INFP - ISFP

[Southern Kross]

The INFP, using Ne, obviously spends more time analyzing before taking action. They may also listen & observe longer, which allows them to grasp the other person's psychology, which obviously helps with "strategy" in conflict.

I'd say that the INFP may have a more well-though out, harder to argue with approach when they finally do take action. I tend to argue with myself internally, patch all the weak spots, and then approach the conflict with a "if they say this, then move here" mental chart.

Actually I think it could be the other way round. INFPs tend to have a world view nutted out ahead of time. They develop broad universal philosophical theories, and then draw connections from particular circumstances to these big picture values. We are deeply and inherently in tune with the larger implications and consequence of a seemingly small and insignificant issue. This means that when something confronts an specific value it triggers not only a sense of violation of that value but the violation of the foundations of the INFP's whole belief system. And because we make that connection quickly and feel it passionately, I suppose this generally inspires a faster, more intense reaction than ISFPs. INFPs probably do spend more time thinking about things and preparing for them in theoretical terms, but in the moment this can provide a sort of short hand by connecting to these over-arching, predetermined concepts.

ISFPs seem to approach a value violation more directly on a case-by-case basis. They spend time on each individual situation, weighing up the arguments, and consulting their own feelings to make a decision on how to act. This can be more time consuming because, without the guidance of Ne, they can get lost in the conflicting feelings (however it can also be a positive thing as they are more circumspect and less likely to make rash judgments). This would fit with my own experience, as I always seem to be much more decisive than my tentative ISFP friends. Although, I suppose ISFPs could potentially respond more quickly if they go with the first inclination that pops into their head without considering the other issues - perhaps if that feeling is strong enough it takes over.

I know not everyone likes fictional examples, but Luke Skywalker is often mentioned as an INFP archetype. There's a reason for that. And it's not because he's a do gooder per se. Or that he's a hero. There are many types like that. The difference with Skywalker is he stretches the limit on who or what can be redeemable, and sees good in Darth Vader.

Who are you asking? Luke Skywalker showed no signs of iNtuition. His concerns were primarily with the immediate moment, his manner of speech was mostly abrupt. His motives were the Fi's notion of love, particularly, love and concern for the welfare of others, even Vader his father in the final scene.

Luke Skywalker seemed more ISFP to me too. Although, I am aware he is commonly typed INFP and that the story fits with a INFP archetype, as the redeemer in a corrupt system. But then I'm no Star Wars aficionado ...

 

[KDude]

Hmm, you're making me reconsider, but at the same time, I'm not really typing him because of the details in the plot as you are. I'm just kind of focused on the symbols, I guess. I think his capacity to let it play out like that was more indicative of an INFP.

 

[Mal12345]

Hmm, you're making me reconsider, but at the same time, I'm not really typing him because of the details in the plot as you are. I'm just kind of focused on the symbols, I guess. I think his capacity to let it play out like that was more indicative of an INFP.

Consider Southern Kross's statement of a few minutes ago: "Although, I am aware he is commonly typed INFP and that the story fits with a INFP archetype, as the redeemer in a corrupt system. But then I'm no Star Wars aficionado ... "

There are many facets here, I'm sure. But I'm typing a character in a story, not a symbol or archetype. I have to type Luke, the person, according to the way he behaves and by what motivates him to act. Luke is motivated by such issues as saving the princess, not by saving humanity. Nor does he look particularly far into the future, as an N does. His approach to defeating the Empire is highly incremental, step-by-step, and piecemeal. His skills as a Jedi Knight are that of an Artisan, Keirsey's SP type, whether it concerns his fighting technique or the constructing of a light-saber. I happen to have Please Understand Me II here at my fingertips, and Keirsey points out that many generals have been Artisan SP's, although in my view they were more like the flamboyant ESTP types.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Actually I think it could be the other way round. INFPs tend to have a world view nutted out ahead of time. They develop broad universal philosophical theories, and then draw connections from particular circumstances to these big picture values. We are deeply and inherently in tune with the larger implications and consequence of a seemingly small and insignificant issue. This means that when something confronts an specific value it triggers not only a sense of violation of that value but the violation of the foundations of the INFP's whole belief system. And because we make that connection quickly and feel it passionately, I suppose this generally inspires a faster, more intense reaction than ISFPs. INFPs probably do spend more time thinking about things and preparing for them in theoretical terms, but in the moment this can provide a sort of short hand by connecting to these over-arching, predetermined concepts.

ISFPs seem to approach a value violation more directly on a case-by-case basis. They spend time on each individual situation, weighing up the arguments, and consulting their own feelings to make a decision on how to act. This can be more time consuming because, without the guidance of Ne, they can get lost in the conflicting feelings (however it can also be a positive thing as they are more circumspect and less likely to make rash judgments). This would fit with my own experience, as I always seem to be much more decisive than my tentative ISFP friends. Although, I suppose ISFPs could potentially respond more quickly if they go with the first inclination that pops into their head without considering the other issues - perhaps if that feeling is strong enough it takes over.

I was referring to Se/Ne impulsiveness differences in regards to Nardi's observance of ISFP & INFP listening-to-action styles. INFPs are said to listen longer to the other person before taking action than ISFPs, but once they do, they are very decisive. I'm saying this does not mean INFPs have less backbone than ISFPs, but suggests we simply use a different strategy, which is obviously related to Ne/Se differences. The ISFP is not necessarily more decisive, but more action-oriented (Van der Hoop says the Se type can respond instinctively to moral issues; ie. physically fighting to defend something. Perhaps this is related to the bolded above).

 

[KDude]

Consider Southern Kross's statement of a few minutes ago: "Although, I am aware he is commonly typed INFP and that the story fits with a INFP archetype, as the redeemer in a corrupt system. But then I'm no Star Wars aficionado ... "

There are many facets here, I'm sure. But I'm typing a character in a story, not a symbol or archetype. I have to type Luke, the person, according to the way he behaves and by what motivates him to act.

Fair enough. I understand. Although I look at fiction differently.. at least when it comes to type. If I get into too many details, it becomes a mess (to me, I mean). In the case of movies especially, characters are often the product of multiple writers and convenient plot vehicles (or constraints) to make screen action bareable. Any semblance of a truly coherent personality gets lost. So I try to find what's symbolic. I think there's enough that can be said there. If you want to take into account that he assembled his own lightsaber, you can do it, but I try to ignore that kind of stuff.

 

[Southern Kross]

I was referring to Se/Ne impulsiveness differences in regards to Nardi's observance of ISFP & INFP listening-to-action styles. INFPs are said to listen longer to the other person before taking action than ISFPs, but once they do, they are very decisive. I'm saying this does not mean INFPs have less backbone than ISFPs, but suggests we simply use a different strategy, which is obviously related to Ne/Se differences. The ISFP is not necessarily more decisive, but more action-oriented (Van der Hoop says the Se type can respond instinctively to moral issues; ie. physically fighting to defend something. Perhaps this is related to the bolded above).

Interesting.

Why do you think that Ne inspires INFPs to listen more? Or is it just that the action-oriented nature of Se means that ISFPs stop to listen less?

And do ISFPs really take action despite being in doubt? Are they just leaping and hoping or attempting to live by trial and error?

 

[Mal12345]

Fair enough. I understand. Although I look at fiction differently.. at least when it comes to type. If I get into too many details, it becomes a mess (to me, I mean). In the case of movies especially, characters are often the product of multiple writers and convenient plot vehicles (or constraints) to make screen action bareable. Any semblance of a truly coherent personality gets lost. So I try to find what's symbolic. I think there's enough that can be said there. If you want to take into account that he assembled his own lightsaber, you can do it, but I try to ignore that kind of stuff.

That wasn't my claim. Any Jedi can assemble a lightsaber. And I don't see incoherence or any inconsistency in Luke's characterization. Basically you're saying that different script-writers are too stupid to think in terms of the character or that the director doesn't know how to make the character behave consistently from scene to scene. You'll have to point out actual inconsistency in Luke's characterization rather than speculating and then acting as if it were a fact.

 

[KDude]

I didn't say anything about stupid. I'm just remarking on the nature of fiction. It's not easy for me to type, once you take all the details into account like you're doing. There are many reasons why characters come about that have nothing to do with actual personality. Especially the film medium. Have you not considered this before?

In any case, I'm being nice about it too. I find it fun myself, but I dare you go to that one socionics site (16types.info), and you'll find a lot of people who are oddly intolerant if you type fictional characters. So don't get on my case. I'm hardly being extreme about it. I'm willing to at least let you have an opinion, and outright tell you that I'm considering yours a bit. So don't drag this further than it needs to be. There's no truth here. Just different approaches.

 

[Mal12345]

I didn't say anything about stupid. I'm just remarking on the nature of fiction. It's not easy for me to type, once you take all the details into account like you're doing. There are many reasons why characters come about that have nothing to do with actual personality. Especially the film medium. Have you not considered this before?

In any case, I'm being nice about it too. I find it fun myself, but I dare you go to that one socionics site (16types.info), and you'll find a lot of people who are oddly intolerant if you type fictional characters. So don't get on my case. I'm hardly being extreme about it. I'm willing to at least let you have an opinion, and outright tell you that I'm considering yours a bit. So don't drag this further than it needs to be. There's no truth here. Just different approaches.

I'm sorry to see that you find more facts to be more confusing. I personally find less facts to be inadequate and even frustrating. But using less facts seems to be the intuitive method, where intuition is more personal and less intersubjective. Thus there is likely to be less agreement as everybody could have different intuition. Whereas, with the method of using facts, it often becomes a question of which facts. But at least those facts are objective, meaning, we can't very well disagree that Luke Skywalker did this or that, or said this or that when it's all on celluloid and reposted to Youtube.

 

[Mal12345]

But I see you don't mind facts that I went to the trouble of researching for you.

 

[KDude]

But I see you don't mind facts that I went to the trouble of researching for you.

Lol.. dude. I can't believe you made a second post. Is that even necessary? I'm cool enough to say you may be right (I've said this twice already actually), but that's it. I'm not sure what else you want. If I had known making a passing comment about Star Wars would have gotten someone so interested on this level, I would have never bothered.

Now if you reply, please, just don't quote my post. I get the notifications, only to find it's another comment here.

 

[Mal12345]

Lol.. dude. I can't believe you made a second post. Is that even necessary? I'm cool enough to say you may be right (I've said this twice already actually), but that's it. I'm not sure what else you want. If I had known making a passing comment about Star Wars would have gotten someone so interested on this level, I would have never bothered.

Now if you reply, please, just don't quote my post. I get the notifications, only to find it's another comment here.

It's basically not about Star Wars. Typology applies to personalities, not archetypes.

 

[wolfy]

It's basically not about Star Wars.

It's always about Star Wars.

Typology applies to personalities, not archetypes.

Jung was all about archetypes. A lot of what we discuss on here must be rooted in that thinking.

 

[Mal12345]

It's always about Star Wars.



Jung was all about archetypes. A lot of what we discuss on here must be rooted in that thinking.

Ok, so maybe it is all about Star Wars. But I need more information on how Jungian archetypal thinking relates to functions, and how this process moves backward to archetypes again.