differences between INTP and INFP?

[acronach]

I'm semi-new to MBTI so what can you guys tell me about these 2 types?

 

[Pseudo]

I'm semi-new to MBTI so what can you guys tell me about these 2 types?

INFPs are all feelings
INTPs have no feelings.

 

[Pseudo]

For real though, INTPs have dominant introverted thinking which makes them hyper-logical and constantly analyzing situations. Then have the tendency to bury their feelings because they aren't rational and they have difficulty expressing themselves to people. INFPs have dominant introverted feeling which means their emotions have a lot of sway over their actions. They are idealistic and compassionate and like caring for others. They tend to see things as good versus evil with no middle ground and are very concerned with being good. I think INTPs feel worthless when they feel incompetent, INFPs feel worthless when they feel like they have morally compromised themselves.

 

[Eugene Watson VIII]

INFP - has an internal 'moral compass' that makes sense only to herself. the eyes sometimes widen with omnifarious openings where others may see more gregariousness.

INTP - someone who must make sense of things. there is a natural law behind everything that can eventually be figured out. doing this and thinking about what could be made from it all, is often satisfying

 

[Southern Kross]

For real though, INTPs have dominant introverted thinking which makes them hyper-logical and constantly analyzing situations. Then have the tendency to bury their feelings because they aren't rational and they have difficulty expressing themselves to people.

I agree that INTPs are more detached and impersonal in their logic, but remember that INFPs have difficulty expressing themselves and bury their feelings a great deal too, albeit for different reasons. As you say, INTPs do it because they don't want their feelings to muddle their reasoning, whereas INFPs do it as a self-protective measure. Being able to determine the difference is crucial in differentiating the two types, because INFPs can also have an impersonal demeanour and manner of speaking.

They tend to see things as good versus evil with no middle ground and are very concerned with being good.

I would say this is perhaps true of very young and immature INFPs but not ones that have a little more life experience (usually aged around 22 and older). We might be interested in the general exploration of concepts of good and evil but we don't really think splitting people into one camp or the other is useful, or even accurate. We are inclined to see the shades of grey between the 2 and attempt to determine stable guidelines that bring order to the complex intricacies. I would say instead, that INFPs are very interested (more specifically) in right vs. wrong.

I think INTPs feel worthless when they feel incompetent, INFPs feel worthless when they feel like they have morally compromised themselves.

Sounds about right.

I think in general terms INFPs have a strong people focus (although not necessarily, good people skills) - they care about how ideas/behaviours/values etc impact individuals and society at large. INTPs certainly care about this too, but it is not the central focus of their thinking.

 

[Laurie]

What Laurie has taken away from hanging out with INTPs and INFPs:

INFP - You can't understand the depth of my feelings
INTP - You can't understand the depth of my thoughts

 

[Pseudo]

I agree that INTPs are more detached and impersonal in their logic, but remember that INFPs have difficulty expressing themselves and bury their feelings a great deal too, albeit for different reasons. As you say, INTPs do it because they don't want their feelings to muddle their reasoning, whereas INFPs do it as a self-protective measure. Being able to determine the difference is crucial in differentiating the two types, because INFPs can also have an impersonal demeanour and manner of speaking.

I would say this is perhaps true of very young and immature INFPs but not ones that have a little more life experience (usually aged around 22 and older). We might be interested in the general exploration of concepts of good and evil but we don't really think splitting people into one camp or the other is useful, or even accurate. We are inclined to see the shades of grey between the 2 and attempt to determine stable guidelines that bring order to the complex intricacies. I would say instead, that INFPs are very interested (more specifically) in right vs. wrong.


Sounds about right.

I think in general terms INFPs have a strong people focus (although not necessarily, good people skills) - they care about how ideas/behaviours/values etc impact individuals and society at large. INTPs certainly care about this too, but it is not the central focus of their thinking.

I dont't think INFPs really bury their feelings as well as they think they do. I think it's always apparent how they're feeling they just aren't good at communicating the "why". In comparison to the INTP who won't tell or show their feelings. If you had to decide who was INTP and who was INFP, the INTP would be the stoic.

 

[WALMART]

[MENTION=5953]Laurie[/MENTION]

You've won, good work.

 

[Southern Kross]

I dont't think INFPs really bury their feelings as well as they think they do. I think it's always apparent how they're feeling they just aren't good at communicating the "why". In comparison to the INTP who won't tell or show their feelings. If you had to decide who was INTP and who was INFP, the INTP would be the stoic.

It might be possible that people get the impression that deep feeling is going on underneath but we generally don't express it. And I honestly think most people don't have a clue what I'm feeling most of the time, because they seem to be so endlessly confused about it. This confusion often leads them to treat me like a blank canvas for them to project all sorts of (inaccurate) emotions on to.

Here's some of what Jung says about Fi, and it's apparent lack of warmth and expression:

They are mostly silent, inaccessible, and hard to understand; often they hide behind a childish or banal mask, and not infrequently their temperament is melancholic. They neither shine nor reveal themselves. Since they submit the control of their lives to their subjectively orientated feeling, their true motives generally remain concealed. Their outward demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a sympathetic parallelism, which has no desire to affect others, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way... The harmonious feeling atmosphere rules only so long as the object moves upon its own way with a moderate feeling intensity, and makes no attempt to cross the other's path. There is little effort to accompany the real emotions of the object, which tend to be damped and rebuffed, or to put it more aptly, are 'cooled off' by a negative feeling-judgment. Although one may find a constant readiness for a peaceful and harmonious companionship, the unfamiliar object is shown no touch of amiability, no gleam of responding warmth, but is met by a manner of apparent indifference or repelling coldness.

In the presence of something that might carry one away or arouse enthusiasm, this type observes a benevolent neutrality, tempered with an occasional trace of superiority and criticism that soon takes the wind out of the sails of a sensitive object. But a stormy emotion will be brusquely rejected with murderous coldness, unless it happens to catch the subject from the side of the unconscious, i.e. unless, through the animation of some primordial image, feeling is, as it were, taken captive. In which event such a woman simply feels a momentary laming, invariably producing, in due course, a still more violent resistance, which reaches the object in his most vulnerable spot. The relation to the object is, as far as possible, kept in a secure and tranquil middle state of feeling, where passion and its intemperateness are resolutely proscribed. Expression of feeling, therefore, remains niggardly and, when once aware of it at all, the object has a permanent sense of his undervaluation...

A superficial judgment might well be betrayed, by a rather cold and reserved demeanour, into denying all feeling to this type. Such a view, however, would be quite false; the truth is, her feelings are intensive rather than extensive.

I don't disagree that INTPs will generally appear more stoic. I only mean to INFPs can be a little confusingly distant and inexpressive, which could be misconstrued as evidence that they are INTP.

 

[WALMART]

INFP's are ideological, INTP's are idea-logical.

 

[Cellmold]

For real though, INTPs have dominant introverted thinking which makes them hyper-logical and constantly analyzing situations. Then have the tendency to bury their feelings because they aren't rational and they have difficulty expressing themselves to people. INFPs have dominant introverted feeling which means their emotions have a lot of sway over their actions. They are idealistic and compassionate and like caring for others. They tend to see things as good versus evil with no middle ground and are very concerned with being good. I think INTPs feel worthless when they feel incompetent, INFPs feel worthless when they feel like they have morally compromised themselves.

This would make me an INTP then, since im much more concerned with incompetence than I am with compassion.

INTP - someone who must make sense of things. there is a natural law behind everything that can eventually be figured out. doing this and thinking about what could be made from it all, is often satisfying

Heh that describes me perfectly, im always trying to understand how MBTI fits in with the systems of the world....or rather just fits in general. When I take it apart in my mind it often falls down flat on it's face....but from what I can gather the closest thing to sense I can make of it is that it puts definition to readily observable traits in humans and even then it is shakey.

But of course no one would ever consider thinking for me, beyond one or two people on this forum. Is the problem with the theory or the perception of the theory? Or can the theory ever stand on it's own in the first place?

However I will admit I am overall far more concerned with value drives than logical based ones. But what I apply my values to are far removed from what people would stereotypically think, (ho ho ho), a feeler, (especially an introverted feeler), would apply their values to. Nevertheless im still a feeler.

Cognitive function wise the two types in question are fairly different...

Ti>Ne>Si>Fe

vs

Fi>Ne>Si>Te

I imagine both an INFP and an INTP would get on each others nerves to some extent, probably because of the shadow functions, but hey we are individuals here and exceptions will obviously exist.

Interestingly enough to my mind, thinking and feeling often cause more division than intuition vs sensing as is so often touted.

 

[RaptorWizard]

INTP has greater mastery of mind to focus their willpower upon controlling nature.

 

[Such Irony]

I guess this thread confirms I'm more INTP.

 

[Eugene Watson VIII]

I guess this thread confirms I'm more INTP.

I guess it's good to look away from the stereotypes too, lots of people think they have to be like ___ to be xxxx.

I just found two vidyas one of an INTP and the other, INFP. Notice how much more focused and deliberate the INTP comes off to compared to the INFP. the INFP is also much more emotionally in tune and goes on about values, what she likes and such..

i guess if you're stuck, i'd forget it, resume life like how you do and then get someone else's opinion and some more test results