[NF] INFP vs INFJ

[Cellmold]

didn't we agree that all the MBTI "profiles" are actually mental illnesses yet to be diagnosed, and it's really only the untypable like yourself who are the sane ones?

I'll agree with that.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I think the guy is serious. He got seriously dumped by an ISFP girl, was butthurt and has now declared war on IFs. I guess he hasn't realised yet that trying to get under an INFPs skin is like a game of battleships. You don't know where you're aiming for as it's different each time and even if you do hit the right spot that no way means you have sunk them. As for INFJs just mock him for when he re-typed himself as an NF a few weeks ago.

I just realized that's the guy who has a thing for INFJs & e4s & made videos about INFPs & INFJs (which were somewhat contemptuous towards INFPs), and most of his ideas ring of socionics... which makes sense why he sees INFJs (NiFe or INFp in socionics) as more flamboyant & INFPs (FiNe or INFj in socionics) as sort of bland & sentimental do-gooders.

 

[Azure Flame]

Alright I have some real differences instead of making jokes that make people scratch their heads.

INFJ's appreciate the thrill of the hunt
INFP's don't find reward in the thrill of the hunt.

INFJ's don't believe emotions of others until stated verbally (Fe)
INFP's assume the emotions of others (Fi)

INFJ's are capable of, but not as confident in their ability to use volitional force (Se) to get what they want.
INFP's disavow any and all forms of volitional force as a way of accomplishing what they want in life.

I find it interesting that you guys spend so much time memorizing my life story and reputation as a means of determining if I should be heeded or not. Nevermind the content of anything I have to say.

Hmm, yeah you guys got me. Here comes the "socionics is different from mbti argument." This is where I bow out. If you disagree there's no sense in me trying to change your mind. I'll just leave off with the statement that the functions across the two systems are exactly the same, however mbti words the functions through their manifestations, and socionics defines the functions through their processes. The books on mbti functions are much clearer about how they should be defined than anything on the internet.

 

[Society]

INFJ's appreciate the thrill of the hunt
INFP's don't find reward in the thrill of the hunt.

i can tell you of a few INFP (males) who got into being players at a later age and are now very much into the thrill of the hunt.

INFJ's don't believe emotions of others until stated verbally (Fe)

nah, that all too often does little to convince them.

INFP's disavow any and all forms of volitional force as a way of accomplishing what they want in life.

again, i've known more exceptions than those who follow the rule. a few very religious INFPs i've known were very enthusiastic of going into battlefield units - two of them even specifically striving to change into battlefield units.

 

[Azure Flame]

[MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]

See here's my deal. There are some INFJ 4's who I bump into who are motorcycle riding gymnasts who read "great expectations" one too many times. Then there are INFJ 4's I meet who listen to sigur ros and hate motorcycles and hate leaving their houses and pretty much hate everything stated prior and are more interested in drawing pictures and talking to their cat about the sound of the rain against the glass.

One I have absolute love and adoration for, the other makes me cringe.

There is a completely different change in flavor. A great inconsistency. So I move over to INFP's. Its the same exact thing. The only system I've found that's had any competence in separating the differences for me is socionics.

However Extroverts almost never have an issue with swapping the J/P

I think there's even a website dedicated to solving the differences. If we're going by Kiersey, sure. J/P difference is easy to see. But a lot of people don't actually know what the functional definitions are online.

The only functional definitions I've ever read that have a shred of consistency or logical sense derived from their name is here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/134-Lenore-Thomson-MBTI-Functions

 

[Cellmold]

@<a href="http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/member.php?u=15291" target="_blank">Mane</a>

See here's my deal. There are some INFJ 4's who I bump into who are motorcycle riding gymnasts who read "great expectations" one too many times. Then there are INFJ 4's I meet who listen to sigur ros and hate motorcycles and hate leaving their houses and pretty much hate everything stated prior and are more interested in drawing pictures and talking to their cat about the sound of the rain against the glass.

One I have absolute love and adoration for, the other makes me cringe.

There is a completely different change in flavor. A great inconsistency. So I move over to INFP's. Its the same exact thing. The only system I've found that's had any competence in separating the differences for me is socionics.

However Extroverts almost never have an issue with swapping the J/P

I think there's even a website dedicated to solving the differences. If we're going by Kiersey, sure. J/P difference is easy to see. But a lot of people don't actually know what the functional definitions are online.

The only functional definitions I've ever read that have a shred of consistency or logical sense derived from their name is here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/134-Lenore-Thomson-MBTI-Functions

 

[Southern Kross]

And you even used a quintessential ISFP to get your point across.

 

[Thalassa]

My post was intended to be serious yet humorous. INFJ's have a crude earthy sense of humor and INFP's don't.

Otherwise, in general, INFJ's are aggressive sluts and INFP's are flower sniffers

Um, I think you may have confused INFJs with ENFJs or ISFPs. INFJs don't have enough Se to be aggressive sluts, I find them usually to be quite the opposite of that, though not necessarily "prudes."

 

[Thalassa]

[MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]

See here's my deal. There are some INFJ 4's who I bump into who are motorcycle riding gymnasts who read "great expectations" one too many times. Then there are INFJ 4's I meet who listen to sigur ros and hate motorcycles and hate leaving their houses and pretty much hate everything stated prior and are more interested in drawing pictures and talking to their cat about the sound of the rain against the glass.

One I have absolute love and adoration for, the other makes me cringe.

There is a completely different change in flavor. A great inconsistency. So I move over to INFP's. Its the same exact thing. The only system I've found that's had any competence in separating the differences for me is socionics.

However Extroverts almost never have an issue with swapping the J/P

I think there's even a website dedicated to solving the differences. If we're going by Kiersey, sure. J/P difference is easy to see. But a lot of people don't actually know what the functional definitions are online.

The only functional definitions I've ever read that have a shred of consistency or logical sense derived from their name is here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/134-Lenore-Thomson-MBTI-Functions

You should possibly consider the fact that there are a lot of fake "INFJs" running around. I'll bet money the second type of INFJ 4 you described are more likely the real INFJ 4s.

 

[A_priori]

Each type seems to view the other as more rigid. I don't have "incredibly rigid morals & values". The word rigid is just.... wrong. I always think Fe types assume a Je attitude when interpreting Fi, and it's just....wrong.

I'm reminded of some anecdote MBTI author Naomi Quenk wrote (I think...?). Basically, some INFP shocked her INTJ husband with some action or interest because it made her seem inconsistent. This is usually because of a Je mentality being applied to a Ji mentality. With Ji, the inner consistency is deep & more conceptual than specific, but its interpretation becomes broad and very flexible with Pe, which sort of brings the real world application.

The reason it's hard to change an INFP's mind is because
1) You probably don't really know their mind to begin with. You've bought into the sweet, gentle social mask or the temperamental artist image, or whatever they put out.
2) There is no value so much as a feeling of fundamental truth about human nature, which is the sort of gauge for value. This concept has been built & refined since birth & is much deeper & more well though out than most can imagine. This is hard if not impossible to change because you'd be telling someone their internal experience is false, and for an introvert, this will just make them angry. And with Ne, there are few arguments we have not anticipated and already explored mentally. But rarely does anyone even manage to hit the crux, as Fi is mostly indirectly expressed, if at all.



The only truth in it would relate to the inferiors.

Se can be crude. Certainly anyone could have crude humor, but Se probably takes the cake. So inferior Se may result in some crudeness. However, IMO, many NJs really recoil at crudeness because their Se is inferior. Vulgarity is often a real turn-off to these, and they may only be receptive to it in areas like humor (I notice people enjoy humor which sort of utilizes their inferior; ie, SJs seem to like & sometimes use the absurd, random imaginativeness of Ne).

On that show Frasier, both Frasier and Niles are NJs, IMO. They're caricatures of that attitude, where they indulge a lot in high brow sensory stuff but have a distaste for anything very ordinary, earthy or crude.

INFPs have inferior Te though, which means rawness belongs to us. This is often in communication & expression. While we generally don't like to hurt people's feelings or be direct in a bossy way, INFPs often have a sarcastic, blunt and very direct side. This is usually if we're under stress though, and it varies with individuals.

I've also seen NPs in general find amusement in crudeness because of an absurdity aspect. You'll see a lot of NTPs in general be crude in their humor, but it's not really the same as sensing crudeness.

IMO, "ridiculousness" tends to go over NJ's heads. In some ways, I'd say they take themselves way more seriously than NPs. Visit any INFJ forum & it has a much more serious tone than an INFP forum, where self-depecating humor abounds. What INFPs probably take more seriously are things which are important to us. This is because we have a less viable take on values. Fe is more flexible in a "what works" way, whereas Fi is more about an unattainable perfection. But Ne is obviously more flexible than Ni, which is where NJs will take themselves too seriously (and sometimes miss their own ridiculousness, as a result).

I'm e4, so last, so I tend to be a bit more cantankerous than some INFPs. I don't know how much enneagram comes into play here either... I don't like vulgarity a lot because of that e4 aesthetic snobbery. I also dislike a lot of cutesy stuff - not into Disney, although I don't hate it. I also dislike a lot of fantasy genre associated with INFPs, although I have a penchant for some whimsy and imaginative stuff; I just like more refined or exotic things. I actually relate somewhat to the NJ Se rejection, but I'm way less uppity than they can be. I would occasionally horrify my INFJ ex by doing something very Pe-ish which was not inline with Je social protocol; the kind of casual & oblivious blunder of propriety NFPs tend to make. He was way more class conscious. I was definitely something closer to "bohemian".

For the record, I also actually speak some Hindi and have taken some interest in some of the more sensual Indian dances - hahaha.

One thing I never found incompatible with my INFJ ex was humor. Neither of us was extremely vulgar nor uptight. I was the funnier of the two (and I wouldn't describe myself as funny) and much more inclined to wordplay and dryness, but I've occasionally met a funny INFJ (not common, IMO).

Oh here's a good distinction - while both types can have an other-worldy feel, INFPs are more classically "absent-minded", as are all NPs. INFJs tend to have sharper, more scanning eyes & a heavier physical presence, as do all NJs, IMO.

My experience with INFPs is that they tend to have quite ridged morals and values. Is this a bad thing?

 

[PeaceBaby]

My experience with INFPs is that they tend to have quite ridged morals and values. Is this a bad thing?

Maybe you should define what "rigid" means to you.

pick from 1, 2 or 3 below:

rigid: 1. stiff or unyielding; not pliant or flexible; hard. 2. firmly fixed or set. 3. inflexible, strict, or severe​

 

[Azure Flame]

You should possibly consider the fact that there are a lot of fake "INFJs" running around. I'll bet money the second type of INFJ 4 you described are more likely the real INFJ 4s.

I'll give some examples:

zoe saldana
summer glau
shirley manson

What would you type them as? They may or may not be 4's. I'm not focussing on their enneagrams.

 

[Azure Flame]

I'll bring socionics subtypes into play here for a minute. If you go on youtube and check out Celebok and MkingKilla, these are 2 self typed ISTP's. MKingKilla is pretty typical ISTP athlete. Celebok looks a lot more rigid and structured and has people telling him he's ISTJ constantly despite his disagreement.

The way I explain the difference is that Mkingkilla is LSI-Se and Celebok is LSI-Ti.

So I wonder if a lot of the mistypes are caused by a similar thing. The EII-Ne's think they're mbti percievers and the EII-Fi's think they're mbti judgers.

If we applied this same method of typing ourselves, this would explain why I type as ESTJ so often in mbti.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

fwiw INFJs are described in MBTI profiles as the most abstract type.
MBTI doesn't account for all foundational aspects of personality, it is extremely low resolution, and there are mistypings and confirmation bias running rampant. For these reasons I would encourage everyone (including myself) to not have rock-solid, absolutely finalized internal definitions of each type. Look at each new person you meet as an opportunity to gain new information about a type and not as a means to reinforce internally constructed archetypes. Each one of us has the capacity to be wrong about type and to be completely wrong about any individual person when applying MBTI theories. It is approximate and if it is not approached as an approximation, then you have a good guarantee your thinking will be wrong.

 

[PeaceBaby]

it is extremely low resolution.....

Good metaphor.

 

[Society]

Look at each new person you meet as an opportunity to gain new information about a type and not as a means to reinforce internally constructed archetypes.

what do you think happens with the information each time it's gained?

 

[Ene]

I'll give some examples:

zoe saldana
summer glau
shirley manson

What would you type them as? They may or may not be 4's. I'm not focussing on their enneagrams.

I think they're probably INFJs.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

You should possibly consider the fact that there are a lot of fake "INFJs" running around. I'll bet money the second type of INFJ 4 you described are more likely the real INFJ 4s.

Have to agree. Although there are some wild child INFJs who talk to their cats about motorcycle sounds.

I've been on various MBTI forums for over a decade now, and pretty much everyone has an evil INFJ ex. I realize some people actually do, obviously, but the range of descriptions is amusing at times. I'm glad we can add motorcycle-luvin gymnastics to the description.

Let me try to summarize everything I've learned over the years: The INFJ is a narcissist who loves cats, never leaves the house, is a psychological amoeba with elephant skin, their feelings are a shadow of the real and are capable of levels of hatred only Hiltler could exemplify, they are unicorns and prudes, aggressive sluts and gymnasts who wear too much black eyeliner and are psychic, they are more abstract than any other, but they love motorcycles and rainy days, they have no regrets, doorslam all but a few, and most of all they are your X.

Did I miss anything people?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

what do you think happens with the information each time it's gained?

Place-holders and approximations. It is fluid. Archetypes can work as long as they are theoretical points towards which information can gather, much like moths to a light, but never fully approach. There is a continual dance between reality fitting theory, and theory adapting to fit reality.

 

[Azure Flame]

Have to agree. Although there are some wild child INFJs who talk to their cats about motorcycle sounds.

I've been on various MBTI forums for over a decade now, and pretty much everyone has an evil INFJ ex. I realize some people actually do, obviously, but the range of descriptions is amusing at times. I'm glad we can add motorcycle-luvin gymnastics to the description.

Let me try to summarize everything I've learned over the years: The INFJ is a narcissist who loves cats, never leaves the house, is a psychological amoeba with elephant skin, their feelings are a shadow of the real and are capable of levels of hatred only Hiltler could exemplify, they are unicorns and prudes, aggressive sluts and gymnasts who wear too much black eyeliner and are psychic, they are more abstract than any other, but they love motorcycles and rainy days, they have no regrets, doorslam all but a few, and most of all they are your X.

Did I miss anything people?

lol!

Also I'd like a link to where it says INFJ's are the most abstract personality.

I would put ENFP's in charge of that realm. I don't even feel like they're talking to me when they speak to me. I don't even think they exist on the same plane of existence as me.