What's the difference between an INTP with a heart and an INFP with a head?

[Lady_X]

Ha interesting! I think his environment and upbringing were very ti heavy... I think it was comfortable for him to converse that way maybe but he didn't seem to have an ounce of fe usage haha

What about you? Do you feel like that could be the case for you?

If I were to ask you to choose one thing you prioritize over all else what would you say?

 

[zelo1954]

INTP with a heart - thinks people mean well but are illogical

INFP with a head - thinks people are pragmatic but immoral

Change immoral to amoral and I reckon you've got something there.

 

[Pseudo]

Regular INTP's have scorn for everyone, including each other.

I disagree. I think INTPs have scorn for illogical social systems and niceties. It's like those games where you maneuver the mechanical arm to get a prize. You desire and are interested in the prize but playing the game is frustrating and often disappointing.

 

[zelo1954]

One uses rigorous analysis, science, logic, etc. to improve the conditions for people,
while the other uses compassion, empathy, and listening to help people get back on track towards reason.

But which is which?

This is good as well. Interestingly so far, reading the replies, I've been able to identify with the INTP half of the equation much more than the INFP half. Interesting.

 

[Rasofy]

Change immoral to amoral and I reckon you've got something there.

Indeed, that works better.

 

[zelo1954]

Ha interesting! I think his environment and upbringing were very ti heavy... I think it was comfortable for him to converse that way maybe but he didn't seem to have an ounce of fe usage haha

What about you? Do you feel like that could be the case for you?

If I were to ask you to choose one thing you prioritize over all else what would you say?

Just at present I've writing a number of letters (by email of course). I'm amazed that I have two distinct styles that I can switch between with ease. One I use for describing scientific concepts and the other I use for telling stories. There's maybe nothing unexpected here but I would rate myself as good at both. It's like I am two different people.

The answer to your question however I think is that Ti overrules Fi. But all other markers tell me the opposite - that INfp is about right. It's a fascinating subject this - and probably really only of academic interest. I am after all the same person no matter what label I place upon myself.

 

[zelo1954]

Q: What's the difference between an INTP with a heart and an INFP with a head?

A: An ESFP with courage, an ISFJ with fancy shoes, and a dead witch slowly melting into the floorboards?

This one's gone over my head alas.

 

[Burger King]

INTPs are born into this world heartless and INFPs are born into this world stupid. Awesome.
[MENTION=16301]zelo1954[/MENTION]

Check this out, it's gold: http://forums.intpcentral.com/forumdisplay.php?32-The-Classics

 

[21%]

I disagree. I think INTPs have scorn for illogical social systems and niceties. It's like those games where you maneuver the mechanical arm to get a prize. You desire and are interested in the prize but playing the game is frustrating and often disappointing.

The bolded is true of my INFP boyfriend too. Actually, I think INTPs are generally more accepting of social systems than INFPs.

 

[Pseudo]

The bolded is true of my INFP boyfriend too. Actually, I think INTPs are generally more accepting of social systems than INFPs.

I think INFPs and INTPs share a certain kind of melancholy tendency due to the aforementioned trouble with social systems. I agreed that INFPs will reject the systems outright as , unjust or immoral, while INTPs will be more confused and dismissive. Though I must say even when they reject social systems INFPs I think are more social successful. I think they have an odd combination intensity of belief and aloofness makes people interested in them.

 

[Lady_X]

Just at present I've writing a number of letters (by email of course). I'm amazed that I have two distinct styles that I can switch between with ease. One I use for describing scientific concepts and the other I use for telling stories. There's maybe nothing unexpected here but I would rate myself as good at both. It's like I am two different people.

The answer to your question however I think is that Ti overrules Fi. But all other markers tell me the opposite - that INfp is about right. It's a fascinating subject this - and probably really only of academic interest. I am after all the same person no matter what label I place upon myself.

Yeah for sure... I thought the same the other day when kalach was trying to suggest I might be esfp. Although I think it's a totally silly suggestion that I could be se Dom.

Regardless... A label doesn't really change the contents does it?

I think if I had to choose for you... I might say intp tho just by a slight bit... But if you wanna know the truth it's only because you don't read like a fi Dom... I see ne first and then fi flavored ti.

If that makes any sense.

 

[Giggly]

This is good as well. Interestingly so far, reading the replies, I've been able to identify with the INTP half of the equation much more than the INFP half. Interesting.

You seem more INTP to me too. Just a little.

 

[INTP]

one tries to expand logic to external things(that fits the impression of it, according to objective standards) and other tries to subtract what is illogical from impressions of external things to see the hidden logic behind it(also causalities between different aspects etc are considered).

 

[Cellmold]

One goes herp de derp the other goes derp de herp.

 

[entropie]

An intp with heart and vice versa would most probably never type or be typed an intp or infp cause he doesnt fit the square

 

[INTP]

An intp with heart and vice versa would most probably never type or be typed an intp or infp cause he doesnt fit the square

INTP isnt an square

 

[prplchknz]

INTP with a heart - thinks people mean well but are illogical

this is what I believe, and i include myself in the equation aswell

 

[Salomé]

An intp with heart and vice versa would most probably never type or be typed an intp or infp cause he doesnt fit the square

I wonder why people are so anxious to fit into someone else's box?/no innuendo plz

It's the thing I find most trying about these theories. Why do people think there's something wrong / abnormal with them /their understanding, instead of something wrong with a general theory of type that fails to accommodate their idiosyncrasies? It must be, at best incomplete, at worst, utter nonsense. Why isn't this much obvious?

Actually, I don't have to ask why. I know why.
It's because within the typology community, ambiguities are considered unsatisfactory or inferior in some way. A type with an X somewhere in their 4-letter code is considered incomplete - an indication that the person doesn't know themselves well enough or isn't "differentiated" enough. Maybe they are going through some kind of life-stage crisis?
This is a gross disservice to the process of self-discovery. Yet this explanation is rife in the literature.

For example, this is Lenore Thompson:

Types whose E/I and P/J scores are both very close may be
-feeling pressure to conform to someone else's image of them
-in a new job/school/marriage
-recently retired or divorced, or attempting to redefine an accustomed identity;

So....pretty much anyone then?

Myers says:

...in the least developed adults, the processes remain childish, so that nothing can be maturely perceived or maturely judged.

While this is probably true, it's actually an argument against her typology. She seems to be contradicting her own treatise that every individual has "gifts" and that every individual can consequently be assigned a type.

So, X can mean you're good at too many things or good at nothing at all. So far, so helpful ...

You have to ask yourself why typologists make their test/theory failure your fault. Why they try to undermine you by implying you're just immature, confused or too easily influenced. (When in fact, it is the most immature, one-dimensional, easily-led people who are the easiest to "type".)

They have to, because otherwise the house of cards falls apart. If most people are not in fact, clearly and consistently defined "types", then maybe typology is bullshit on a par with astrology? And that's not going to sell books to insecure self-helpers.

What I would say to you is stop sweating whether you're an "INTP with heart" or an "INFP with head". Neither of those categories are comprehensive enough to encompass the complexity that is you.

Embrace your X, and be done with it.

Another way of looking at it, if you endorse the mapping to the "Agreeableness" dimension provided by FFM, is that you fall somewhere in the middle: i.e. you are neither a doormat nor a complete prick. That's a pretty healthy place to be.

I am, after all, the same person, no matter what label I place upon myself.

Precisely.

 

[greenfairy]

An intp with heart and vice versa would most probably never type or be typed an intp or infp cause he doesnt fit the square

Yeah. So both you and I are un-typable. How does this make you feel, and what do you think?

 

[greenfairy]

I wonder why people are so anxious to fit into someone else's box?/no innuendo plz

It's the thing I find most trying about these theories. Why do people think there's something wrong / abnormal with them /their understanding, instead of something wrong with a general theory of type that fails to accommodate their idiosyncrasies? It must be, at best incomplete, at worst, utter nonsense. Why isn't this much obvious?

Actually, I don't have to ask why. I know why.
It's because within the typology community, ambiguities are considered unsatisfactory or inferior in some way. A type with an X somewhere in their 4-letter code is considered incomplete - an indication that the person doesn't know themselves well enough or isn't "differentiated" enough. Maybe they are going through some kind of life-stage crisis?
This is a gross disservice to the process of self-discovery. Yet this explanation is rife in the literature.

For example, this is Lenore Thompson:

So....pretty much anyone then?

Myers says:
While this is probably true, it's actually an argument against her typology. She seems to be contradicting her own treatise that every individual has "gifts" and that every individual can consequently be assigned a type.

So, X can mean you're good at too many things or good at nothing at all. So far, so helpful ...

You have to ask yourself why typologists make their test/theory failure your fault. Why they try to undermine you by implying you're just immature, confused or too easily influenced. (When in fact, it is the most immature, one-dimensional, easily-led people who are the easiest to "type".)

They have to, because otherwise the house of cards falls apart. If most people are not in fact, clearly and consistently defined "types", then maybe typology is bullshit on a par with astrology? And that's not going to sell books to insecure self-helpers.

What I would say to you is stop sweating whether you're an "INTP with heart" or an "INFP with head". Neither of those categories are comprehensive enough to encompass the complexity that is you.

Embrace your X, and be done with it.

Another way of looking at it, if you endorse the mapping to the "Agreeableness" dimension provided by FFM, is that you fall somewhere in the middle: i.e. you are neither a doormat nor a complete prick. That's a pretty healthy place to be.


Precisely.

And this is pretty much exactly what I've been saying from the beginning (especially the bolded), with the caveat that choosing a type as a best fit (even if the fit is loose) can be helpful. And you see the kind of reception I get.