Around here, Jung is sort of king because his functions define cognitive processes, not the way a person functions outwardly (although it often provides clues, yes). Any specifics he mentions are meant to illustrate more than define.
This is also why there is not a clear alignment with socionics & MBTI (based more on Jung & thinking styles than socionics). The difference is more marked with introverts because we're defined more by inner self than outer self, yet we often have a "face" that appears more like our auxiliary extroverted function. That's why J/P distinctions can be clues for type, although not rigid rules either. I would also look at J/P in terms of mentality over behavior, as much as possible.
What you quote is Lenore Thompson - good book, and you get a clear idea between INFPs & INFJs in there that is more focused on mental attitudes. However, her INFP descriptions are heavily e9, IMO. Shirley Manson is VERY ENFP in my eyes, and being a 4, she looks similar to many INFP e4s (I relate to her a lot; bias? YES). Fiona Apple is another INFP e4; more fiery, less gentle.
Anyhow, you can have two individuals who think quite differently but take the same action for different reasons, or even the same reason arrived at in a very different manner, and vice versa - two individuals who have similar styles of thinking act quite differently for the same reason or because they've arrived at different conclusions.
The thing with INFJs & INFPs is with inferior sensing, whether inferior Se or tert Si, there's an inconsistency in what individuals will be open to or inclined to pursue. INFPs tend to be more flexible, spontaneous & novelty driven (Ne), but perhaps need prodding (not taking initiative on their own - poor Je). INFJs can be more motivated to act on their own (Je stuff), but seriously confine sensory experience to what suits their inner vision; however, when something aligns they can be very into it, perhaps more engaged in it than an absent-minded INFP.
If you're dealing with e4s, then you're dealing with inner images, and some may romanticize a spontaneous, motorcycle riding image & others may not. Both types are driven to be "ideal", which means a kind of well roundedness that may begin to include more physical activity, especially with age. When I was a child, sports scared me & my defense was a disdain for them (meatheads!), but I idealized more graceful, solitary physical activities. So I liked the idea of surfing, but never followed through on it. The motorcycle thing sounds cool, but in all honesty, I know my obliviousness might make me end up in a coma. I'm not really sure about INFJs take on this, but I just know I see inconsistency in them too, and I think it's about how in control they may feel in a physical activity.
So yeah, some INFJs & INFPs may be like your latter description & some may much more cerebral. Generally, older & more developed individuals will be more open to experiences which don't jive with their inherent nature, regardless of type. And people are more than their type, so many other factors come into play when it comes to interests, behaviors, and even demeanor.
And to have such love/hate reactions to different individuals of your "opposite" type is very common. People tend to idealize or be repulsed by their anima/animus, and which reaction occurs can boil down to the individual they're dealing with. So for some INFJs to fascinate you & garner admiration but others to annoy you & inspire disdain is perfectly natural.
The dynamic I have with ESTPs as an INFP is much less extreme. It's more like benevolent indifference to a casual liking just because we're both laid-back Pe types. We'll work well together creatively as long as they don't get too greedy & I don't get too windy (oops! :P).