
 

Wandering

Highly Hollow
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
873
MBTI Type
INFJ
so.. that's what i meant.. you are ineffectivein communicating with others. you are a great person, but you need to portray it in a way that others can understand based on their values.
But... Why??? Why should I bother about that? What is it supposed to accomplish?

they stay because they are dependant - their sense of self is tied to the other person. that has nothing to do with their emotions or morals - they have no self esteem to see that they are worth more than what they have.
Self-esteem is TOTALLY tied to thoughts and emotions, and indirectly to morals.

understanding what people value and motivates them allows you to interact with them in the most ideal way.. one that reflects you on their terms.
I rather agree, actually.

they don't like it because they don't feel they deserve it - they mistrust it. they have no sense of self worth. they see themselves horribly, thus projecting it on others. it is not our fault, but theirs - and thus we enlighten and inspire them to develop who they are, or we ignore them.
You're contradicting yourself. First you say it's my fault if they don't get it, because I'm being ineffective, but now you say it's their fault because they project on me.

life isn't perfect. that's why were here. at least that's why i'm here. i want to change it. understandng how to cummincate myself in a manner that matters to others, who don't share my view of the world, is crucial to me - and that's why i'm here at this forum. i need to understand, else my action will not be effective.
True-blue idealism. I'd almost forgotten what it looks like :wubbie:
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
That I think is where the difference between NiFe and NiTe comes into play. INFJs do have a conscience, it is just composed of different values as opposed to INFPs. XNFPs think in terms like, "Rape is always wrong, Murder is always wrong, etc." whereas INFJs think in terms of principles like "Do unto others as you would have them unto you, etc." 99.99% of the time we end up doing the same thing in any given situation, but our approaches are very dissimilar. But since both types are governed by a set of values, both types do have an inner conscience. Obviously though, INFJs don't have a Jimmy Cricket who tells them right from wrong, but rather a little seer in their head who imparts wisdom.

A little seer in their heads who imparts wisdom? I wish I had one of those -- oh wait, I guess I do... sort of.

I'm wondering now if INFJs are as capricious as INTJs now. They can be much worse than P types because once they DECIDE that they're finished or that there's nothing more they can do, they leave and move onto the next project without a thought looking back, while a P would most likely go back to tinker.

And I think now is about time for me to quit. The turn this conversation has taken is making my head spin. Adieu!
 

halfaninstant

New member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
29
MBTI Type
INFP
But... Why??? Why should I bother about that? What is it supposed to accomplish?
i don't know... you choose whether you will or will not try to affect someone. you judge whether they are worth your time. if they are, then it matters how you communicate. but in choosing to influence them, you accept that they are different and you accept that there is a barrier... you take on the responsibility of trying to break it down and communicate.

its often better when both side is hammering at the wall instead of just one.

Self-esteem is TOTALLY tied to thoughts and emotions, and indirectly to morals.

i feel self-esteem is understainding yourself and your worth. To me, morals defines you and your worth. you can have morals, without understanding.

You're contradicting yourself. First you say it's my fault if they don't get it, because I'm being ineffective, but now you say it's their fault because they project on me.

they project onto you because they are themselves full of hate. that is their flaw - not their fault.

if you choose to influence someone, you take on the responsbility of communicating to them. if you fail to communicate to them on a level they would understand, that is your fault. of course, you can walk away from it.

but still, it is you who are ineffective at breaking down their barriers and communicating that there is nothing to hate. you already know they don't care to try... that burden is something you voluntarily take on because you care enough to want to communicate.
 

halfaninstant

New member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
29
MBTI Type
INFP
Exactly: thoughts win out. But Ni-Ti is an *Introverted* axis. For INFJs, thoughts win out - but only on the inside. On the outside, it's Fe that usually wins out in the end.


I must say I'm confused about this business of morals being "effective" or not. Why should morals be effective? What does it even mean? How do you measure effectiveness? And what does it matter: are less effective morals somehow less valuable or meaningful? I'm a bit lost here.

effective in terms of affecting the world around you. that is reality. what is the point of belief if there is no action that accompanies it. even communicating is an action that affirms your beliefs.

when thought is disconnected from reality - that is ineffectiveness. if that thought even partially influnces your action, your decision - then it is effective. how your action conveys that thought.. to what extent.. if that thought is able to affect the world around you - that is the effectiveness of a thought.
 

Wandering

Highly Hollow
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
873
MBTI Type
INFJ
if you choose to influence someone, you take on the responsbility of communicating to them. if you fail to communicate to them on a level they would understand, that is your fault.
Hum, no. Sorry, but no. Communication implies that both sides are actually trying to listen to each other. You can't communicate with someone who is actively refusing to have anything to do with you. And it is entirely their fault, not mine.

but still, it is you who are ineffective at breaking down their barriers and communicating that there is nothing to hate.
Plain wrong. Nobody can force anyone else to see what they refuse to see. You can attempt to communicate with them until you're blue in the face, you can use every single method of communication there is, but until THEY decide to actually listen to what you're saying, you won't get anywhere.

when thought is disconnected from reality - that is ineffectiveness. if that thought even partially influnces your action, your decision - then it is effective. how your action conveys that thought.. to what extent.. if that thought is able to affect the world around you - that is the effectiveness of a thought.
Why are you defining effectiveness exclusively in terms of how it affects *other* people? If my thought affects me, then *by definition* it's effective, period. The effectiveness you speak of is only one type of effectiveness, it's definitely not the only one.
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
But do you grant people the right to hold those convictions and values, even if you don't support them?

I don't even see how this applies. I cannot stop them from holding their values. I cannot hope to have a lasting effect on their values if I attempt external force to change their values and I find the idea repugnant in any case. No one can grant the right to hold certain beliefs to another, they have their own right to their values. I don't have to agree with them however and if they cause harm to innocent others implementing those values I am not going to stand by and merely watch silently.
 

halfaninstant

New member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
29
MBTI Type
INFP
we've already established that they don't care- the communication at best can be one sided. it is their fault that they dont' want to speak... but perhaps it hurts them. whatever the reason, it is your choice to stick with them and try to influence them - to have an effect, because your compass says you can change them, make them happy. or have them understand you and make you happy.

ignoring who is right or wrong and examining only in the communication that ensues - what is effective and ineffective? effective is if you manage to in a one way conversation cause them to change. ineffective is if you can not cause that change.

if you failed to cause an effect.. it is not because they didn't try - you knew that from the start. sure it affected the likeliness that you are able to influence them, but that is not the dynamic part of this problem - you are the dynamics. your effort to change them is the dynamics.

if instead you were to tell them that following their actions now, even though it is true to their beliefs (say... what benefits them is always right), that in fact they don't benefit from it... that will suffer consequences for the things the do... well, you would have been effective at changing them, though not who, nor why they do the things they do.

i was not referring to failure to try to communicate - you tried. i was referring to failure to communicate effectively.

i should also qualify that internal change can not be forced upon, but influence can still be had.

Why are you defining effectiveness exclusively in terms of how it affects *other* people? If my thought affects me, then *by definition* it's effective, period. The effectiveness you speak of is only one type of effectiveness, it's definitely not the only one.

to have an effect is to have caused change.

your personal thoughts are effective - i think you missed the point. do you think about something, and say - that's true.. then forget about it? No, it cascades down and affect your other processes. it may be small, but by my definition, by you're acting different in even the smallest aspect of your life due to a thought that you have.. even if it is indirect.. it is effective.

that said, why shouldn't something's effectiveness be measured by its effect in the world?

let say you are looking at a rock. that rock has feelings and morals - a thought came to it that if it rolled back and forth, people would love it. now think how you perceive that immobile rock, unable to express itself. is it not true that the rock's thought is ineffective? the rock has no form of expressing that thought, therefore caused no change in you, nor its environment?

that to the world of actions- it is a mindless, meaningless rock...
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
HA! Leave it to me to spark a 7 page debate, simply with an analogy about hares! :party2:
 
Top