INFP Profile - Michael Pierce

[grey_beard]

I've read sections of that book and really want to read the rest. I thought it quite interesting and insightful, but I'm not sure about how flawed it might be as yet. The INFP descriptions (which I read in more abbreviated form) were strange to take in. I think the difference for INFPs when reading a description by a Fi-dom is that you actually have to search your brain to see if what they say is true. It's like, "wow, do I really do that?!" and/or "how do you know that?!" - and that's not something that happens often. There isn't a instant resonance, rather a creeping, uncanny feeling like someone crawled inside your head and figured out even your unconscious behaviours. Jung does it for me too, even though he's not a Fi-dom. I think if you're not a Fi-dom MBTI expert, you have to be very observant, patient, scrupulous, and have a total blank slate in how you see the function, otherwise you'll miss crucial aspects of it.

That's my take on it anyway. Other INFPs may disagree


That was the first one I read about MBTI, actually. From memory it was decent but I would have to read again (knowing what I do now) to say if it particularly good.


I think you're still looking at it from a Perceiving point of view. It's not driven by matter-of-fact observations - it's driven by impressions. We start with what's new or different or surprising or meaningful etc. I would say INFPs look at most things as the 'norm' or -run-of-the-mill, and pay little attention to all that - our ears only prick up for things that stand out. It's the difference (as PB said) between just drinking in information then deciding what to do with it, and looking for interesting stuff then seeing where comes of it. It's a bit like that method of approaching neurology where scientists look at the anomalies and extremes and use that understand the universal. For example scientists might look at someone who has a photographic memory or someone that can retain no memories and study the brain patterns to see what parts of the brain and/or what processes are involved - what parts are lit up on the scans and how they work can then be applied to understanding of neurotypical use of memory. Same thing applies to the idiosyncrasies of people or difficult moral questions; for INFPs these help to reveal more about universal concepts.

We're also not so much interested in cataloguing things for the sake of it. I only would really pay attention to the colours of the cars going past, say if, I notices there were a lot of green cars suddenly. I'm tuned into when things stand out; when unusual patterns emerge. The strangeness of it then prompts an investigation. I would think for Pi doms like INTJs, they come up with an area they want to investigate and then conduct some analysis of that. INFPs wait until there's something interesting happening and then pursue the leads that arise.

(sighs). Drat, I thought I *had* it. Thanks as always for your patient corrections!

 

[Southern Kross]

(sighs). Drat, I thought I *had* it. Thanks as always for your patient corrections!

It's not biggie. It's fine to take a stab at it and see if it works out. It helps to narrow it down.

Actually, I find it hard to get out of the mindset of Judging leading everything. It's sometimes difficult for me to even say in clear terms what Perceiving is doing (especially when in the dominant position) because it seems almost passive to me personally. I imagine you experience Judging in a similar manner. That INFP vs INFJ comparison OA posted said something about Ni (and all Perceiving functions) as being a "learning" process - that helps position it in a way that is easier for me to grasp.

 

[Ene]

[MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION]I meant to respond to this yesterday but I came down with a stomach bug and didn't feel I could put two coherent thoughts together. Yours is a well-written post and deserves more than a virus-induced, semi-comatose reply.

This celeb types description was not terrible at all, but it sort of got my hopes up in many places, and then failed to fully deliver. I feel like the author was on the verge of getting it, but then just settled back lazily into stereotypes.

I have read that one before but my memory of exactly what was said eludes me at the moment. I will re-read, keeping what you've said in mind.

I do feel there is a competitiveness set up between INFPs & INFJs,

I wish that INFPs could just be referred to in context of being INFPs and INFJs in the context of being INFJ. I understand the need for a comparison in the event that someone is trying to determine what their type is, but I don't really see the need in a general overall context.

It is as if there is a hesitancy to acknowledge shared traits, even though a lot of stuff could apply to NFs or just types with an F preference in general. That's why it is amusing to me how these INFJs like to insist INFPs are the speshial snowflakes, but they take great pains to show how they are, in fact, the truly speshial ones. I guess acknowledging that other types may share strengths associated with your type wouldn't make them so speshial. I frequently see it said that INFPs FEEL misunderstood, but then it is stated that INFJs really ARE not understood well, despite their psychic-like ability to understand others (somehow failing them with INFPs though...hmmm...). It's maddening to me because INFJs are really good at manipulating people's perceptions and creating consensus among people, and it seems like many have been duped. I am sure enough of it that I speak up now, even at risk of being painted as some over-sensitive INFJ-hater who reads between lines.

I get what you're saying and I can see why it would be maddening. I'm not sure why it's presented that way.

As for the blog, I think it is coming from a "here is what it is like to be an INFP like me" place than an attempt to create a comprehensive description that really breaks down how the cognitive preferences wind up appearing as a particular personality type. I take it more as a personal portrait used to illustrate being an INFP. We might as well reference Proust then, and get better quality prose.

But still, would it be beneficial in helping others see through an INFP lens?

I don't think there is anyone who can write an accurate description for all types, but some people do a better job than others

.

Agreed.

I certainly have come across INFP and Fi descriptions which resonate, or else I may not have been able to type myself. I mostly criticize where INFP profiles fall short because I feel qualified to do so...it is more of a criticism of the author's grasp of the theory than a complaint that INFPs are not being presented very well.

Yes, I can see what you are saying.

What Jung did was try to approach Fi intellectually, and I think he did so rather successfully.

I will re-read his Fi approach.

I think JH Van Der Hoop's Fi type description is still one of the best. I think he self-identified as a Ti-dominant.

I will google him and see what I can find. Thank you.

Lenore Thompson's is not bad, but it is still clearly from the Ni perspective

,

Okay. I'll keep that in mind whenever I'm reading her stuff.

This is an internet description I find pretty good, and I don't know where it came from (I suspect Helen Penjam did not write it..?): INFP (Myers-Briggs/Keirsey/Jungian)
This is more about common behaviors or appearances of course, only touching on the mentality that is behind them. It just is not too heavily 9 or 4, not too heavily critical nor praising, etc. It doesn't reek of bias (okay, okay, it does say INFPs are the greatest writers ever...probably written by an INFP then).

Thanks! I'll read this one today!

The celebrity types tends to take an extreme e4 slant to INFPs, an e4 who is quite unhealthy yet romanticized in creative spheres, so it is not a very accurate picture of your everyday INFP.

Okay, gotcha.

So far, I think most INFP descriptions are written by 9s, and the heavy 9 flavor makes it less relatable to other enneagrams. Quenk's description is not terrible, but I relate nearly as much to the other INxx type descriptions, and somewhat to the ENFP, which suggests to me she is not clear enough in distinguishing between the types when it comes to how functions play out (I think she grasps functions well). She is also focusing on how the inferior manifests, and I believe her general type descriptions in the back of the book are just basic MBTI ones (?). I like her book, but it is not without its flaws, like anything.

I like it, too. I think my INFP friend may be an E-9 who has developed under a lifetime of stress, because the description in the book matches her to the letter. I have long known that my friend wasn't a typical representation of the type, and it wasn't until I read that description that I realized "why." Her life is a constant series of INFP stressors. Everything she abhors, she's stuck in and has been since childhood. But, I've gotten off track; that's a conversation for another time.

INFPs can also be excessively self-deprecating, and they may accept some commonly held ideas about their type because they internalize negative feedback more than positive feedback (I grew up with the idea I was cold...because I was told this, even though I never experienced myself that way). This can make them elaborate more on how their type may be flawed than able to give a more balanced portrait.

That's a very good point.

A lot of this is actually inferior Te. For a long time I actually complained how INFP portraits made INFPs sound too nicey-nice; I don't want nor expect an all-flattering description, but I do want something less one-dimensional. There is either this extreme of a simplistic pollyanna type or the brooding, self-absorped creative. They are caricatures.

I agree and if I had not had so many conversations here, I would not even begin to know the difference and I guess that's the sad part. MOST people who stumble into MBTI are going to take those descriptions at face-value because they're everywhere and so they read them and that's the opinion they form of INFPs. I guess the same could be said of other types, too, but maybe to a different extent.

A pretty good comparison and break down of the INFx types is this page: INFP vs INFJ: 5 Surprising Differences To Tell Them Apart : Personality Hacker I wrote up lengthy reply in the comments, which was mostly me being pedantic. Even though the author is ENTP, there is less pro INFJ bias than usual.

Thanks! I'll certainly check it out.

 

[Ene]

[MENTION=5871]Southern Kross[/MENTION]

I've read sections of that book and really want to read the rest. I thought it quite interesting and insightful, but I'm not sure about how flawed it might be as yet. The INFP descriptions (which I read in more abbreviated form) were strange to take in. I think the difference for INFPs when reading a description by a Fi-dom is that you actually have to search your brain to see if what they say is true. It's like, "wow, do I really do that?!" and/or "how do you know that?!" - and that's not something that happens often. There isn't a instant resonance, rather a creeping, uncanny feeling like someone crawled inside your head and figured out even your unconscious behaviours. Jung does it for me too, even though he's not a Fi-dom. I think if you're not a Fi-dom MBTI expert, you have to be very observant, patient, scrupulous, and have a total blank slate in how you see the function, otherwise you'll miss crucial aspects of it.

That's my take on it anyway. Other INFPs may disagree

Thank you, especially for the bolded-part. I think that's what I needed to hear. Getting to the "total blank slate" isn't always easy, but I do believe it can be done, at least to some degree. That's why I asked. I really believe that if I want to understand Fi, then I should go to Fi dominants and ask them to help me "see." If I want to understand Si then I go to Si-doms, etc. However, as [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION]has helped me realize, even Fi-doms sometimes buy into the descriptions that others project onto them. I really like the book, too, btw.

 

[PeaceBaby]

II think you're still looking at it from a Perceiving point of view. It's not driven by matter-of-fact observations - it's driven by impressions. We start with what's new or different or surprising or meaningful etc. I would say INFPs look at most things as the 'norm' or -run-of-the-mill, and pay little attention to all that - our ears only prick up for things that stand out. It's the difference (as PB said) between just drinking in information then deciding what to do with it, and looking for interesting stuff then seeing where comes of it. It's a bit like that method of approaching neurology where scientists look at the anomalies and extremes and use that understand the universal. For example scientists might look at someone who has a photographic memory or someone that can retain no memories and study the brain patterns to see what parts of the brain and/or what processes are involved - what parts are lit up on the scans and how they work can then be applied to understanding of neurotypical use of memory. Same thing applies to the idiosyncrasies of people or difficult moral questions; for INFPs these help to reveal more about universal concepts.

We're also not so much interested in cataloguing things for the sake of it. I only would really pay attention to the colours of the cars going past, say if, I notices there were a lot of green cars suddenly. I'm tuned into when things stand out; when unusual patterns emerge. The strangeness of it then prompts an investigation. I would think for Pi doms like INTJs, they come up with an area they want to investigate and then conduct some analysis of that. INFPs wait until there's something interesting happening and then pursue the leads that arise.

Yes, that's well said. So much I'd like to post but no time atm to put it all into words!

For example, I went back and re-read my last post. When I wrote it, I was indeed sitting here in the living room, looking out my front window, and it was the red maple that caught my attention to discuss, out of a myriad of other objects. Why did this tree become the focus of my attention? This is what prompts a deeper investigation, the "why does this thing (person, object, feeling, situation) stand out?" feeling. In the case of the tree, it seems particularly healthy. It is a deeper shade of red than most red maples, almost like a rusty brown, so I wonder why it seems different than others I've seen. It appears to be about 25 years old or so, and looks quite colorful out there right now. There's a cherry tree close by that's not as vibrant this year, although it blossomed fully and brightly. It just doesn't feel as healthy to me. Who knows why I think that, I'm not an arborist. So in thinking that, it might prompt me to learn more about trees to investigate why I have this sense that it's not.


[MENTION=20856]grey_beard[/MENTION]: you said:

I am reading you correctly, the INFP looks externally, and extrapolates from a fact or item to all the possible connections or extrapolations; and from them, forms a map of common *elements* -- that is, the elements themselves, and not just discrete, set-pieces of certain combinations of elements, which is what the INTJ does. That is, the INTJ will look at vehicles, and go "The green car; the blue car; the red motorcycle." The INFP will say "green...red...*colors*" or "wheels...tires...spokes..."
And extract and internalize the entire palette of colours, and then look at how a particular colour interacts with other factors to make the statement or impression or effect it does.

This is not far off in some ways though. I do extrapolate out, like an array. Let's go back to the tree. Now the cherry tree has my attention. Why does it seem unhealthy? Is the diameter of the root system of the red maple impacting the root system of the cherry (how big might it be)? Does the red maple emit any toxins (like black walnuts do) that could affect the health of the other tree? What is the lifespan of a decorative cherry tree anyway, is it simply at the end of its time? Unlike the thinking function, all of this derivative effort comes from the noting of contrast, and it's stuff that's not actively thought, but rather felt, this synergistic web of interconnectedness.

It's the contrast that stands out, merits exploration, so the more data I have, the more explanations I can explore. With people, it's the contrast between what I sense inside them and what comes out that is very striking at times, the difference between the inner and outer selves. We all protect our inner self to a degree, and I expect a certain disconnect, either on purpose or by sheer lack of a person having any awareness of what's inside them. When there's an intent to deceive, when I sense lying, when I get feelings that make me notice discrepancy, when people feel very distressed, that's what pings on my radar screen. All the rest is like a radio playing in the background, you just don't pay attention 'til a song starts playing that you either like or don't like.

As for you meaning to mean well, have no fear of chipping in with your attempts to express how it looks from your POV. I enjoy the dialogue and that you're interested to try. I might feel annoyed from time to time when I haven't conveyed my ideas well enough to be understood (not with you but not being heard the way I hoped) but that just helps us get closer to mutual understanding if we keep pursuing it.

 

[uumlau]

A pretty good comparison and break down of the INFx types is this page: INFP vs INFJ: 5 Surprising Differences To Tell Them Apart : Personality Hacker
I wrote up lengthy reply in the comments, which was mostly me being pedantic. Even though the author is ENTP, there is less pro INFJ bias than usual.

Oooh, this is a good description. I feel thoroughly validated by it!

Yes, that's an excellent portrait and corresponds well to the INFJs and INFPs I've known in my life.

The key to getting along with INFJs is demonstrating over and over again that you're a good and reliable friend who isn't about to hurt or take advantage of them. They are VERY perceptive about other people, BUT they also know that they tend to become blind w/r to those whom they love/trust too soon. Trusting someone, for them, means being able to relax those perceptions.

The key to getting along with INFPs is to realize that it's totally OK to disagree with them. It feels like they want you to agree, based on the emotional tone of how they communicate, and that's what causes most miscommunication with them. The writer indicates that you need to "validate" their reasoning processes, but that doesn't mean validating their conclusions. Also, I don't think it means saying that their reasoning processes have no flaws. I think "validation" in this context means "respect" and/or "a lack of contempt". W/r to INTJs getting along with INFPs, this can often mean adding some verbiage to express that validation/respect, as INFPs don't seem to immediately read it from us. I.e., as with most people, they don't realize that the fact that we INTJs are spending an extended period of time talking with them implies a great deal of respect.

(sighs). Drat, I thought I *had* it. Thanks as always for your patient corrections!

It's particularly useful for us INTJs to understand INFPs (and ISFPs), as they show us how our tertiary (and inferior, in the case of ISFPs) can be used in a positive, pro-active way. (It also helps to understand INFJs, but that doesn't require nearly so much work, as INFJs think so much like us that a lot of them think they're INTJs.)

The description of "Authenticity" (Fi) in that link is apt, and INTJs can hook into that. That same site has a good description of the INTJ: The INTJ "Mastermind" Personality Type - Personality Hacker : Personality Hacker

A lot of INTJs I've shared this with believe it to be almost "too positive" a description. You can tell the author has a bias in favor of INTJs, but I think it's a bias based on intense sympathy and understanding and wanting to clarify where INTJs are often misunderstood. In terms of clarifying those misunderstandings, it's an excellent write up.

Check out this quote regarding Fi paired with Ni in INTJs:

However, their 10 Year Old process is Authenticity, a process which encourages them to be sympathetic of the subjective human experience. Whenever they engage in this mental process there’s a part of them that knows they’re a sitting duck… because they are. Perspectives allows them to see how others see, Authenticity encourages them to mirror back how others feel. Because an INTJ is able to occupy both the headspace and the heartspace of another person, they become at that person’s mercy.

This is one of those things that will have INTJs nodding and other types wondering, "WTF?! That doesn't describe the INTJs I know." This is in a section where she's about to describe how Te comes in to protect their vulnerabilities. Te harshness (or at least Ni-Te imperturbability) is what others see.

I quote this because it's a useful map for an INTJ to sorta-kinda understand INFPs (with the caveat that no one is capable of completely understanding an INFP, not even other INFPs!), and it's also useful to understanding the INTJ growth areas. With this, plus having read how INFPs utilize "Authenticity", points to particular mental states that an INTJ can reach - mental states that we INTJs generally tend to avoid because they leave us vulnerable.

Understanding those mental states, and understanding their role in the overall pattern of INTJ processing, is remarkably helpful for INTJs. Imagine a world where emotions make sense! Figuring out the "good version" of the "Ni-Fi loop" is quite helpful. I believe it looks a bit like this: Tao Te Ching

...

As for the OP, I'm not a fan of Pierce's descriptions, overall. I like that he puts a lot of thought into them, but when he gets things wrong, he gets them really wrong. (This is where most MBTI descriptions benefit from being a bit vague.)

 

[PeaceBaby]

Ene - I am sorry to hear you're sick! Sending you hugs and some healing TLC!

Thank you, especially for the bolded-part. I think that's what I needed to hear. Getting to the "total blank slate" isn't always easy, but I do believe it can be done, at least to some degree.

@bold: That's Ni seduction talking, the sexy temptress of INFJ idealism. It's wise to avoid presuming you can be a total blank slate. No one can. We're not even born blank, that's simply a fallacy. Already being a vessel with a certain shape is a limiting factor in assuming the shape framework of "humanity" - you simply cannot stretch to be every shape. If you keep in your mind that such a thing is not possible, that it cannot be done -- even knowing full-well that you'll desire it and keep trying perhaps all of your life and that this is the way things are because you're meant to get as close as you can, it's a very helpful attitudinal posture.

That's why I asked. I really believe that if I want to understand Fi, then I should go to Fi dominants and ask them to help me "see."

What ends up happening is that you'll be faced with a decision to have faith that we "see" something you don't, yet you won't see, anymore than I can be an Ni dominant. I'm not, and with near certainty I won't ever be. Somehow that's the way it's supposed to be too.

Even Fi-doms sometimes buy into the descriptions that others project onto them.

Yes, we do. It can take a long time to undo stuff we don't own.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Even though the author is ENTP, there is less pro INFJ bias than usual.

And yet, you will likely agree it doesn't feel like it's written by ENTP alone, yes?

Even though "Antonia" is the name appearing as author cred, this site is run by an ENFP / ENTP collaboration. The functional blend seems evident in the writing. And, hey we're talking about Ne doms here - can you envision a scenario where they desire to keep things "mixed up" by alternating attribution or co-authoring but only one taking credit? I can see scenarios where I'd consider it, to prevent being accused of certain kinds of bias.

Just sayin', just a feeling.

 

[1487610420]

The issue is more that he's declarative. Being declarative is ok if you get it mostly right. So in this thread, I would say that we use the clarification of information to ascertain whether or not this person, who in publishing descriptions on all of the types and establishing himself as a sort of authority is actually a good resource of unbiased perspective to talk about each type. You could say that having no bias is impossible, and that's true, yet if you look back at my post above you'll find the answer to that there.

subjective + subjective + subjective + subjective + subjective + subjective + subjective --> objective

Not very efficient to take the time to collect enough data, no. Problematic too for any Je person to talk about Ji, and vice versa (naturally).

I've read all of his descriptions in the past, and to me, some are closer than others. I talk about INFP because I believe myself in a position to best evaluate his accuracy. The more INFPs there are that don't feel it representative increases the probable accuracy / inaccuracy of the judgement / "observations".

I have read the INFP blog in the past and skimmed it now and what he writes about being INFP resonates with me to the point where I believe his self-typing since I recognize the evoked feelings and thought patterns contained within it. The INFP blog guy doesn't place himself as an authority to talk about all types, however, therefore probing his self-evaluation serves less purpose.

strength in numbers?

error propagation?

 

[grey_beard]

<snip>I came down with a stomach bug and didn't feel I could put two coherent thoughts together. Yours is a well-written post and deserves more than a virus-induced, semi-comatose reply.</snip>

1 unit worth of armoured sympathy tendered. Please be good to yourself, and merciless to the virus.

 

[Ene]

Ene - I am sorry to hear you're sick! Sending you hugs and some healing TLC!

Thanks. I thought I was better but had a bit of a set back. Hopefully, by tomorrow, I'll be closer to my normal self.

@bold: That's Ni seduction talking, the sexy temptress of INFJ idealism....

.

Oh, she's (Ni) not only a seductress. She's a shape shifter, too, very hard to live with sometimes, but she has her place.