As a side note, and as I've
previously noted, Jung generally associated the personality characteristics that get somebody typed P on the MBTI with P-doms, not J-doms. So Jung's Fi-dom description should really be matched to an INFJ (Jungian stack: Fi-Ni-Se-Te), not an INFP (Jungian stack: Ni-Fi-Te-Se).
I disagree, because MBTI is going by the extroverted function when it determines "P" or "J", which are just shorthand for a whole mentality. Ji and Je in Jung's theory are quite different, as are Pe & Pi. They have opposite attitudes. He notes how they have to basically suppress the other, ie. to be a Pi-dom, you are rejecting Pe in a sense (more specifically, a Ni-dom rejects Se, but of course the suppression of it still "comes out", in a rudimentary, negative form).
IMO, the MBTI "P" characteristics are a result of the Pe+Ji mentality, and the "J" characteristics are a result of the Je+Pi mentality, and so Pi often has as much influence in "J traits" as Je does.
Socionics makes the mistake of thinking that Ji and Je are the same if they have the same function (ie. feeling or thinking), just whether the person is an introvert or extrovert. So it makes Fi sound like Fe-aux in an IxFJ, which is why the types don't match up to MBTI neatly. They change the whole dynamic of the psychological types that Jung set up, by removing how the attitudes relate. MBTI is more faithful to it, IMO. Ji and Je are totally different because the attitude changes how the function relates to reality, and that's why Fe & Fi are totally different types, not simply the same type with a different I/E preference. This is why the "P" in MBTI is referring to a whole mentality which
includes Ji.
So an INFP, aka FiNe, exhibits Pe qualities at times, especially when it comes to extroverted things like interacting. Being Ji-dom in itself leads to MBTI "P" personality traits. However, they still are Fi-dom, and will be characterized by Fi more than Ne, and so that's the key. Is this person, who shows both Fi and Ne thinking, characterized by Fi or by Ne?
For Garfield, I see a personality characterized by Ne, not by Fi. While his thinking shows some of both, his demeanor is that of the Ne-dom, and his evident mentality is more Ne also.
I have yet to hear any argument for why he
is INFP and not ENFP - instead, someone makes a video and says he is INFP, and now it's unquestionable
![Huh :huh: :huh:](/data/vbsmilies/huh.gif)
.
But that's not to say it's a good match for INFJs, either. I really don't think Jung's Fi-dom description is anything like a respectable portrait of the real-world people who come out as either INF type on the MBTI. The INFPs I've known certainly haven't been anything like above-average in the outward coldness department. Reserved, especially with strangers, yes — to the extent of their introversion, and depending on the circumstances. But an outward demeanor dominated by "negative judgments" and/or "an air of profound indifference"? Not hardly.
On INFP messageboards, that description is pretty popular, as in, many relate a lot to it. Personally, it fits me better than most INFP descriptions, and it's what led me to type as Fi-dom. Van Der Hoops is good to me also, and perhaps less densely worded than Jung and easier for people to see an average Fi-dom in. It says pretty much the same thing, but in softer language.
Van Der Hoop:
Here the activities of feeling are hidden, and from the outside there is, as a rule, little to tell us that we are dealing with a person of feeling-type.
They conceal their sensitiveness behind a mask, which may be childish or simple, or again conventional, remote, or it may be friendly...
Outwardly, their feelings are not very obvious, for when these are affected, these people tend to withdraw into themselves...
In ordinary life their mask conceals what they really are.
..There is...something very individual about them...which will come to expression....especially in two situations: when they achieve real contact with another person; and when, in a state of high emotional excitement, they stand up for a threatened ideal.
In the first case, a very profound relationship of mutual understanding may suddenly come into being....
I would end up quoting the whole description if I continued.
That video is not a "profound relationship of mutual understanding" unfolding before our eyes.
Also, feeling coming out in negative judgments doesn't mean the person is critical all the time - it means they have a "benevolent neutrality" (which stems from a profound indifference), aka they don't reveal how they feel about things at all, although they may seem kind and easy-going. In most everyday matters, nothing strikes me as significant enough to summon emotional energy, and whether or not I seem like a nice, easy-going, quiet person or an aloof, dismissive, rude person, depends a lot on the interpretation and attitude of the other person.
Example - someone is excited about something, but to you, a Fi-dom, it is personally not exciting. You find it hard to mimic their emotional energy, because your mentality is to reject influence of the object so as to maintain purity of your feelings, and this can look like you are a "downer". Even if you give the appropriate, polite response (because you can intellectually grasp that their excitement is valid
for them), that person feels like your not meeting their emotional energy is a devaluation of their feeling. However, to the Fi-type, it's simply not abandoning their own feeling to adopt someone else's, but not opposing them either. Sensitive people, as Jung notes, will take this as a rebuffing of their feeling and the value behind it. He's describing how the Fi types protection of their own feeling and outward indifference can appear to others, and it can be seen as cold or as a "sympathetic repose".
Most Fi descriptions note that strong feeling tends to come out in response to a violation - THAT is the "negative judgement" that comes to the surface. So in everyday matters, there is someone who seems unaffected but perhaps pleasant and easy-going, until something violates a value, and then they express themselves very strongly.
That aligns pretty well with most IxFPs, IMO.
The mirroring that Garfield shows and the adapting of his manner to match someone nearby so as to generate rapport, is indicative of an Extroverted mentality. Mirroring is far more associated with Ne & Fe than Fi. He is adjusting himself to the object, a key point in the definition of the extrovert.
So I'm surprised to find you deciding whether somebody in a video is an INFP based on how well their communication "style" matches Jung's over-the-top (and predominantly negative) Fi-dom description. It's not as jump-the-sharky as his Si-dom description, but almost any modern INFP or INFJ portrait — whether from a dichotomy-centric source or a function-centric source — does a substantially better job of capturing those types than Jung did.
As you know, Jung viewed a typical Fi-dom as a woman whose core feature was deep, oversized passions that didn't tend to match up with anything in the real world, and so, "being shut off from every means of expression," her "intensive feeling ... acquires a passionate depth that comprises a whole world of misery and simply gets benumbed." And it's not hard to imagine any Limbic (especially) and strongly-introverted IN feeling like that description — like many of Jung's descriptions of (what he saw as) all the introverted types' fraught relations with their "turbulent" and problematic emotions — seems to capture some of the flavor of their emotional awkwardness, and their tendency to feel like their grandest passions more typically alienate them from the "real world" than connect them to the real world.
But as a description of either of the INF types in more ordinary mode, and how they're likely to characteristically come across to others, I'd say Jung's portrait leaves a lot to be desired.
It's incomplete because it leaves out the extroverted function. No person is a "pure type". INFPs have Ne qualities also. The Ne description is an over-the-top charismatic, energetic, fickle, novelty-seeking person. This is what brings animation to the Fi-dom who is otherwise "shut off from every means of expression".
This is also why people can sometimes confuse types, such as typing an ENFP as INFP. Again, I say compare that Garfield guy to more prototypical INFP males and you can easily he has the nature of an extrovert, not an introvert.
You make my point for me -
a core feature vs something
anyone may possess to a
degree.
Some of what he describes is just introversion, but this goes beyond that to being a core feature of Introverted Feeling type. They don't just possess that trait, they are defined by it.
Assuming you subscribe to the INFJ=Ni-Fe model, do you consider Jung's Ni-dom description a good match for a typical INFJ, and would you be inclined to judge whether someone in a video was an INFJ based on how well they corresponded with that description? Describing Ni-doms and Si-doms both, Jung said "nothing is outwardly visible but reserve, secretiveness, lack of sympathy, uncertainty, and an apparently groundless embarrassment"; and he noted that "their communications are without the personal warmth that alone carries the power of conviction. On the contrary, these types have very often a harsh, repelling manner, though of this they are quite unaware and did not intend it." Do you think that's a good fit for Carey Mulligan (or most INFJs)?
Yes, I consider his Ni-dom description to be good, although it is hard to grasp because of his dense & esoteric writing style. When you apply his Te & Fe descriptions to it, then I can easily see how the INTJ & INFJ personalities emerge.
However, I think his worst description is Fe, because I think he understood it the least (which is why I don't think he is INFJ, although that's another topic entirely). He has bias in his descriptions, but he does better job of focusing on mentalities over specific behaviors than some other typologies (ie. socionics, Keirsey), and if you understand the descriptions as mentalities, then you have a less narrow view of how a person of that type may appear. The indifference of the Fi type may not always look cold, in fact, it may even be confused for "too nice" if they are indifferent enough to not resist the flow much (more common in e9s, but also a result of Ne - being open to possibilities and moving with them as they develop, without being attached to any of it).
When he mentioned "harsh, repelling" for Pi-dom - that's the IxTJs. Aren't they often characterized that way from the outside? When he mentions lack of "personal warmth", then he means animation, which is certainly less in an IxxJ than in an extrovert. People associated animated demeanors with Feeling, but it's far more accurately connected to Extroversion. Feeling only becomes animated when it requires emotion to express a feeling-value, and that's not something Fi types do a lot in a public setting (unless there's a violation). IxFJs use Feeling as an auxiliary, so it exists as part of their mentality, but they are far less characterized by it.
I don't know much about Mulligan, but she doesn't seem characterized by Fe (which I think the video even admits). She is likely Pi-dom, but beyond that, I don't know.
Most INFJs I've known can be warm and animated in close company also - among strangers or people they do not trust, then they can seem very aloof and reserved. That's a common thing with introverts, yes.
However, being an IxFJ, she is more inclined to match someone's feeling, even if she doesn't personally feel it (and a disturbing thing about FJs is that they are often unaware of this, because their own feeling genuinely seems to shift to match others - both Jung & Van Der Hoop describe this aspect of the Fe type). She still doesn't adjust to the object nearly as much as Garfield does, and that's an I/E difference more than anything.