[NF] INFP vs INFJ

[PeaceBaby]

Maybe that's what gets under Fi skin - this Ni need to make everything fit in the model. Maybe it doesn't all fit. Who's truth is the ultimate trump card?

No, that's not even it - it's like, Ni-Fe doesn't even see Fi truth, or assign it any value in the Ni model? And that feels really annoying, since we see INFJ individual truth and you don't see ours?

Eh, I don't know. It's not like we see your construct - we are just happy for you that you do what you do. INFJ way of being gets to exist in Fi land? But INFP's have to get vocal that our way of being is just as valid, has value before it's recognized? Something like that.

This is not cake. Just thinking out loud, brainstorming. Words are not necessarily perfectly chosen in this series of posts ...

 

[mintleaf]

My impression of applied MBTI theory is that Ni is either multifaceted in expressing itself very differently between individuals, or possibly that many INTJs and INFJs are actually ISTJs and ISFJs. It just seems like there are not that many people, even online, that really go for the abstract, intangible ideas. I know "idea space" well and there are not really all that many people who hang out there compared to what I'm familiar with - but my impression might be way off. Probably the most accurate way to say it is that there are Ni-doms who are only a little abstract (something between Si and Ni, like Sni-doms), but only a few that are waaaaay off in abstract land.

Yes to this and to what you said about the conflicting Ni definitions.

My impression of INFPs is that their sense of the internal would be based on going deep inside "Self" as opposed to going outside and letting go of the boundary of Self.

I don't really understand the difference here / where the introspective process would greatly differ? Again, maybe tons of people are mistyped, because I haven't known INF's to display significant contrast in this respect.

Oh well, I went ahead and dug up that essay.

Here is a college commencement speech that has been making the rounds lately. It’s pretty long, but it’s brilliant writing. It was by David Foster Wallace. I don’t believe that his type is known, but the INFJs at PersC claim him as their own, and I would agree with them:

http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/david-foster-wallace-in-his-own-words

...

"I have to ask if DFW really calculated all the consequences of his philosophy" struck me as kind of funny. I'm sure he did, or at least put an exhaustive amount of energy into the attempt. He was obsessed with it. And I don't think This is Water advocates against occasional self-centeredness at all. It is about balance, but the side DFW chose to focus on here is the one that's most often neglected.

I have no idea whether he was INFJ or INFP either, but clearly one or the other; and if he's INFJ, I'm there with him. My mind works in essentially the same way, just much, much less brilliantly.

Anyway, there are people here saying that INFJ is more model-oriented and some saying that INFP is. I have nothing to contribute to that particular conversation except that I'm very confused.

 

[RDF]

Maybe that's what gets under Fi skin - this Ni need to make everything fit in the model. Maybe it doesn't all fit.  Who's truth is the ultimate trump card?

Thanks for all the great input you’ve provided, PeaceBaby.

Mainly I’ve just been contrasting the two dominant functions and showing why INFPs and INFJs “feel” very different to me. As for Ni itself, I have a lot of admiration for it. It’s a very powerful function. It’s just that Ni conclusions are very different from Fi conclusions.

As for the negatives of Ni: Here’s a passage from “Applying Type Dynamics to Leadership Development” by Catherine Fitzgerald and Linda K. Kirby (in the MBTI book “Developing Leaders"):

A challenge for managers who introvert Intuition is that their creative process and ideas are private, and they do not usually communicate them until they have done a great deal of inner consideration. By then, the ideas may be so clear and convincing to the manager that he or she sees them as obvious--and, therefore, not requiring a lot of explanation--and as ready to implement. The private, long-term, visionary perspective of managers who introvert Intuition may require them to do a lot of explaining, selling, collaborating, and specifying to actually make their ideas into a reality. The manager who introverts Intuitition may be largely unaware of and/or impatient with such processes.

Any type can be rigid in their models or theories. But Fi models tend to be more situational, whereas Ni ideas are “long-term and visionary,” IOW more systemic. So it’s easy to feel a bit overwhelmed by Ni ideas.

Also, Ni can come across as very “inexorable”; and in that way INFJs mirror INTJs (both are Ni-doms). As the above passage details, the thought processes that make up Ni are tucked away from the world, and the final product suddenly appears in the world fully-formed, with little opportunity for appeal or argumentation from those outside the process.

So Ni-doms may present their thoughts as self-evident. Ni-dom leaders may suddenly switch course without explanation. Having planned a move or deliberated a change in philosophy exhaustively in their inner chambers, they figure that the “rightness” of their new course should be obvious to any onlooker.

That “exhaustive deliberation in their inner chamber” is both the main strength and the main weakness of Ni.

 

[Azure Flame]

Ni doesn't have any "models," that's Ti. Ni is just a perception function, people.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Ni doesn't have any "models," that's Ti. Ni is just a perception function, people.

Forgive the imprecise language, Ti person.

 

[Azure Flame]

ha, great, now I feel like a nitpicker

 

[PeaceBaby]

Mainly I’ve just been contrasting the two dominant functions and showing why INFPs and INFJs “feel” very different to me. As for Ni itself, I have a lot of admiration for it. It’s a very powerful function. It’s just that Ni conclusions are very different from Fi conclusions.

Me too. And thanks for sharing your thoughts, I enjoy your posts.

Yes, we do 'feel' very different I agree. What's fascinating to me is how sometimes we come to the same conclusions yet from these very different processes and vantage points. So, sometimes the conclusions are more similar than one would imagine they would or should be!

Any type can be rigid in their models or theories. But Fi models tend to be more situational, whereas Ni ideas are “long-term and visionary,” IOW more systemic. So it’s easy to feel a bit overwhelmed by Ni ideas.

Agreed.

Also, Ni can come across as very “inexorable”; and in that way INFJs mirror INTJs (both are Ni-doms). As the above passage details, the thought processes that make up Ni are tucked away from the world, and the final product suddenly appears in the world fully-formed, with little opportunity for appeal or argumentation from those outside the process.

This part fascinates me too ... because most Ni doms will say that this product isn't a necessarily a final product and I respect that, but I feel you are correct as well, in that there does not appear (or dare I say feel like) there is an option to "appeal". Good stuff to think on.



Anyways, I am just putting out strands of thought here, not polished in any way, so my apologies to Ni & Ti folks who better enjoy a more optimized and finished product.

No agenda here either, this is my little brain puzzle I ponder on from time to time, my musings not intended to fuel any INFJ / INFP discord.

 

[PeaceBaby]

ha, great, now I feel like a nitpicker

It suits your avatar's current expression

It is important, but I can get sloppy when ideas are not well-formed yet in the cosmos of my mind. Putting them out in the world helps them get clearer.

 

[RDF]

"I have to ask if DFW really calculated all the consequences of his philosophy" struck me as kind of funny. I'm sure he did, or at least put an exhaustive amount of energy into the attempt. He was obsessed with it. And I don't think This is Water advocates against occasional self-centeredness at all. It is about balance, but the side DFW chose to focus on here is the one that's most often neglected.

I have no idea whether he was INFJ or INFP either, but clearly one or the other; and if he's INFJ, I'm there with him. My mind works in essentially the same way, just much, much less brilliantly.

Anyway, there are people here saying that INFJ is more model-oriented and some saying that INFP is. I have nothing to contribute to that particular conversation except that I'm very confused.

This all gets back to what I said about perceiving functions and judging functions at the start:

Ni (the dom function of INFJ) is a perceiving function. It’s a churning, strategizing process. It’s going to focus mainly on process: *How* does one empathize? More generally: *How* does one make this thing work?

Fi (the dom function of INFP) is a judging function. It’s a model-making process. It’s going to package the idea of empathy into a nice little emotional model suitable for application in the real world. These emotional models operate much like the logical models of Ti (which is also a judging function).

As I see it, DFW’s speech focused almost soley on *how* one empathizes, specifically, how one breaks out of one’s current viewpoint (atheist, religious, bored commuter, shopper in a supermarket, etc.) to see things from another’s angle. That’s fine, but that’s mainly a question of process, i.e., a perceiving point of view.

As an Fi model-maker myself, I would like to see a little more of an actual *model* on the ways empathy operates in the real world: Exactly what benefits will accrue to those who follow his advice or to the world in general? Why does this particular audience needs to be lectured on empathy? Empathy is good, of course, but so are 200 other noble causes in the world. I’m into self-improvement and working on bettering myself in lots of different ways. So why empathy before other causes? What exact problems does it solve, what does it cost, what are the trade-offs, etc. And so on, you know, the questions a newspaper reporter is supposed to ask: Who, what, why, when, where... Not just the perceiver’s “How.”

I’m sure that if DFW had been asked these additional questions he would have had some answers thought out. Mainly I’m just noting that, left to his own devices, DFW expressed himself in a very loosey-goosey perceiver-ish manner, i.e., with the focus almost solely on process. That would indicate Ni to me, as opposed to Fi.

There are some other things in the speech that seem very Ni to me. But I figured I would focus on the perceiver vs judger aspects of Ni and Fi to score a quick point.

 

[RDF]

ha, great, now I feel like a nitpicker

That was a legitimate point. It sounded like decrescendo was having trouble with the fundamental perceiving/judging distinction (churning vs. model-building).

 

[RDF]

This part fascinates me too ... because most Ni doms will say that this product isn't a necessarily a final product and I respect that, but I feel you are correct as well, in that there does not appear (or dare I say feel like) there is an option to "appeal". Good stuff to think on.

You probably know all this, but here are the basics:

Ni is the dominant function of both INFJs and INTJs, and it’s a perceiving function. As such, it just sits there and churns out alternatives and possibilities and back-up plans. No decisions are made.

But at some point that churning mess has to come out into the real world. So the churning mess comes out into the world through the auxiliary judging function (Fe for INFJs and Te for INTJs). The auxiliary judging function makes a call on what the final product should look like based on it’s own Te or Fe rules. So for INFJs, the results of Ni churning are whittled down and packaged up in an Fe model; for INTJs, the results of Ni churning are whittled down and packaged up in an Te model.

At this point, Ni may continue to churn on the problem further, and the Ni-dom may insist that they haven’t provided a final product yet. But if a product made it into the outside world at all, then it had to go through a Judging function, which means it was packaged at some point into a model for real-world application.

But since the Judging function (Te or Fe) is only the Auxiliary function in Ni-Doms, that means that the Te or Fe model-building function is pretty weak. To put it another way, a Judging “patina” of model-building was applied.

Similarly, the Fi models of INFPs get built from the churning of our relatively weak Ne (perceiving) Auxiliary function. Our Auxiliary Ne churns a bit (much more slowly then Ni in an Ni-dom), runs a few possibilities past us, and at some point our strong Fi-dom grabs one of those possibilities and hammers it into a strong Fi model.

 

[PeaceBaby]

[MENTION=204]FineLine[/MENTION]: an aside: if Ni churns, what word would you use for Si?

 

[Society]

possibly that many INTJs and INFJs are actually ISTJs and ISFJs.

shshs, they'll hear you!

tell a proclaimed-NJ that they are an SJ, and they will ever so often try to bite your head off...

...yes, sometimes even when they've asked...

really though, show people two profile:

• one tells them that they are special - the rarest of them all, that they are complex, that their thoughts and beliefs are actually deep insights from beyond the abyss, that want they want from others is just the highest of ideals, and that they actually hold themselves to those highest of ideals, their notions of how things should be done is merely striving for the best systems.
• the other, well... they have a good memory. their mighty ideals are not even theirs and are given by society, and they are pretty much portraits of wives from an american 50s movie (even if they are guys).

which one do you think most people are going to pick?

 

[RDF]

[MENTION=204]FineLine[/MENTION]: an aside: if Ni churns, what word would you use for Si?

In my vernacular, Perceiving functions churn and Judging functions are model-building functions. It's just my way of getting a better feel of the difference between Perceiving and Judging.

So churning functions are Ne, Ni, Se, Si. Model-buidling functions are Fe, Fi, Te, Ti.

If you want to get more particular, N is about juxtaposition (switching around elements and looking for patterns or associations to emerge); S is about breaking things down into various constituent parts and then running them through the database to see if any useful associations or applicable previous experiences pop up.

 

[the state i am in]

well, both types are introverted, so we're both working from memory a lot.

when we try to get back into the moment, j types exert a great deal of effort in making good predictions about what will happen. p types invest harder in getting a feel for what has just happened. obviously we both have to do both processes, but we privilege one aspect over the other. we see one process way better than the other, reshaping the other through our own privileged orientation/habits.

i think standuble mentioned that he doesn't feel like he knows what is objectively best, so he presumably operates with another set of subjective ethics about how to properly act given that, say, you don't think it's right for anyone to just assume they objectively know best. you don't get to direct. you must be willing to respond to whatever arises.

j types, by contrast, are trying to make predictions in order to prioritize values, offering a much more active kind of troubleshooting. they look to consider, and expect others to also assume a high degree of consideration of what an action might mean after it has been transmitted through layers of interpretative filters.

p types can get stuck in naive realism, j types can get stuck in the vicious circularities of tautological thinking. and our shadow sides are flip-flopped. again, either type can fixate quite easily, and we're both already outdated all the damn time because we're so memory-driven.

the worst thing is that sometimes we construct such elaborate ways to emulate the other experience, rather than just feeling it out in its own terms. that takes so much damn practice to first notice our own habits, and then create space for something else to happen. staying with experience, with consequences, is not easy for me. it's a kind of submission to my own experience and to the fact that my experience is not entirely under my control. given that i have also not mastered focusing my experience and guiding my own attention in the most productive ways i can, this seems like letting go of almost all control. including the desire for emotional harmony, positivity, and good feeling, the embodied ends of value as we experience it, and the desire to change whatever is happening to reach a higher level of this essentialized goal. and letting go control is certainly letting go of all precedent, given that the precedents i have practiced, the highest learning i have constructed, exists primarily in an intentional system, a prediction system, a verification attempt of what is expected when i guess the meaning that will best affect the situation. we identify with what circulates between the characters rather than the characters themselves. when we identify with a person, we identify with what circulates within them rather than the substance of them as a separate thing, and with what it is like to be a separate thing. our experience is less central, our sensory separateness is less central.

both types benefit from slowing down their emotional interpretations and working on neutrally describing the sensations of emotion first, so they take ownership of their own experience and allow that to work its way into their awareness of the moment, what is happening both internally and externally.

 

[mintleaf]

This all gets back to what I said about perceiving functions and judging functions at the start:

Ni (the dom function of INFJ) is a perceiving function. It’s a churning, strategizing process. It’s going to focus mainly on process: *How* does one empathize? More generally: *How* does one make this thing work?

Fi (the dom function of INFP) is a judging function. It’s a model-making process. It’s going to package the idea of empathy into a nice little emotional model suitable for application in the real world. These emotional models operate much like the logical models of Ti (which is also a judging function).

Thanks for the concise explanation. I hadn't associated judging with model-making before, although of course it makes perfect sense.

As an Fi model-maker myself, I would like to see a little more of an actual *model* on the ways empathy operates in the real world: Exactly what benefits will accrue to those who follow his advice or to the world in general? Why does this particular audience needs to be lectured on empathy? Empathy is good, of course, but so are 200 other noble causes in the world. I’m into self-improvement and working on bettering myself in lots of different ways. So why empathy before other causes? What exact problems does it solve, what does it cost, what are the trade-offs, etc. And so on, you know, the questions a newspaper reporter is supposed to ask: Who, what, why, when, where... Not just the perceiver’s “How.”

Probably because empathy is what sets everything else into motion. First you have to care about the 200+ noble causes. That's essentially the point of most graduation speeches, right?

 

[Rail Tracer]

shshs, they'll hear you!

tell a proclaimed-NJ that they are an SJ, and they will ever so often try to bite your head off...

...yes, sometimes even when they've asked...

really though, show people two profile:

• one tells them that they are special - the rarest of them all, that they are complex, that their thoughts and beliefs are actually deep insights from beyond the abyss, that want they want from others is just the highest of ideals, and that they actually hold themselves to those highest of ideals, their notions of how things should be done is merely striving for the best systems.
• the other, well... they have a good memory. their mighty ideals are not even theirs and are given by society, and they are pretty much portraits of wives from an american 50s movie (even if they are guys).

which one do you think most people are going to pick?

I'm so rare, I am rarer than you. I'm a male INFJ! Don't hate because you aren't rare. Hater.

On a serious note, I don't care too much about my type. My first type I've gotten is INFP. Some may even think I'm ISFJ. If I got the most common type, I don't mind as long as it "sounds" like me.

 

[Evo]

I'm serious. If you're not a crude person I'd be willing to throw you into INFP or ISFJ category.

INFP's are all listening to "arrival of the birds" and watching disney movies while INFJ's are listening to ganga-clouds and practicing their hindu lapdances.

You shouldn't be "acting" if you're actually an Ni Fe Ti Se.

I get the over all picture that INFJ's are just in their own world...just like INFP's are ...but different worlds

I don't view INFJ's as, for lack of a better word, "hippies" or completely as mystical as your describing. Mostly because their judgerness shines too bright. I see a lot of INFJ's as perfectionsits, not doing hindu lapdances unless that's something they're VERY interested in. I see the mysticalness come out of them in designing. Such as their houses. I feel like that's where the unicorns and ganga-clouds come out to play. But not in thier personality....I think they act "put together" and can be warm (Fe) but also analysing with their Ti. And I don't really find them to be sluts lol. I also think they like being pursued...and they may not mind doing the pursuing as well. I think most INFJ's I know are 4's...4's like being pursued...you know...that whole self absorbtion kicks in. ( Don't get me wrong I love 4's, and don't actually mind the self absorbedness)

Also INFJ's once ur "in" and u really get to know them. They are readable because of Fe.

INFP's on the other hand...I know INFP's....but I don't actaully KNOW them...intimacy is hard with an Fi dom....I call it looking through the fog...Their first function lets u see nothing, and forget it if they're a 9. But they do watch disney movies lol And INFP's are probably traveling and doin a buncha shit including sniffing flowers cause their Ne takes them their. But not for long.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

You probably know all this, but here are the basics:

Ni is the dominant function of both INFJs and INTJs, and it’s a perceiving function. As such, it just sits there and churns out alternatives and possibilities and back-up plans. No decisions are made.

But at some point that churning mess has to come out into the real world. So the churning mess comes out into the world through the auxiliary judging function (Fe for INFJs and Te for INTJs). The auxiliary judging function makes a call on what the final product should look like based on it’s own Te or Fe rules. So for INFJs, the results of Ni churning are whittled down and packaged up in an Fe model; for INTJs, the results of Ni churning are whittled down and packaged up in an Te model.

At this point, Ni may continue to churn on the problem further, and the Ni-dom may insist that they haven’t provided a final product yet. But if a product made it into the outside world at all, then it had to go through a Judging function, which means it was packaged at some point into a model for real-world application.

But since the Judging function (Te or Fe) is only the Auxiliary function in Ni-Doms, that means that the Te or Fe model-building function is pretty weak. To put it another way, a Judging “patina” of model-building was applied.

Similarly, the Fi models of INFPs get built from the churning of our relatively weak Ne (perceiving) Auxiliary function. Our Auxiliary Ne churns a bit (much more slowly then Ni in an Ni-dom), runs a few possibilities past us, and at some point our strong Fi-dom grabs one of those possibilities and hammers it into a strong Fi model.

This is a clear description. All of your posts are fantastic in this thread, so it was hard to pick one, but just because I made a number of comments and questions about Ni, I'll have to say thanks for this clarification.

 

[Society]

I'm so rare, I am rarer than you. I'm a male INFJ! Don't hate because you aren't rare. Hater.

On a serious note, I don't care too much about my type. My first type I've gotten is INFP. Some may even think I'm ISFJ. If I got the most common type, I don't mind as long as it "sounds" like me.

*claps*
Wave your hands in the air like you don’t care
Glide by the people as they start to look and stare
Do your dance, do your dance, do your dance quick mama
Come on, baby, tell me what’s the word

really though, my point wasn't just the rarity, its that one type description clearly sounds a lot better than the other and does a better job at giving people what they would like to hear about themselves, so it's entirely natural that if two people who fit the IxFJs common attributes have reached the point of picking between those two. one profile is being sold on a much more luxurious plate.

then they come together with the rest of the stated NJs and when Ni comes up they will talk about the nature of their own perception, and the result is that you have a very muddled convention on what Ni means. i am not saying that [MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION] is wrong or that Ni doesn't come in different versions or that people embrace different effect it has in different ways, i am simply stating that there's a much simpler sociological thing going on that is expanding on the pool of what would count as Ni to actually mean general Pi.

this IMO is problematic when it comes to either INFJs or ISFJs gaining an understanding of their own way of thinking:
now, people can be "more abstract" or "less concrete" depending on their sensory/intuitive balance, which for IxFJs would mean the extent to which Si rejects/embraces Ne or the extent to which Ni rejects/embraces Se.
but Si & Ni work in very different ways on a fundamental level, they are mechanically different:
- Si draws precedent from one's past collection of details in contrast to the incoming details.
- Ni derives framing from within the information's context to fit the incoming patterns.
the result is an outright different perception of time. what they share is actually very limited - the mental need for coherence - whether its a question of what your experience tells you or a question of deriving meaning, they both deliver the most cohesive information structure, answering the J's need for cohesive information.