INFP - ISFP

[Mal12345]

Reading the ISFP description at personalitypage, I see nothing that corresponds with this for INFP:

"INFPs are flexible and laid-back, until one of their values is violated. In the face of their value system being threatened, INFPs can become aggressive defenders, fighting passionately for their cause." http://www.personalitypage.com/INFP.html

But the normally peaceful, laid-back ISFP can, disconcertingly, become just as passionate about some cause, although it's not a political or "higher value" cause.

Both INFP and ISFP have this aggressive "mama bear" side to their personalities with regard to some cause, although the ISFP cause would be more specific to the needs of those in their home than an INFP cause which would be more generally humanistic.

 

[Thalassa]

Personality Page isn't the definitive source of information on INFPs vs. ISFPs, because ISFP outbursts of anger is actually quite a well-known concept, and the neurological study that Seymour posted indicated that ISFPs are actually more likely than INFPs to immediately take action or defend their viewpoint.

I also think that people like Bob Dylan, Eminem or Micheal Jackson have/had political causes, and saying that ISFPs don't is incredibly simplistic. I'm pretty sure a lot of rabid vegans or animal rights people are just as easily ISFPs as NFs, for example.

Then we have the PTypes description of the Exuberant personality type who prides themselves on their ability to stand up for things they care about.

Speaking from the perspective of Jungian function theory, both IxFPs would have spikes of inferior Te, a possible rampage that would look like an immature ExTJ.

I also wonder if Se types would actually possibly become more physically volatile when deeply angered than an Ne type, too.

 

[Noon]

edit: On second thought, it seems almost obvious that every person is more likely to become passionate about causes they can identify with, and more passive about causes that they can't.

 

[KDude]

Personality Page isn't the definitive source of information on INFPs vs. ISFPs, because ISFP outbursts of anger is actually quite a well-known concept, and the neurological study that Seymour posted indicated that ISFPs are actually more likely than INFPs to immediately take action or defend their viewpoint.

I also think that people like Bob Dylan, Eminem or Micheal Jackson have/had political causes, and saying that ISFPs don't is incredibly simplistic. I'm pretty sure a lot of rabid vegans or animal rights people are just as easily ISFPs as NFs, for example.

Then we have the PTypes description of the Exuberant personality type who prides themselves on their ability to stand up for things they care about.

Speaking from the perspective of Jungian function theory, both IxFPs would have spikes of inferior Te, a possible rampage that would look like an immature ExTJ.

I also wonder if Se types would actually possibly become more physically volatile when deeply angered than an Ne type, too.

Maybe physically volatile, but not necessarily. Although Se is about being more aware of it's immediate tactics and pleasures and sensations and options and what works and some might be more inclined to impose a physical/direct solution to their problems. For some, that could be a tool they've seen work and gotten used to.

Not to say Ne is inept in it's directness or mobility, but I think they might try to create more imaginative solutions to problems, or even ignoring a lot of what "Se" even tells them to do in all kinds of life situations. They'd be idealistic and "bigger picture" oriented, and that would shape how they approach things over time. Every experience and piece of information shapes who we are, and in their case, they'd be set on "bigger picture" assessments, and seeing how some problems can't be worked out simply. And so they use Ne to offer others something previously ignored or unseen. Some might be even more docile than ISFPs, I think.. if they took the idealism too far. There are INFPs out there who are always trying to see the good in others and wouldn't fight. Simply because they imagine some good angle in them (not to say they're incorrect though). An ISFP, on the other hand, might think they need a dose of reality.

 

[Thalassa]

I just can't stop thinking of how Bob Dylan's music and much of Michael Jackson's music is dedicated to political or social causes. I mean, definitely these are things they are/were defined by.

It's outrageous to say that ISFPs only care about things in their own home. What about the philosopher Rousseau? And presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Warren G. Harding?

I will say this about myself: the person you see getting reactive and irritable on the site about various things only gets that way about very particular issues (mainly healthcare, socio-economic inequality, etc.) ...someone who is around me every day IRL described me this morning as "incredibly calm, almost creepy calm at times" ...and others express surprise that someone so nice, quiet and sweet will suddenly rip people's faces off about very particular buttons occasionally.

I'm pretty placid IRL unless I'm directly confronted with emotional turmoil in my important relationships or someone who I think is just an unbearable ass. Sometimes I think being on the Internet isn't good for me.

 

[KDude]

I think that things like most intellectual issues and political concerns are out of the scope of type. I agree with you. An ISFP could definitely care. I think type is just a compass, a mental comfort zone.. "Preferences", as Myers would say. You could deviate, but it might just be an area where we merely feel "better". Maybe it's just skin deep, I dunno.

I know that she was appalled when she found that MBTI was being used by businesses to fire people. Saying that only certain segments of the population had certain skills is not what she set out to do. I would think that applies to beliefs as well.

 

[Noon]

I know that she was appalled when she found that MBTI was being used by businesses to fire people.

Haha what?? This actually happened? Lol, so ridiculous.
I would be appalled too.

 

[Mal12345]

I will concede this only on the grounds that I don't generally get riled up about a social or political cause which I can't identify with or have no experience around. i.e.,

I get impassive about gay and transgender rights because, despite not being gay or TG, I can personally identify with falling between the cracks of social expectations and understand well the personal strife resultant of being/feeling oppressed by it. I also have experienced moments wherein gay individuals have shared their turmoil with me. Consequently I have developed a conviction that it is generally very wrong to suppress another person's natural self-identity.

I am also likely to become passionate about any defense of the underdog because I identify with the underdog.

Conversely, I will likely remain passive about things like immigration and environmentalism because I have limited experience in these matters and can only personally identify with them vaguely.



I can't really understand the bolded.

Family commitments typically come first for the ISFP (I'm only considering the parents here). Once I read a description of the issues a family was having with their INFP mother, because she didn't commit enough time to her family. At best, one could call this a "relaxed" attitude toward home commitments, and that's not so bad. But an over-concern with broad humanitarian interests which plague their powerful consciences can cause this relaxed attitude toward family to become too removed, and the family begins to feel that their problems are being ignored or brushed over, for example, if mom or dad (especially mom) are often out fighting for the "good of society," attending meetings, political fund-raisers, etc.

That's not to say ISFPs don't have a problem with making commitments to home. But you won't catch them out playing politics, rather, neglectfully out enjoying themselves. And that doesn't take care of their own real needs either (which are typically emotional and self-esteem issues), it's only an escape from dealing with them. At a deeper level, one could say that the overly-humanitarian INFP who is out campaigning for the public good all the time, while neglecting the family at home, is also using exciting social concerns as an escape from the day-to-day drudgery of the Sensory home life.

As for Marmie, who will automatically attack certain webpages for various suspect reasons: I'm not using PersonalityPage as a definitive source on anything, in fact, I will ignore anything that doesn't match what I've already learned after 20 YEARS of practicing typology. In the beginning, I would use sources as original out of sheer necessity. But nowadays I use them just to put into words things I already know about the types, or to jog my memory about things I've known about for years but can't seem to call forward at will. I am a type 5 INTP, after all, and I'm acting true to type. But if my motives matched those Marmie projects onto me, then I would be more of an SJ type simply repeating memorized formulas like my boss does. And if I let her have her way, this thread would be hijacked into a conversation about personaltypage.com. Thread-hijacking is one reason I have her on ignore.

 

[KDude]

This angle on family and such is pretty weak. Where are you getting this?

Even if I were to ascribe family duties to a type, it'd more likely to be a Fe type over Fi. FJs in general kind of like being helpful and needed more (not just with family, but in general).

It's still weak though. Anyone could like their family. Or even hate their family. Or maybe not even have one. Or maybe just a family like mine where it isn't full of dependents, and most just have their own space.

 

[Mal12345]

This angle on family and such is pretty weak. Where are you getting this?

Any "angle" is weak simply because it is only that - an angle. Consider the story of the three blind men and the elephant. Each blind man thought he knew what an elephant was - it felt like a trunk, or a tail, or an elephant's leg, and that "angle" on the elephant become the blind man's concept of the elephant.

So saying that I have an "angle" on the subject is a circular argument, since we all have an angle and not the whole elephant. Therefore, pulling this card out of the deck automatically grants anybody the winner.

The rest of your post doesn't respond to anything I wrote in the op or after. Obviously, anybody who becomes a parent must take on the role of parenting, and to this is ascribed certain duties, like it or not. These duties are not type-specific or even necessarily gender-specific except as far as child-bearing is concerned. So not only are you off-topic, your argument is weak.

I've seen the rhetorical "where are you getting this" comment posted quite frequently on this forum, and it's getting old. I think I stated where I am "getting" this. So I'll have to ask about your Fe/Fi statement - where are you getting THAT? It sounds like yet another blind man's concept of an elephant - it is JUST another angle.

 

[Thalassa]

Family commitments typically come first for the ISFP (I'm only considering the parents here). Once I read a description of the issues a family was having with their INFP mother, because she didn't commit enough time to her family. At best, one could call this a "relaxed" attitude toward home commitments, and that's not so bad. But an over-concern with broad humanitarian interests which plague their powerful consciences can cause this relaxed attitude toward family to become too removed, and the family begins to feel that their problems are being ignored or brushed over, for example, if mom or dad (especially mom) are often out fighting for the "good of society," attending meetings, political fund-raisers, etc.

That's not to say ISFPs don't have a problem with making commitments to home. But you won't catch them out playing politics, rather, neglectfully out enjoying themselves. And that doesn't take care of their own real needs either (which are typically emotional and self-esteem issues), it's only an escape from dealing with them. At a deeper level, one could say that the overly-humanitarian INFP who is out campaigning for the public good all the time, while neglecting the family at home, is also using exciting social concerns as an escape from the day-to-day drudgery of the Sensory home life.

As for Marmie, who will automatically attack certain webpages for various suspect reasons: I'm not using PersonalityPage as a definitive source on anything, in fact, I will ignore anything that doesn't match what I've already learned after 20 YEARS of practicing typology. In the beginning, I would use sources as original out of sheer necessity. But nowadays I use them just to put into words things I already know about the types, or to jog my memory about things I've known about for years but can't seem to call forward at will. I am a type 5 INTP, after all, and I'm acting true to type. But if my motives matched those Marmie projects onto me, then I would be more of an SJ type simply repeating memorized formulas like my boss does. And if I let her have her way, this thread would be hijacked into a conversation about personaltypage.com. Thread-hijacking is one reason I have her on ignore.

Is okay Mal. I haz already been told I remind u of ISFP wife. I knowz why u haz me on ignore.

I delight in being a thorn, it's true. I get giggles from it.

But honestly, man, I'm just arguing with the IDEAS not saying you're an SJ...and I like SJs, so it's not like it would be an insult if I did.

I do know what you mean about someone caring about "humanitarian efforts" beyond their own personal welfare or family or whatever, and I agree.

Like years before I really looked into personality theory I expressed a certain disgust (gosh this has been like back in 2003 or 2004) that sometimes liberal politics mean people care about theoretical strangers and not the people they walk past on the street.

 

[Mal12345]

Is okay Mal. I haz already been told I remind u of ISFP wife. I knowz why u haz me on ignore.

I delight in being a thorn, it's true. I get giggles from it.

But honestly, man, I'm just arguing with the IDEAS not saying you're an SJ...and I like SJs, so it's not like it would be an insult if I did.

I do know what you mean about someone caring about "humanitarian efforts" beyond their own personal welfare or family or whatever, and I agree.

Like years before I really looked into personality theory I expressed a certain disgust (gosh this has been like back in 2003 or 2004) that sometimes liberal politics mean people care about theoretical strangers and not the people they walk past on the street.

YES!

By the way, when you changed your enneatype to 6w7, I changed my wife's to 9w8 just to be on the safe side.

 

[KDude]

Any "angle" is weak simply because it is only that - an angle. Consider the story of the three blind men and the elephant. Each blind man thought he knew what an elephant was - it felt like a trunk, or a tail, or an elephant's leg, and that "angle" on the elephant become the blind man's concept of the elephant.

So saying that I have an "angle" on the subject is a circular argument, since we all have an angle and not the whole elephant. Therefore, pulling this card out of the deck automatically grants anybody the winner.

The rest of your post doesn't respond to anything I wrote in the op or after. Obviously, anybody who becomes a parent must take on the role of parenting, and to this is ascribed certain duties, like it or not. These duties are not type-specific or even necessarily gender-specific except as far as child-bearing is concerned. So not only are you off-topic, your argument is weak.

I've seen the rhetorical "where are you getting this" comment posted quite frequently on this forum, and it's getting old. I think I stated where I am "getting" this. So I'll have to ask about your Fe/Fi statement - where are you getting THAT? It sounds like yet another blind man's concept of an elephant - it is JUST another angle.

I don't even have an argument. It's more like a question.. stated in facetious terms.

The question was where you were getting this? I'm honestly clueless why you focused on that. You paint a picture of ISFPs as if they're like really devoted soccer moms and big brothers. They may or may not be, but that's not what Jungian Se or even larger, holistic "ISFP" descriptions are about.

As for my Fe/Fi statement, it's self-evident. One is more inclined to be extroverted feeling. Another is focused on individualized/introvert values.

 

[Thalassa]

Yeah devoted soccer moms sounds more like ESFJ stereotype, and even that discounts Jungian theory in favor of holistic description.

 

[Mal12345]

I don't even have an argument. It's more like a question.. stated in facetious terms.

The question was where you were getting this? I'm honestly clueless why you focused on that. You paint a picture of ISFPs as if they're like really devoted soccer moms and big brothers. They may or may not be, but that's not what Jungian Se or even larger, holistic "ISFP" descriptions are about.

I don't see where you're getting that. I'm not saying anybody is really anything. But if my big brother had been an ISFP instead of an ISTJ, I think I would have been much better off in my home life.

As for my Fe/Fi statement, it's self-evident. One is more inclined to be extroverted feeling. Another is focused on individualized/introvert values.

You started that argument by saying, "Even if I were to ascribe family duties to a type," so there was more to it than just saying "Fe = extroverted feeling." But my argument that duties exist no matter what type you are is still relevant. I admittedly implied it in the beginning, and why shouldn't I? Shouldn't a parent act the parent role, no matter what type?

Lucky for some types, they are more born to it than others. But the proper parental role has to be a guiding standard for criticizing both the positive and negative aspects of personality type and parenting. When the family feels neglected or is acting out because of neglect, no doubt the family really is being neglected at least in most cases. In such cases, one or both parents is not fulfilling parental duties. The INFP parent is, at best, a relaxed negotiator, and at worst, becomes too relaxed about family issues and practically abandons the family in favor of wider social issues. The ISFP is neglectful in the pursuit of having fun. But they both have in common this "mama bear" attitude that is not mentioned about the ISFP, while it is mentioned about the INFP in two sources I've found, and that was my entire point.

 

[Thalassa]

This was one of the most inspiring songs I heard as kid. That and this:

I don't think it was a mistake that an ISFP, not an NF, who sparked my interest in caring about world politics.

 

[KDude]

You started that argument by saying, "Even if I were to ascribe family duties to a type," so there was more to it than just saying "Fe = extroverted feeling." But my argument that duties exist no matter what type you are is still relevant. I admittedly implied it in the beginning, and why shouldn't I? Shouldn't a parent act the parent role, no matter what type?

Lucky for some types, they are more born to it than others. But the proper parental role has to be a guiding standard for criticizing both the positive and negative aspects of personality type and parenting. When the family feels neglected or is acting out because of neglect, no doubt the family really is being neglected at least in most cases. In such cases, one or both parents is not fulfilling parental duties. The INFP parent is, at best, a relaxed negotiator, and at worst, becomes too relaxed about family issues and practically abandons the family in favor of wider social issues. The ISFP is neglectful in the pursuit of having fun. But they both have in common this "mama bear" attitude that is not mentioned about the ISFP, while it is mentioned about the INFP in two sources I've found, and that was my entire point.

Thanks for clarifying.

I don't think ISFPs are typically "mama bears" though. I think that's the part you've somehow projected. They're quite capable of being inconsiderate assholes from someone's point of view. Not just because they chase fun, but it could be out of passion too. Maybe you've read too much sensitivity into it because they're "Fs"? I mean, some could be like the poster boy/girl bitchy rockstar/artist types, for one. Some could be carpenters who'd prefer to sit in their workshop all day and wish you'd leave them alone. Maybe the carpenter is "mama bear" if he has a bushy brown beard, but the comparisons end there

 

[Mal12345]

Thanks for clarifying.

I don't think ISFPs are typically "mama bears" though. I think that's the part you've somehow projected. They're quite capable of being inconsiderate assholes from someone's point of view. Not just because they chase fun, but it could be out of passion too. Maybe you've read too much sensitivity into it because they're "Fs"? I mean, some could be like the poster boy/girl bitchy rockstar/artist types, for one. Some could be carpenters who'd prefer to sit in their workshop all day and wish you'd leave them alone. Maybe the carpenter is "mama bear" if he has a bushy brown beard, but the comparisons end there

Neither the INFP nor the ISFP is typically a "mama bear." The descriptions of the INFP don't claim it to be a typical trait. Neither of those types spend all day every day 24/7 angrily defending their values. But it happens, and when it does happen, I find it to be rather disconcerting behavior from these typically laid-back people. I'm speaking of both types in question, whereas the typology pages only reference the INFP.

Anyway, I can go into greater detail about types than any of these typology pages. So, much of the time, if you ask "where I'm getting this," I've been people-watching for over 20 years, every day of my life, based in the context of 3 or 4 different typology systems. And while that doesn't imply that I know everything about it, I can say that the information gleaned from webpages is very paltry in comparison to my years of observations. I've never been satisfied with mere book larnin', and that goes doubly for webpages. I respect books more than webpages for general information and leads.

 

[KDude]

I've never been satisfied with mere book larnin', and that goes doubly for webpages. I respect books more than webpages for general information and leads.

Fair enough. I just was confused on the family thing and thought it was an odd (or too specific) association.

..

Actually, I misunderstood the "mama bear" term. At first, I was picturing some big furry thing in an apron. My bad. You meant something aggressive. Yeah, I know what you mean.

 

[Mal12345]

Fair enough. I just was confused on the family thing and thought it was an odd (or too specific) association.

..

Actually, I misunderstood the "mama bear" term. At first, I was picturing some big furry thing in an apron. My bad. You meant something aggressive. Yeah, I know what you mean.

I did use scare-quotes for a reason. Try this television tropes page for an explanation of "mama bear."
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MamaBear