RisaMoccasin
New member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 91
- Enneagram
- 4w3
- Instinctual Variant
- so/sx
Now I merely await more input and bump post because I don't want my topic to fall to the abyss.
XD
XD
-
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.
Confused.
- Thread starter RisaMoccasin
- Start date
reckful
New member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2013
- Messages
- 656
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5
[1 of 5]
The abyss! Oh noes!!!
I want to start this five-post series by saying thank you, RisaMoccasin, for being such a good specimen.
And by that I mean... I told you at the end of my first post that "I'm both an MBTI dweeb and a hardcore T, and I don't do long posts like this ... as selfless, other-oriented 'acts of service'." It's not that I don't get any gratification out of (potentially, at least) helping somebody learn more about the MBTI and/or what their type is. But I definitely wouldn't be participating in type-me threads if the cost/benefit analysis from my selfish perspective — in terms of my own interest in the MBTI and what I can potentially learn by trying to apply what I think I know to real-world subjects and gathering my thoughts in written form — didn't add up to a net positive for me.
And from that perspective, you're a great subject in at least two respects. First, I really think you're a "textbook INFJ" in many ways. In four years of participating in type-me threads (mostly at INTJforum), it's been my experience that, much more often than not, the people that both start type-me threads and end up providing lots of self-description are people whose type is close to the middle or otherwise ambiguous on at least one of the MBTI dimensions. And wrestling with that middleness can be worthwhile in some ways (and it tends to make for longer type-me threads), but it's certainly a pleasure to read about a relatively unambiguous type exemplar from time to time.
And second, you're also a great subject in terms of the sheer volume of very candid self-description you've provided in your four (so far...) type-me threads at TC. I hereby advise any fellow MBTI dweebs who may ever read this post and be interested in immersing themselves in a lengthy self-portrait by a well-defined (so it seems to me) Limbic INFJ that RisaMoccasin has spent many hours at her keyboard and has come through for you.
And I realize my INFJ conclusion is hardly a surprise. At the end of your last type-me thread (in February), you firmly declared:
But, as we all know, an INF's search for identity never really ends... so, after a while, you started having second thoughts... and somehow the ISFP possibility crept back into the picture...
But then you also conceded (earlier in this thread) that, when you read the most well-known profiles...
And then you specifically went through Keirsey's profiles of those three types and pasted the stuff you related to into the post, and it turned out you related to quite a lot of the INFP stuff (but I'd say it's pretty much all stuff that tends to fit INFPs and INFJs both), but that you related to more than twice as much of the INFJ stuff. And then you ended up pasting nothing from Keirsey's ISFP description and just noting, "I related to very little in this particular ISFP description, actually."
What follows are some more specific reactions to things you've posted in this and your three other type-me threads. As I've said (and as you know), you've posted a tremendous amount, so this is necessarily just a sample of the things that struck me as potentially relevant to your type. And, more specifically, I've pretty much ignored the stuff that mostly just speaks to your I and F preferences, since it sounds like you (understandably) don't really have any doubt about those two.
The abyss! Oh noes!!!
I want to start this five-post series by saying thank you, RisaMoccasin, for being such a good specimen.
And by that I mean... I told you at the end of my first post that "I'm both an MBTI dweeb and a hardcore T, and I don't do long posts like this ... as selfless, other-oriented 'acts of service'." It's not that I don't get any gratification out of (potentially, at least) helping somebody learn more about the MBTI and/or what their type is. But I definitely wouldn't be participating in type-me threads if the cost/benefit analysis from my selfish perspective — in terms of my own interest in the MBTI and what I can potentially learn by trying to apply what I think I know to real-world subjects and gathering my thoughts in written form — didn't add up to a net positive for me.
And from that perspective, you're a great subject in at least two respects. First, I really think you're a "textbook INFJ" in many ways. In four years of participating in type-me threads (mostly at INTJforum), it's been my experience that, much more often than not, the people that both start type-me threads and end up providing lots of self-description are people whose type is close to the middle or otherwise ambiguous on at least one of the MBTI dimensions. And wrestling with that middleness can be worthwhile in some ways (and it tends to make for longer type-me threads), but it's certainly a pleasure to read about a relatively unambiguous type exemplar from time to time.
And second, you're also a great subject in terms of the sheer volume of very candid self-description you've provided in your four (so far...
) type-me threads at TC. I hereby advise any fellow MBTI dweebs who may ever read this post and be interested in immersing themselves in a lengthy self-portrait by a well-defined (so it seems to me) Limbic INFJ that RisaMoccasin has spent many hours at her keyboard and has come through for you.And I realize my INFJ conclusion is hardly a surprise. At the end of your last type-me thread (in February), you firmly declared:
But, as we all know, an INF's search for identity never really ends... so, after a while, you started having second thoughts... and somehow the ISFP possibility crept back into the picture...
But then you also conceded (earlier in this thread) that, when you read the most well-known profiles...
And then you specifically went through Keirsey's profiles of those three types and pasted the stuff you related to into the post, and it turned out you related to quite a lot of the INFP stuff (but I'd say it's pretty much all stuff that tends to fit INFPs and INFJs both), but that you related to more than twice as much of the INFJ stuff. And then you ended up pasting nothing from Keirsey's ISFP description and just noting, "I related to very little in this particular ISFP description, actually."
What follows are some more specific reactions to things you've posted in this and your three other type-me threads. As I've said (and as you know), you've posted a tremendous amount, so this is necessarily just a sample of the things that struck me as potentially relevant to your type. And, more specifically, I've pretty much ignored the stuff that mostly just speaks to your I and F preferences, since it sounds like you (understandably) don't really have any doubt about those two.
reckful
New member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2013
- Messages
- 656
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5
[2 of 5]
Like your I and F preferences, I'd say there's also little doubt that you're Limbic — your most pronounced score on that Big Five test — and that that plays a significant role in terms of the emotional sensitivity, anxiety-proneness and short temper that you describe in posts like these:
Self-consciousness is also a characteristic associated with being Limbic. Here's you:
================================
On S/N, as [MENTION=16774]ScottJames[/MENTION] noted in one of your other threads, the fact that your boyfriend — who you describe as the one person who really "knows who you are" — is an N, combined with the fact that your other close friends are all N's, is definitely worth some N points.
In that same thread, you explained:
And, by contrast:
Of course, it's pretty standard for people to feel better understood by their closest friends than by one or both parents, but you seem to suggest (and understand) that your ESTJ mother is different from you in ways that partly reflect your very different MBTI types.
And it's worth noting that, more generally, I'd say the types most likely to feel majorly alienated from mainstream culture and most of their peers are the INs, and I think it's possible this has virtually always been the case. Jung was an IN (and Limbic, to boot), and he certainly felt alienated from the majority. As far as he was concerned, the ES's were clearly running the show (and running it badly) — and had been for many generations.
Here's another point you made about your interactions with S's:
Depending on how you spin it, and depending on the S, an S may well beg to differ when an N characterizes typical S conversations as shallow or superficial, but — however accurate or inaccurate or biased or whatever anybody might think such a characterization might be — there's really no question that, in any case, it's pretty common for N's to describe their interactions with S's (or at least some S's) in those kinds of terms. So, accuracy aside, the fact that this is how you're inclined to describe what happens "whenever I'm with S-users" is another pretty good indicator that you're an N.
In the spoiler is a slightly tweaked recycle of something I posted at another forum about INs. I really think we're your peeps.
Here's more of the voice of the alienated IN:
As part of your response to "Describe your relationship to socialization," you noted, "I've been made fun of and ridiculed for my more imaginative traits and my love of books and anime, etc." — and that's a much more common fate for an IN than for a more down-to-earth IS.
In your last type-me thread, you went through an Ni description and bolded the stuff that you related to. It included this:
As between a typical ISFJ and a typical INFJ, I'd say the INFJ is much more likely to strongly relate to being described as among "the most independent minded" people, and to say they "feel like aliens, as if they perceive a completely different reality from everyone else."
That sounds significantly more like an INF talking than an ISF talking.
And I'd say this next quote (from you), in particular, is quintessentially INF:
In four years of type-me exercises, I've found that it's especially common for INFs to have a streak that seems to draw them to society's misfits/outcasts/outsiders — including working with people with physical disabilities (e.g., the deaf community), in addition to people whose differences are more psychological.
================================
In the post where I put a lot of J/P input in the spoiler, I told you I'd be "curious to hear if, with respect to quite a few of the J/P aspects I describe, you not only see yourself as more on the J side but also see your INTP boyfriend as more on the P side." And you replied:
And it's true! (Well, at least the J part on your side. I don't know that much about your boyfriend.) Besides the fact that you came out J (with non-borderline scores) on both the official MBTI and that Big Five test, your posts have lots of typical J stuff, sometimes in fairly emphatic form. You describe your "obsessive punctuality," your obsession with your perfect (or, alas, occasionally only near-perfect) attendance records, and your tendency to "get anal [and] obsessive" and "exhibit almost OCD behavior" when you're making preparations for an important event.
You say:
You almost make me feel like a P by comparison!
In one of those "alienated-IN" things I already quoted, you noted how baffled you were that so many people didn't take life seriously, and that's a refrain that runs through a number of your posts and, as among the N types, I think of that as very characteristically INFJ.
As Lenore Thomson notes in Personality Type, J/P pairings are a familiar cultural theme. As between you and your INTP boyfriend, would you say you're the more serious one, while he's more on the playful/jokey side? You posted a video in your second type-me thread but have since taken it down, so I've never seen it. Would I be correct in guessing that you were pretty consistently earnest in that video? If your boyfriend made a similar kind of video, do you think it's likely he'd do more playful joking around in his than you did in yours?
And I'm certainly not meaning to suggest that INFJs don't often joke around, or that you don't often joke around. But I think it's fair to say that an INFJ doing something (or talking about something) that they view as a serious matter is substantially more likely to do it with a matching serious/earnest tone than an INFP with a significantly stronger gut tug in the playful direction.
Here's some more of you:
^ That's a more characteristic kind of error for an earnest INFJ to make than a more playful INFP.
You say you "need to work on" your humility, and I'd say there's no question that, as between INFJs and INFPs, the INFJs are more prone toward arrogance — although I'd also say that the average INFP isn't very likely to be modest the way an ISFP (who Myers characterized as the most modest of the types) is typically modest.
The personalitypage portrait notes that an INFJ's tendency to "trust their own instincts ... may result in an INFJ stubbornness and tendency to ignore other people's opinions. They believe that they're right." And you commented:
You've also noted...
... and the fact that you "finally become open to hearing other opinions" isn't a P indicator. Nobody (and especially none of the N types) is incapable of ever considering opposing opinions. Instead, the fact that your default mode is for your "judgments and opinions" to "start as very rigid, clear-lined and no-nonsense" is a pretty strong J indicator.
Having "stubborn" and/or "bossy" be on somebody's self-descriptive short list is definitely worth a couple J points. EJs are the bossiest types — one of the reasons ES_Js (especially) tend to get a lot of grief in which-type-drives-you-nuts threads — but, under the right circumstances, an IJ is significantly more likely than an IP to really get her boss on. And you've confessed:
Describing yourself as a child, you said:
I already (in my earlier J/P spoiler) told you I thought NJs were the types most likely to come across as know-it-alls. The combination here of you being "very obedient" (not to mention reminding others to follow the rules) and being better liked by the adults than your fellow kids because you were a "bossy know it all" pretty much screams J.
Here's another post worth a J point or two:
NPs, as you may know, are known for their tendency to like to "brainstorm" — i.e., to bounce new, half-formed, incompletely-thought-through ideas and opinions off others and use the resulting conversation as part of the process of figuring things out. But J's, as Myers noted, "aim to be right" — and NJs, as I already noted, have a tendency to come off as "know it alls," partly because, when they talk, they have something of a default tendency to state it with a "let me explain this to you" or "this is the way it is" tone, rather than the kind of "well, here's my view" or "what do you think of this" tone you'd be more likely to hear from an NP. I suspect you wouldn't feel so "insecure" about talking about your "opinions" on things before you've "completed them" if your default way of talking about them felt (and sounded) more tentative — making it less mortifying if one of your "opinions" turned out to need some adjustments.
That J/P spoiler of mine also noted that the association of J and P with order and chaos goes all the way back to Jung, who said P-doms "find fulfilment in ... the flux of events" and are "attuned to the absolutely contingent," while J-doms seek to "coerce the untidiness and fortuitousness of life into a definite pattern." Myers said J's like to "live according to plans, standards, and customs not easily or lightly set aside, to which the situation of the moment must, if possible, be made to conform," and "depend upon reasoned judgments ... to protect them from unnecessary or undesirable experiences"; while P's like to "live according to the situation of the moment, ... adjust themselves easily to the accidental and the unexpected," and "depend on their readiness for anything and everything to bring them a constant flow of new experience."
And here's you:
I'd say the "dangerous, great unknown" has a notable J flavor to it. It's what you might call the hobbits' attitude to the unfamiliar, right? The more adventurous P's are more likely to view the mystery of the "great unknown" as an enticing invitation to adventure, while the thought of having adventures in the great unknown is more likely to make a hobbit feel "sick and anxious and jumpy."
Like your I and F preferences, I'd say there's also little doubt that you're Limbic — your most pronounced score on that Big Five test — and that that plays a significant role in terms of the emotional sensitivity, anxiety-proneness and short temper that you describe in posts like these:
Self-consciousness is also a characteristic associated with being Limbic. Here's you:
================================
On S/N, as [MENTION=16774]ScottJames[/MENTION] noted in one of your other threads, the fact that your boyfriend — who you describe as the one person who really "knows who you are" — is an N, combined with the fact that your other close friends are all N's, is definitely worth some N points.
In that same thread, you explained:
And, by contrast:
Of course, it's pretty standard for people to feel better understood by their closest friends than by one or both parents, but you seem to suggest (and understand) that your ESTJ mother is different from you in ways that partly reflect your very different MBTI types.
And it's worth noting that, more generally, I'd say the types most likely to feel majorly alienated from mainstream culture and most of their peers are the INs, and I think it's possible this has virtually always been the case. Jung was an IN (and Limbic, to boot), and he certainly felt alienated from the majority. As far as he was concerned, the ES's were clearly running the show (and running it badly) — and had been for many generations.
Here's another point you made about your interactions with S's:
Depending on how you spin it, and depending on the S, an S may well beg to differ when an N characterizes typical S conversations as shallow or superficial, but — however accurate or inaccurate or biased or whatever anybody might think such a characterization might be — there's really no question that, in any case, it's pretty common for N's to describe their interactions with S's (or at least some S's) in those kinds of terms. So, accuracy aside, the fact that this is how you're inclined to describe what happens "whenever I'm with S-users" is another pretty good indicator that you're an N.
In the spoiler is a slightly tweaked recycle of something I posted at another forum about INs. I really think we're your peeps.
Here's more of the voice of the alienated IN:
As part of your response to "Describe your relationship to socialization," you noted, "I've been made fun of and ridiculed for my more imaginative traits and my love of books and anime, etc." — and that's a much more common fate for an IN than for a more down-to-earth IS.
In your last type-me thread, you went through an Ni description and bolded the stuff that you related to. It included this:
As between a typical ISFJ and a typical INFJ, I'd say the INFJ is much more likely to strongly relate to being described as among "the most independent minded" people, and to say they "feel like aliens, as if they perceive a completely different reality from everyone else."
That sounds significantly more like an INF talking than an ISF talking.
And I'd say this next quote (from you), in particular, is quintessentially INF:
In four years of type-me exercises, I've found that it's especially common for INFs to have a streak that seems to draw them to society's misfits/outcasts/outsiders — including working with people with physical disabilities (e.g., the deaf community), in addition to people whose differences are more psychological.
================================
In the post where I put a lot of J/P input in the spoiler, I told you I'd be "curious to hear if, with respect to quite a few of the J/P aspects I describe, you not only see yourself as more on the J side but also see your INTP boyfriend as more on the P side." And you replied:
And it's true! (Well, at least the J part on your side. I don't know that much about your boyfriend.) Besides the fact that you came out J (with non-borderline scores) on both the official MBTI and that Big Five test, your posts have lots of typical J stuff, sometimes in fairly emphatic form. You describe your "obsessive punctuality," your obsession with your perfect (or, alas, occasionally only near-perfect) attendance records, and your tendency to "get anal [and] obsessive" and "exhibit almost OCD behavior" when you're making preparations for an important event.
You say:
You almost make me feel like a P by comparison!
In one of those "alienated-IN" things I already quoted, you noted how baffled you were that so many people didn't take life seriously, and that's a refrain that runs through a number of your posts and, as among the N types, I think of that as very characteristically INFJ.
As Lenore Thomson notes in Personality Type, J/P pairings are a familiar cultural theme. As between you and your INTP boyfriend, would you say you're the more serious one, while he's more on the playful/jokey side? You posted a video in your second type-me thread but have since taken it down, so I've never seen it. Would I be correct in guessing that you were pretty consistently earnest in that video? If your boyfriend made a similar kind of video, do you think it's likely he'd do more playful joking around in his than you did in yours?
And I'm certainly not meaning to suggest that INFJs don't often joke around, or that you don't often joke around. But I think it's fair to say that an INFJ doing something (or talking about something) that they view as a serious matter is substantially more likely to do it with a matching serious/earnest tone than an INFP with a significantly stronger gut tug in the playful direction.
Here's some more of you:
^ That's a more characteristic kind of error for an earnest INFJ to make than a more playful INFP.
You say you "need to work on" your humility, and I'd say there's no question that, as between INFJs and INFPs, the INFJs are more prone toward arrogance — although I'd also say that the average INFP isn't very likely to be modest the way an ISFP (who Myers characterized as the most modest of the types) is typically modest.
The personalitypage portrait notes that an INFJ's tendency to "trust their own instincts ... may result in an INFJ stubbornness and tendency to ignore other people's opinions. They believe that they're right." And you commented:
You've also noted...
... and the fact that you "finally become open to hearing other opinions" isn't a P indicator. Nobody (and especially none of the N types) is incapable of ever considering opposing opinions. Instead, the fact that your default mode is for your "judgments and opinions" to "start as very rigid, clear-lined and no-nonsense" is a pretty strong J indicator.
Having "stubborn" and/or "bossy" be on somebody's self-descriptive short list is definitely worth a couple J points. EJs are the bossiest types — one of the reasons ES_Js (especially) tend to get a lot of grief in which-type-drives-you-nuts threads — but, under the right circumstances, an IJ is significantly more likely than an IP to really get her boss on. And you've confessed:
Describing yourself as a child, you said:
I already (in my earlier J/P spoiler) told you I thought NJs were the types most likely to come across as know-it-alls. The combination here of you being "very obedient" (not to mention reminding others to follow the rules) and being better liked by the adults than your fellow kids because you were a "bossy know it all" pretty much screams J.
Here's another post worth a J point or two:
NPs, as you may know, are known for their tendency to like to "brainstorm" — i.e., to bounce new, half-formed, incompletely-thought-through ideas and opinions off others and use the resulting conversation as part of the process of figuring things out. But J's, as Myers noted, "aim to be right" — and NJs, as I already noted, have a tendency to come off as "know it alls," partly because, when they talk, they have something of a default tendency to state it with a "let me explain this to you" or "this is the way it is" tone, rather than the kind of "well, here's my view" or "what do you think of this" tone you'd be more likely to hear from an NP. I suspect you wouldn't feel so "insecure" about talking about your "opinions" on things before you've "completed them" if your default way of talking about them felt (and sounded) more tentative — making it less mortifying if one of your "opinions" turned out to need some adjustments.
That J/P spoiler of mine also noted that the association of J and P with order and chaos goes all the way back to Jung, who said P-doms "find fulfilment in ... the flux of events" and are "attuned to the absolutely contingent," while J-doms seek to "coerce the untidiness and fortuitousness of life into a definite pattern." Myers said J's like to "live according to plans, standards, and customs not easily or lightly set aside, to which the situation of the moment must, if possible, be made to conform," and "depend upon reasoned judgments ... to protect them from unnecessary or undesirable experiences"; while P's like to "live according to the situation of the moment, ... adjust themselves easily to the accidental and the unexpected," and "depend on their readiness for anything and everything to bring them a constant flow of new experience."
And here's you:
I'd say the "dangerous, great unknown" has a notable J flavor to it. It's what you might call the hobbits' attitude to the unfamiliar, right? The more adventurous P's are more likely to view the mystery of the "great unknown" as an enticing invitation to adventure, while the thought of having adventures in the great unknown is more likely to make a hobbit feel "sick and anxious and jumpy."
reckful
New member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2013
- Messages
- 656
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5
[3 of 5]
Before I get back to quoting, one thing worth emphasizing is that the simple fact that you're at a personality-themed forum and obsessed (let's face it, eh?) with figuring out your "personality type" is a pretty strong INF-over-ISF indicator all by itself. At PersonalityCafe, the membership is 86% N and, as previously noted, if you look at this post, you'll see a roundup of type percentages for TypologyCentral's members which include:
INFP 17
INFJ 16
ISFP 3
ISFJ 1
My RL experience has been that the S's in my life who I talk to about the MBTI are rarely interested in the subject of "personality types" and, from what I read, that experience is typical of everyone from fellow MBTI dweebs to professional typing practitioners.
You've waffled between Enneagram 4w5 and 4w3 but said you're pretty sure about the 4 — "I just feel a 'calling' to type 4. It seems like it just IS me, despite how well others may fit." — and, as you know, a core interest in identity/personality really goes to the heart of Enneagram 4. And choosing Enneagram 4 is the most common for MBTI INFs, and a lot less common for ISFs — and that's especially true if you don't count the E4 "ISFs" you sometimes encounter on internet forums who admit that they're N's rather than S's if they go by typical MBTI descriptions of the S/N dichotomy.
An interest in psychological matters of all kinds is much more characterisic of N's than S's, and is most characteristic of NF's. And besides your interest in self-discovery, you've also posted about your core drive to help people in terms of a counseling role, and your possible interest in psychology as a career.
Appendix D to the Second Edition of the MBTI Manual includes lists of occupations "empirically attractive ... to the sixteen types," based on the CAPT MBTI data bank, and I've put the top 30 occupational categories for NFs, SFs, INFJs and ISFJs in the spoiler and bolded the entries that involve a significant psychological, social science or counseling component. (And while I was at it, I italicized the entries that involve writing or the arts.)
And hand in hand with your drive to understand others and yourself, you also feel a strong desire to be understood by others, and a tendency to feel wounded when you're misunderstood — another characteristic that it's fair to call NF-ish, but that I think you're more likely to find in its more intense forms in INFs (and Enneagram 4's).
Here's you:
Your last type-me thread included a questionnaire post where one of the questions said, "Please describe yourself as a person if you were to introduce yourself to someone else like in a cover letter.," And these were the first two sentences of your letter:
And as far as the arts go... One of the Polly-thread posts I already linked you to talks about the strong correlation between a core interest in being a creative artist (and maybe especially a verbal artist) and an N preference (and especially the NF combination); and I italicized the art-related occupations in those CAPT database lists above to make it easy to see the relatively stark difference between NFs and SFs (and INFJs and ISFJs) in that regard.
So, needless to say, if you ask somebody what their main interests are and they tell you they love psychology and the arts, the odds that you're dealing with an NF (and especially an INF) are high. Here's you:
Is it impossible that an ISF would have written three novels by age 15? No, but it's much more characteristic of an INF.
================================
In one of your other type-me threads, you quoted personalitypage's comment that INFJs "are very sensitive to conflict, and cannot tolerate it very well. ... They may tend to internalize conflict into their bodies, and experience health problems when under a lot of stress." Kroeger & Thuesen say that "the biggest bane of the INFJ's work is conflict and tense interpersonal relationships." Keirsey notes that INFJs "find conflict disagreeable and destructive," and also says they're "crushed by too much criticism and can have their feelings hurt rather easily. ... If they are subject to a hostile, unfriendly working condition or to constant criticism, they tend to lose confidence, become unhappy and immobilized, and finally become physically ill."
[MENTION=16774]ScottJames[/MENTION] has told you:
As you know, I'm not big on the Fe/Fi "functions" framing, but I think there's something to the idea that, although INFs of both kinds would much prefer harmony, as between INFPs and INFJs, and all other things being equal, the INFJ is the one more likely to be strongly uncomfortable with conflict and/or a me-against-the-world kind of defiance — none of which means that an INFJ can't be a passionate (not to mention ill-tempered) proponent of a value she feels strongly about in the face of something she finds unacceptably wrong.
One of the first things you said in your first type-me thread was:
And you've also noted:
================================
Although any type can be religious, some types are more likely to be religious than others, and I'd say there are also significant differences among the types in terms of the kinds of religious beliefs and attitudes they're likely to exhibit. As you undoubtedly know, although a large majority of Americans will tell a pollster that they're "religious" to one degree or other, the subset of people for whom religion really plays a large role in terms of their sense of who they are and the values they live by is a considerably smaller group, and your post puts your faith near the top of your "most important values" list.
The statistics in the MBTI Manual suggest that the MBTI preference with the strongest correlation with religion (both religious interests and religious occupations) is F. And if you look at just religious occupations, there's also a pretty strong J correlation, and a milder N correlation.
So, overall, an NFJ is arguably the most likely candidate to view their religious beliefs as a core element of their lives. I think NTs are arguably the most likely MBTI sub-group to be atheists or agnostics, and the results of MBTI/religion threads at INTJforum certainly seem consistent with that idea. I think it's fair to say that the majority view among MBTI theorists is that NTs are the types least likely to accept any "truth" on the basis of some "authority," and that's just one of the reasons I'd expect NTs — especially in any society where there's any significant cultural pressure to be religious — to be the most likely to be unapologetically non-religious. And my sense is that NTs are probably also the types who, if they are religious, are least likely to end up with a firm, committed devotion to one particular organized religion — as opposed to a more general/amorphous/spiritual kind of religious philosophy.
And I'd say an INFP is significantly more likely than an INT to be religious, but also that, all other things being equal, an INFP's spirituality (like an INT's) is less likely than an INFJ's to involve subscribing to one particular organized religion. (As I discuss in one of those posts I linked you to in Polly's type-me thread, I think NFPs are the types most likely to subscribe to new-agey spiritual beliefs.) That list of the top 30 occupational categories for INFJs had four religious entries — and they included Nos. 1 and 3, and all four were in the top 12. By contrast, the INFPs' top 30 only has one religious entry ("Religion: Educator, all denominations"), at No. 7. The broad category of "RELIGIOUS WORKERS, ALL DENOMINATIONS" is No. 12 on the INFJ list and No. 90 on the INFP list. So INFPs are slightly more likely than the average type to have religious occupations, but INFJs are the quintessential religious workers. (ENFJs are the runners-up.)
So... to the extent that you view your religion as a core aspect of who you are and/or what your values are, I'd say that's first and foremost worth some F points but secondarily worth a J point; and, to the extent that your religious beliefs involve subscribing relatively straightforwardly to a particular organized religion (by which I don't mean agreeing with that church's position on every issue), I'd view that as worth another point on the INFJ-over-INFP side.
And I'd say the chastity thing is also worth a J point or two. If it has its roots in your religion — well, as I said (and as you know), a pretty large percentage of people who'll tell a pollster they're "religious" are also people who really wouldn't be inclined to look to their religion for guidance on their sex lives. And regardless of whether it's partly religion-based or not, I think it's also fair to say that, when it comes to the likelihood that someone will be relatively open to the idea of sex outside the context of a permanent, committed relationship, the average INFP is significantly more likely to be sexually free (or even what someone might call adventurous) than the average INFJ — and, in fact, I'd say NFPs are probably the types best characterized as quintessentially "bohemian" in their cultural attitudes and lifestyles.
And it's also worth noting that the effect of probabilities is often substantially more dramatic at the ends of the scale than near the middle. As one example: as I understand it, the chess-playing ability of the average woman is not dramatically different than the chess-playing ability of the average man — but if you look at the end-of-the-spectrum subgroup of chess grand masters, it's a group that's very heavily male-dominated. Similarly, as I understand it, the IQ of the average N is not all that much higher than the IQ of the average S — but if you look at the end-of-the-spectrum subgroup of people with genius IQs, you're talking about a very N-dominated group.
So, although there's no question that any particular INFJ or INFP might be either above or below average in terms of the liberalness of their attitudes toward sex outside some kind of committed relationship, the fact that your attitude — chastity until marriage — puts you in a small minority near the end of the spectrum is unquestionably worth more J points than if your attitude was more conservative than average but substantially closer to the middle of the spectrum.
Of course, someone trying to make the case that you were an ISFJ could certainly assert that an SJ was (at least arguably) the most likely type to wear a chastity ring, and I wouldn't disagree with that — but, just as the J/P difference makes an SJ more likely to take a vow of chastity than an SP, I'd argue that an NJ is also significantly more likely to be found wearing a chastity ring than an NP.
Before I get back to quoting, one thing worth emphasizing is that the simple fact that you're at a personality-themed forum and obsessed (let's face it, eh?) with figuring out your "personality type" is a pretty strong INF-over-ISF indicator all by itself. At PersonalityCafe, the membership is 86% N and, as previously noted, if you look at this post, you'll see a roundup of type percentages for TypologyCentral's members which include:
INFP 17
INFJ 16
ISFP 3
ISFJ 1
My RL experience has been that the S's in my life who I talk to about the MBTI are rarely interested in the subject of "personality types" and, from what I read, that experience is typical of everyone from fellow MBTI dweebs to professional typing practitioners.
You've waffled between Enneagram 4w5 and 4w3 but said you're pretty sure about the 4 — "I just feel a 'calling' to type 4. It seems like it just IS me, despite how well others may fit." — and, as you know, a core interest in identity/personality really goes to the heart of Enneagram 4. And choosing Enneagram 4 is the most common for MBTI INFs, and a lot less common for ISFs — and that's especially true if you don't count the E4 "ISFs" you sometimes encounter on internet forums who admit that they're N's rather than S's if they go by typical MBTI descriptions of the S/N dichotomy.
An interest in psychological matters of all kinds is much more characterisic of N's than S's, and is most characteristic of NF's. And besides your interest in self-discovery, you've also posted about your core drive to help people in terms of a counseling role, and your possible interest in psychology as a career.
Appendix D to the Second Edition of the MBTI Manual includes lists of occupations "empirically attractive ... to the sixteen types," based on the CAPT MBTI data bank, and I've put the top 30 occupational categories for NFs, SFs, INFJs and ISFJs in the spoiler and bolded the entries that involve a significant psychological, social science or counseling component. (And while I was at it, I italicized the entries that involve writing or the arts.)
And hand in hand with your drive to understand others and yourself, you also feel a strong desire to be understood by others, and a tendency to feel wounded when you're misunderstood — another characteristic that it's fair to call NF-ish, but that I think you're more likely to find in its more intense forms in INFs (and Enneagram 4's).
Here's you:
Your last type-me thread included a questionnaire post where one of the questions said, "Please describe yourself as a person if you were to introduce yourself to someone else like in a cover letter.," And these were the first two sentences of your letter:
And as far as the arts go... One of the Polly-thread posts I already linked you to talks about the strong correlation between a core interest in being a creative artist (and maybe especially a verbal artist) and an N preference (and especially the NF combination); and I italicized the art-related occupations in those CAPT database lists above to make it easy to see the relatively stark difference between NFs and SFs (and INFJs and ISFJs) in that regard.
So, needless to say, if you ask somebody what their main interests are and they tell you they love psychology and the arts, the odds that you're dealing with an NF (and especially an INF) are high. Here's you:
Is it impossible that an ISF would have written three novels by age 15? No, but it's much more characteristic of an INF.
================================
In one of your other type-me threads, you quoted personalitypage's comment that INFJs "are very sensitive to conflict, and cannot tolerate it very well. ... They may tend to internalize conflict into their bodies, and experience health problems when under a lot of stress." Kroeger & Thuesen say that "the biggest bane of the INFJ's work is conflict and tense interpersonal relationships." Keirsey notes that INFJs "find conflict disagreeable and destructive," and also says they're "crushed by too much criticism and can have their feelings hurt rather easily. ... If they are subject to a hostile, unfriendly working condition or to constant criticism, they tend to lose confidence, become unhappy and immobilized, and finally become physically ill."
[MENTION=16774]ScottJames[/MENTION] has told you:
As you know, I'm not big on the Fe/Fi "functions" framing, but I think there's something to the idea that, although INFs of both kinds would much prefer harmony, as between INFPs and INFJs, and all other things being equal, the INFJ is the one more likely to be strongly uncomfortable with conflict and/or a me-against-the-world kind of defiance — none of which means that an INFJ can't be a passionate (not to mention ill-tempered) proponent of a value she feels strongly about in the face of something she finds unacceptably wrong.
One of the first things you said in your first type-me thread was:
And you've also noted:
================================
Although any type can be religious, some types are more likely to be religious than others, and I'd say there are also significant differences among the types in terms of the kinds of religious beliefs and attitudes they're likely to exhibit. As you undoubtedly know, although a large majority of Americans will tell a pollster that they're "religious" to one degree or other, the subset of people for whom religion really plays a large role in terms of their sense of who they are and the values they live by is a considerably smaller group, and your post puts your faith near the top of your "most important values" list.
The statistics in the MBTI Manual suggest that the MBTI preference with the strongest correlation with religion (both religious interests and religious occupations) is F. And if you look at just religious occupations, there's also a pretty strong J correlation, and a milder N correlation.
So, overall, an NFJ is arguably the most likely candidate to view their religious beliefs as a core element of their lives. I think NTs are arguably the most likely MBTI sub-group to be atheists or agnostics, and the results of MBTI/religion threads at INTJforum certainly seem consistent with that idea. I think it's fair to say that the majority view among MBTI theorists is that NTs are the types least likely to accept any "truth" on the basis of some "authority," and that's just one of the reasons I'd expect NTs — especially in any society where there's any significant cultural pressure to be religious — to be the most likely to be unapologetically non-religious. And my sense is that NTs are probably also the types who, if they are religious, are least likely to end up with a firm, committed devotion to one particular organized religion — as opposed to a more general/amorphous/spiritual kind of religious philosophy.
And I'd say an INFP is significantly more likely than an INT to be religious, but also that, all other things being equal, an INFP's spirituality (like an INT's) is less likely than an INFJ's to involve subscribing to one particular organized religion. (As I discuss in one of those posts I linked you to in Polly's type-me thread, I think NFPs are the types most likely to subscribe to new-agey spiritual beliefs.) That list of the top 30 occupational categories for INFJs had four religious entries — and they included Nos. 1 and 3, and all four were in the top 12. By contrast, the INFPs' top 30 only has one religious entry ("Religion: Educator, all denominations"), at No. 7. The broad category of "RELIGIOUS WORKERS, ALL DENOMINATIONS" is No. 12 on the INFJ list and No. 90 on the INFP list. So INFPs are slightly more likely than the average type to have religious occupations, but INFJs are the quintessential religious workers. (ENFJs are the runners-up.)
So... to the extent that you view your religion as a core aspect of who you are and/or what your values are, I'd say that's first and foremost worth some F points but secondarily worth a J point; and, to the extent that your religious beliefs involve subscribing relatively straightforwardly to a particular organized religion (by which I don't mean agreeing with that church's position on every issue), I'd view that as worth another point on the INFJ-over-INFP side.
And I'd say the chastity thing is also worth a J point or two. If it has its roots in your religion — well, as I said (and as you know), a pretty large percentage of people who'll tell a pollster they're "religious" are also people who really wouldn't be inclined to look to their religion for guidance on their sex lives. And regardless of whether it's partly religion-based or not, I think it's also fair to say that, when it comes to the likelihood that someone will be relatively open to the idea of sex outside the context of a permanent, committed relationship, the average INFP is significantly more likely to be sexually free (or even what someone might call adventurous) than the average INFJ — and, in fact, I'd say NFPs are probably the types best characterized as quintessentially "bohemian" in their cultural attitudes and lifestyles.
And it's also worth noting that the effect of probabilities is often substantially more dramatic at the ends of the scale than near the middle. As one example: as I understand it, the chess-playing ability of the average woman is not dramatically different than the chess-playing ability of the average man — but if you look at the end-of-the-spectrum subgroup of chess grand masters, it's a group that's very heavily male-dominated. Similarly, as I understand it, the IQ of the average N is not all that much higher than the IQ of the average S — but if you look at the end-of-the-spectrum subgroup of people with genius IQs, you're talking about a very N-dominated group.
So, although there's no question that any particular INFJ or INFP might be either above or below average in terms of the liberalness of their attitudes toward sex outside some kind of committed relationship, the fact that your attitude — chastity until marriage — puts you in a small minority near the end of the spectrum is unquestionably worth more J points than if your attitude was more conservative than average but substantially closer to the middle of the spectrum.
Of course, someone trying to make the case that you were an ISFJ could certainly assert that an SJ was (at least arguably) the most likely type to wear a chastity ring, and I wouldn't disagree with that — but, just as the J/P difference makes an SJ more likely to take a vow of chastity than an SP, I'd argue that an NJ is also significantly more likely to be found wearing a chastity ring than an NP.
reckful
New member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2013
- Messages
- 656
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5
[4 of 5]
Your core drive to "help others" runs through many of your posts. Besides the one I just quoted (at the end of the last post), here are a few more:
As I understand it, when it comes to the service-to-others side of things, the average INFJ is liable to have a somewhat stronger streak along those lines than the average INFP, and that's consistent with the fact that INFJ is the N type closest to ISFJ, and that ISFJ is the type typically said to have the strongest service-to-others streak — to the point, not uncommonly, of being nice-to-a-fault and letting others take advantage of their good nature.
As already noted (by way of MBTI career statistics), careers involving counseling — either as psychologists or clergy — are quintessential NF choices, so I'd say your psychologist/counselor streak is best viewed as, first and foremost, a pretty strong NF indicator. But, that said, I also think that the emphasis that you place, in so many of your posts, on your very strong — and somewhat self-sacrificing — core drive to help others vibes significantly more INFJ than INFP.
Keirsey notes that INFJs have an "unusually strong drive to contribute to the welfare of others and genuinely enjoy helping their fellow men," and that they "often ... opt for occupations which involve interacting with people, but on a one to one basis. For example, the general practitioner in medicine might be an INFJ, or the psychiatrist or psychologist. As with all NF's, the ministry holds attraction, although the INFJ must develop an extraverted role here which requires a great deal of energy." He further notes that "INFJs make outstanding individual therapists ... [and] may choose counseling, clinical psychology, or psychiatry, or may choose to teach in these fields. ... Whatever their choice, they generally are successful in these fields because their great personal warmth, their enthusiasm, their insight, their depth of concentrations, their originality, and their organizational skills can all be brought into play."
Hirsh and Kummerow explain: "INFJs prefer occupations that focus on the big picture ... and lead to a better understanding of the spiritual, emotional, or future needs of people. They want their work to have impact and meaning and for it to bring them admiration and respect. ¶ While INFJs can and do enter all occupations, some are more appealing to them than others. These include clergy, education consultant, English teacher, fine arts teacher, librarian, psychiatrist, psychologist, scientist, social worker, and other occupations that allow INFJs an opportunity to make their own creative contribution."
Here's the opening paragraph of Berens and Nardi's INFJ portrait: "For [INFJs,] life is a process of never-ending personal growth, their own and others'. If something does not produce personal growth, then it is not truly worthwhile. If it does, then it is indeed worth all the effort it takes to make that growth happen. They enjoy problem solving in ways that sustain the vision they have of what can be and who we can become. They devote their lives to honoring the gifts of others, helping them to see what those gifts are and to find a way to develop those gifts."
================================
The MBTI Manual says INFJs "have a gift for intuitively understanding ... human relationships. They have faith in their insights and find that they often empathically understand the feelings and motivations of people before the others themselves are aware of them."
Keirsey says INFJs "have strong empathic abilities and can be aware of another's emotions or intents even before that person is conscious of these. This can take the form of feeling the distress of illnesses of others to an extent which is difficult for other types. INFJs can intuit good and evil in others, although they seldom can tell how they came to know. Subsequent events tend to bear them out, however."
Berens & Nardi's "Snapshot" of INFJs says they "use their insights to deal with complexity in issues and people, often with a strong sense of 'knowing' before others know themselves."
And you've said:
On the loving people and hating people thing... I think I've done more MBTI forum posts (mostly at INTJforum) about T/F than about any other subject, and one of the things I've posted about is the tendency of F's to be "people raters" — and, perhaps, for FJs to be the consummate producers of negative ratings — and I've put a tweaked version of part of one of my old posts in the next spoiler.
Anyway, as a final note on the love/hate side of things, I couldn't help chuckling when I noted that one of the posts in your last type-me thread found you describing your passionate sense of loyalty to a good friend like this...
...while also explaining...
Multiple internet forum encounters have led me to think of a special love for movies like Braveheart as a quintessential NFJ thing. Here's part of a post I made in a male INFJ's type-me thread (at INTJforum) a few months ago:
In one of your other type-me threads, you did a long post where you described what you called "Inner Me" — and here are the first six sentences of your description:
And I've already quoted your description of the special fondness you tend to have for people who the majority considers "weird" or "strange."
================================
Here's another decent INFJ indicator, IMHO:
I've already talked about the tendency of INs to feel alienated from, and somewhat define themselves in opposition to, ES mainstream culture, and it's typical for all four of the IN types, when they're in high school, to chafe at the SJ authority figures they often encounter among their teachers and the school administrators — although, unlike the SPs, who have their own kinds of authority problems and are the most likely dropouts, INs tend to be good students. As among the four IN types, though, I don't think there's any question that the INFJs are the most naturally respectful — and the least inclined to be punkish/rebellious. Your statement that authority figures "should be respected even if you don't particularly like or agree with them" is something you're significantly less likely to hear from an INFP than from an INFJ.
Here you are again:
That sounds like a classic INFJ/INFP clash to me, so I'm not surprised to hear you say "she believes she's an INFJ" — assuming you were meaning to imply some skepticism on your part. And, I mean, it could be an SJ/INFP clash, too, but, if you were an SJ, it would be substantially less likely that this compulsive rebel with "a complete lack of respect for authority" would be one of your friends. If I assume you're an N (and I do), this sounds like INFJ vs. INFP to me — and you may recall that, in one of those Polly-thread posts I previously linked you to, I noted: "If there's a single type most known for a propensity to cultivate their own eccentricities and strongly define themselves in terms of all the ways they're different from the mainstream, it's the INFP. ... ENFPs definitely want to be authentic (like INFPs) but, all other things being equal, they'll be less inclined to seize on and emphasize stuff that seems particularly likely to rub lots of other people the wrong way."
I'd say having "purity," "protection" and "safety" be three of the words on your seven-word short list of values has more of an INFJ flavor than an INFP flavor.
I don't know that I'd say that "really manipulative" is a good way to describe an average INFJ but, as among the INs, I'd say an INFJ is significantly more likely to fit that description than an INFP or either of the INTs. INFJs are definitely the IN types most likely to be found in what you might call people management mode.
In your last type-me thread, you went through an Ni description and bolded the stuff that you related to. It included this:
I'd say a lot of that Ni description you went through would be likely to appeal to the majority of N's (and especially INs), but this bit about a focused vision of a future goal and a rigorous drive to turn it into reality vibes somewhat more IN_J than IN_P.
================================
I'm not a functions fan, as you know, and I've posted at some length about how people's function scores on Nardi's keys2cognition test quite typically fail to match the most popular cognitive functions model that says, e.g., INFJ=Ni-Fe-Ti-Se. But I've seen lots of people's results on that test, and I think it's worth noting that, when you took it, Fi and Fe were your highest two scores, and both were very high:
It's been my experience that all four IN types tend to relate well to the Fi items on that test, and to get fairly high Fi scores (and higher Fi scores than Fe scores) regardless of whether they're supposedly "Fi types" or "Fe types" according to the popular functions model. But it's also very typical for the IN types to get relatively low Fe scores on that test, with the notable exception of INFJs. So, in other words, despite what the model may say about INFPs being Fi types and INFJs being Fe types, your high Fi score on that particular test doesn't particularly favor INFP over INFJ, while your high Fe score is significantly more characteristic of INFJs (on that test) than INFPs.
Your core drive to "help others" runs through many of your posts. Besides the one I just quoted (at the end of the last post), here are a few more:
As I understand it, when it comes to the service-to-others side of things, the average INFJ is liable to have a somewhat stronger streak along those lines than the average INFP, and that's consistent with the fact that INFJ is the N type closest to ISFJ, and that ISFJ is the type typically said to have the strongest service-to-others streak — to the point, not uncommonly, of being nice-to-a-fault and letting others take advantage of their good nature.
As already noted (by way of MBTI career statistics), careers involving counseling — either as psychologists or clergy — are quintessential NF choices, so I'd say your psychologist/counselor streak is best viewed as, first and foremost, a pretty strong NF indicator. But, that said, I also think that the emphasis that you place, in so many of your posts, on your very strong — and somewhat self-sacrificing — core drive to help others vibes significantly more INFJ than INFP.
Keirsey notes that INFJs have an "unusually strong drive to contribute to the welfare of others and genuinely enjoy helping their fellow men," and that they "often ... opt for occupations which involve interacting with people, but on a one to one basis. For example, the general practitioner in medicine might be an INFJ, or the psychiatrist or psychologist. As with all NF's, the ministry holds attraction, although the INFJ must develop an extraverted role here which requires a great deal of energy." He further notes that "INFJs make outstanding individual therapists ... [and] may choose counseling, clinical psychology, or psychiatry, or may choose to teach in these fields. ... Whatever their choice, they generally are successful in these fields because their great personal warmth, their enthusiasm, their insight, their depth of concentrations, their originality, and their organizational skills can all be brought into play."
Hirsh and Kummerow explain: "INFJs prefer occupations that focus on the big picture ... and lead to a better understanding of the spiritual, emotional, or future needs of people. They want their work to have impact and meaning and for it to bring them admiration and respect. ¶ While INFJs can and do enter all occupations, some are more appealing to them than others. These include clergy, education consultant, English teacher, fine arts teacher, librarian, psychiatrist, psychologist, scientist, social worker, and other occupations that allow INFJs an opportunity to make their own creative contribution."
Here's the opening paragraph of Berens and Nardi's INFJ portrait: "For [INFJs,] life is a process of never-ending personal growth, their own and others'. If something does not produce personal growth, then it is not truly worthwhile. If it does, then it is indeed worth all the effort it takes to make that growth happen. They enjoy problem solving in ways that sustain the vision they have of what can be and who we can become. They devote their lives to honoring the gifts of others, helping them to see what those gifts are and to find a way to develop those gifts."
================================
The MBTI Manual says INFJs "have a gift for intuitively understanding ... human relationships. They have faith in their insights and find that they often empathically understand the feelings and motivations of people before the others themselves are aware of them."
Keirsey says INFJs "have strong empathic abilities and can be aware of another's emotions or intents even before that person is conscious of these. This can take the form of feeling the distress of illnesses of others to an extent which is difficult for other types. INFJs can intuit good and evil in others, although they seldom can tell how they came to know. Subsequent events tend to bear them out, however."
Berens & Nardi's "Snapshot" of INFJs says they "use their insights to deal with complexity in issues and people, often with a strong sense of 'knowing' before others know themselves."
And you've said:
On the loving people and hating people thing... I think I've done more MBTI forum posts (mostly at INTJforum) about T/F than about any other subject, and one of the things I've posted about is the tendency of F's to be "people raters" — and, perhaps, for FJs to be the consummate producers of negative ratings — and I've put a tweaked version of part of one of my old posts in the next spoiler.
Anyway, as a final note on the love/hate side of things, I couldn't help chuckling when I noted that one of the posts in your last type-me thread found you describing your passionate sense of loyalty to a good friend like this...
...while also explaining...
Multiple internet forum encounters have led me to think of a special love for movies like Braveheart as a quintessential NFJ thing. Here's part of a post I made in a male INFJ's type-me thread (at INTJforum) a few months ago:
reckful said:
In one of your other type-me threads, you did a long post where you described what you called "Inner Me" — and here are the first six sentences of your description:
And I've already quoted your description of the special fondness you tend to have for people who the majority considers "weird" or "strange."
================================
Here's another decent INFJ indicator, IMHO:
I've already talked about the tendency of INs to feel alienated from, and somewhat define themselves in opposition to, ES mainstream culture, and it's typical for all four of the IN types, when they're in high school, to chafe at the SJ authority figures they often encounter among their teachers and the school administrators — although, unlike the SPs, who have their own kinds of authority problems and are the most likely dropouts, INs tend to be good students. As among the four IN types, though, I don't think there's any question that the INFJs are the most naturally respectful — and the least inclined to be punkish/rebellious. Your statement that authority figures "should be respected even if you don't particularly like or agree with them" is something you're significantly less likely to hear from an INFP than from an INFJ.
Here you are again:
That sounds like a classic INFJ/INFP clash to me, so I'm not surprised to hear you say "she believes she's an INFJ" — assuming you were meaning to imply some skepticism on your part. And, I mean, it could be an SJ/INFP clash, too, but, if you were an SJ, it would be substantially less likely that this compulsive rebel with "a complete lack of respect for authority" would be one of your friends. If I assume you're an N (and I do), this sounds like INFJ vs. INFP to me — and you may recall that, in one of those Polly-thread posts I previously linked you to, I noted: "If there's a single type most known for a propensity to cultivate their own eccentricities and strongly define themselves in terms of all the ways they're different from the mainstream, it's the INFP. ... ENFPs definitely want to be authentic (like INFPs) but, all other things being equal, they'll be less inclined to seize on and emphasize stuff that seems particularly likely to rub lots of other people the wrong way."
I'd say having "purity," "protection" and "safety" be three of the words on your seven-word short list of values has more of an INFJ flavor than an INFP flavor.
I don't know that I'd say that "really manipulative" is a good way to describe an average INFJ but, as among the INs, I'd say an INFJ is significantly more likely to fit that description than an INFP or either of the INTs. INFJs are definitely the IN types most likely to be found in what you might call people management mode.
In your last type-me thread, you went through an Ni description and bolded the stuff that you related to. It included this:
I'd say a lot of that Ni description you went through would be likely to appeal to the majority of N's (and especially INs), but this bit about a focused vision of a future goal and a rigorous drive to turn it into reality vibes somewhat more IN_J than IN_P.
================================
I'm not a functions fan, as you know, and I've posted at some length about how people's function scores on Nardi's keys2cognition test quite typically fail to match the most popular cognitive functions model that says, e.g., INFJ=Ni-Fe-Ti-Se. But I've seen lots of people's results on that test, and I think it's worth noting that, when you took it, Fi and Fe were your highest two scores, and both were very high:
It's been my experience that all four IN types tend to relate well to the Fi items on that test, and to get fairly high Fi scores (and higher Fi scores than Fe scores) regardless of whether they're supposedly "Fi types" or "Fe types" according to the popular functions model. But it's also very typical for the IN types to get relatively low Fe scores on that test, with the notable exception of INFJs. So, in other words, despite what the model may say about INFPs being Fi types and INFJs being Fe types, your high Fi score on that particular test doesn't particularly favor INFP over INFJ, while your high Fe score is significantly more characteristic of INFJs (on that test) than INFPs.
Last edited:
RisaMoccasin
New member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 91
- Enneagram
- 4w3
- Instinctual Variant
- so/sx
Well I would say that's that. XD
(Also, funny you pointed out how I said my friend 'thinks she's an INFJ', because that exact friend I believe I've referred to in here? She's my INFP best friend. She finally dismissed MBTI as a 'box', and I started calling her an INFP because there's no way she isn't. XD)
I do have a question merely out of learning purposes. Is it common for INFJs to be charged by other people if those people are the kind of people they like to talk to?
For example, I went to a thing for writers a few days ago where we all wrote and talked about our novels while we were there, and this guy sitting across from me at my table was really interesting. Didn't talk to him for long enough to get a secure hold on his type, but he seemed like an ENFx, at the very least an EN. He had a lot of really interesting viewpoints and he told me he's in college for psychology, gender studies, other things along those lines. When he left I felt really energized because I had had such a good, in depth discussion with him.
Because of the situation, I would say it's more of just an NF getting a glimpse at rare like-minded people than an extrovert, right?
reckful
New member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2013
- Messages
- 656
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5
Neither Jung nor Myers framed E/I in terms of whether social interaction "charged" or "drained" someone. As a strong (and Limbic) introvert, I definitely agree with the idea that, all other things being equal, an introvert will generally get "drained" by social interaction in a way that extraverts don't — and it's more likely to happen the more people are involved, the more unfamiliar the people are, and the more pressure the introvert feels to make a good impression or engage in uncomfortable self-disclosures (among other possible exacerbating factors).
But it's also utterly characteristic of an INF to be jazzed by a deep/meaningful one-on-one conversation on a subject that the INF is interested in — which is not to say that, if the conversation had continued for, say, a couple hours, you might not have experienced a kind of low-batteries feeling (and an urge for "alone time") that an extravert wouldn't have.
Similar threads
