You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.
I've read quite a few of your other TC posts (outside this thread), and some more follow-up in this thread is still on my "to do" list, but I'm in the middle of a few too many things at the moment, so there'll be some further delay.
In the meantime, though... I just planted a long five-post series in RisaMoccasin's type-me thread (starting here), and I think you'll find (if you read it) that quite a bit of what I said there about INs and INFs and INFJs applies to you. She's a fellow Limbic INFJ (methinks), and I'd say you both have very strong F preferences. I'd say her J preference is stronger than yours, but I'm still leaning J for you (although I'd hardly say I've ruled out P). And I suspect she's also at least somewhat more introverted than you.
It's a lot of stuff, and definitely don't feel any pressure to read it to the extent that you're not motivated to do so for your own purposes. But if you do read it, I'd be interested to hear about any strong "that's me" or "that's not me" reactions you might have, either to RisaMoccasin's self-descriptions (as quoted in my posts) or to any of the things I say about, e.g., NFs or INFs or INFJs.
Ni’s constantly wonder and guess in their head - they do this so often that they often don’t even realize that they are doing it. It more or less becomes a part of them. Ni’s easily get lost in the mind and are thus very introspective, and often pull out ingenious ideas and insights. They view life more globally than any other type, striving to never let themselves forget about the big picture. Ni’s constantly shift their perspectives, and view and understand things from different angles and in different ways.
Under extreme stress Ni’s become paranoid and overly withdrawn. Their inferior function jumps them, and they become overly interested in details and obsessed with physical pleasure. They become slaves to childlike impulses, sometimes ruining themselves with their decisions in the process.
Ni’s confidently trust their intuitions, insights, ideas, and inspirations - often no matter what others say. Their thoughts become part of who they are. They don’t need to rely on others, and they enjoy time to themselves. Their strong independence is a good thing, but they also have a natural suspicion about others and need to learn to trust them (INTJ’s in particular).
Ni’s prefer to think things through as completely as possible and dislike it when others come to quick, simplistic conclusions. Ni’s are known to get frustrated with others. INTJ’s are more likely to show this than INFJs, but nonetheless it is there, and often strongly felt. Ni’s need to remind themselves that they are extremely rare and should be proud that they see things that others don’t. Nonetheless one can certainly understand their grievance with what sometimes seems like the shallow, ignorant ways of the world.
Ni’s continually think about the future, what it may hold, and how what they are currently doing with their life affects it. Ni’s are too often hypersensitive to contingencies, possibilities and implications. To the Ni, anything is possible and could happen. Some Ni’s focus too much on those “coulds†and become worrywarts. Ni’s need to develop their auxiliary function to keep them in touch with the reality of the external world. When Ni’s don’t use their other functions, their unique visions turn to far-fetched crackpot theories, and their confidence turns to downright obstinance.
Another source of frustration for Ni’s is their difficulty articulating their complex views and intuitions. However, when they are able to do this, the result is typically both impressive and impactful.
More on Introverted Intuitives:
Take pride in their strong perseverance, drive, and will power.
Can be sensitive to and easily overwhelmed by external stimuli
Often think of things that others don’t
Need intellectual stimulation
Aren’t afraid of the complex - they often prefer it.
- I have been under A LOT of stress and I have been delving into the physical pleasures and ESTP is not my route. I have poor coordination and don't take pride in being an athlete. Only reason why I like running is because it feels like it's the only thing I can do well, it's so simple for my body to learn (although form helps improve and everything) plus I LOVE the complex of science and taking something like biochemistry would convince I am an INFJ (little jealous of intj's high Ni)
I'm back! And still leaning INFJ. I think your F is notably strong (I might even say unusually strong for a guy) and your J is on the mild side — and I'm not closed to the P and x possibilities. On the "unusually strong F" point, I'd say you probably give off the strongest F vibe of all the guys whose forum type-me projects I've participated in. On the other hand, to put that in perspective, almost all the INFJ guys I've dealt with have been at INTJforum (and often guys who at least sometimes tested INTJ), so it undoubtedly makes sense to assume that the sample of INFJ guys I've been exposed to has been a sample that's tended to have relatively weak F preferences.
In any case, I've gotten the impression that at least some of the ways you feel like you arguably differ from what you might call a "textbook INFJ" (and maybe especially a textbook male INFJ) are probably attributable to your being more-F-than-average or less-J-than-average or both.
Here are more reactions to stuff you've posted, mostly from this thread.
Out of this website, I am going to tell what the things that stuck out to me (I guess in my favor):
'Just knowing' things without being able to explain why - via feelings, impressions, hunches, ESP, and even forms of psychic phenomena - can often be the product of being so constantly attuned to the subconscious mind, where information is gathered and processed 'behind the back of' the conscious mind. Therefore this 'just knowing' is not as mysterious as it seems; the Ni user simply finds it inexplicable that they know or understand something without having ever been aware of gathering the information anywhere or thinking it through (they were not aware of it since all the associated mental processing went on subconsciously).
(For instance, Ni might look at a face and not remember the color of the eyes but would be very aware of the emotion expressed in that face...that is, the meaning behind the sensory surface
N in general is, to a significant extent, about what you might call connecting the dots, and "Aha!" moments of one kind or another are characteristic of every N type. I think it's probably a mistake to assume that the kinds of "feelings, impressions, hunches," etc. described in that paragraph are something an INFJ is much more likely to experience than an INFP.
The first point I'd make about that sentence is that it does strike me as one that an INFJ would be more likely to strongly relate to than an INFP.
But the second point I'd make is that, contrary to what you'll find in quite a lot of Fe characterizations, INFJs are not particularly prone to be adopters of majority values — or to otherwise defer to other people in terms of their values — and I've put some recycled reckful on that subject in the next spoiler.
It's the majority view among Jung scholars — and, I think, really the only respectable take on Psychological Types as a whole — that Jung believed an Ni-dom with an F-aux would be Ni-Fi (or, arguably, something more like Ni-F) rather than Ni-Fe. And in any case, if the description of Fe you're looking at is Jung's description, it's really inarguable that Jung wouldn't have expected it to apply well to any introvert, since Jung's Fe-dom description included characteristics that he clearly said (elsewhere) applied to extraverts generally (and didn't apply to introverts) — and it's not uncommon to find those in other people's Fe descriptions as well (including Fe descriptions that purport to correspond to, e.g., INFJs).
For example, I wouldn't be surprised if you've read that Fe tends to involve (in part) shared values, with the result that "Fe types" are more likely to align their values with their culture and/or groups they belong to. But Jung believed that it was extraverts generally whose values tended to reflect "external factors" (e.g., culturally-dominant values), while introverts generally tended to be independent minded. In fact, Jung said that the fact that a value was favored by the majority could lead an introvert to reject it just for that reason.
Here's Jung describing extraverts and introverts:
We shall come upon individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question. I will give some examples of what I mean. St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them? "One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."
[The previous examples] point to a psychological peculiarity that can be sharply distinguished from another attitude which, by contrast, is motivated chiefly by internal or subjective factors. A person of this type might say: "I know I could give my father the greatest pleasure if I did so and so, but I don't happen to think that way." ... There are some who feel happy only when they are quite sure nobody knows about it, and to them a thing is disagreeable just because it is pleasing to everyone else. They seek the good where no one would think of finding it. ... Such a person would have replied to St. Augustine: "I would believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion.
So... that's what Jung thought, and that's the main reason the majority values focus was there in his Fe-dom descriptions. To Jung, it was first and foremost an extravert characteristic, rather than an Fe characteristic.
Was Jung right to identify this as predominantly an E/I issue? Well, not exactly, I wouldn't say. All other things being equal, I'd say an introvert is more likely to be independent-minded than an extravert, but I think S vs. N is the biggest factor — and, among the S's, and as I think Keirsey rightly noted, SJs are the most likely to be majoritarian/traditional in their beliefs. But, as a final note, Jung assigned what's arguably the lion's share of the modern conception of S/N (the concrete/abstract duality) to E/I, with the result that, when Jung looked out at the world and spotted what he thought was a definite "extravert," he was presumably more often looking at what we'd consider an ES than an EN — and, conversely, the cussedly independent/individualistic "introverts" he spotted were presumably more often INs than ISs.
An Fe user is attuned to feelings in the external environment and is programmed to maintain comfortable feelings in that environment. Any nonverbally-sensitive individual can sense vibes from other people, but not necessarily to the empathic degree that Fe users feel them, and not always with the response to those feelings that Fe naturally generates. If you're an Fe user, "vibes" of the feelings experienced by those physically adjacent to you invade and infiltrate you, so you are very aware of them...sometimes to a degree of vicariously experiencing the same sort of feeling ~ such as emotional pain or tension from conflict. (Depending on your enneatype, you may not be able to detach yourself from ambient feelings or separate/differentiate your own feelings from those of those around you.) The feelings of others around you evoke a reflexive response: like your leg naturally kicks out when the doctor strikes it with the reflex hammer, painful feelings in those around you strike pain in you and involuntarily invoke a response to relieve them (through taking whatever action will make the person/people feel better).
On the one hand, I don't necessarily disagree that INFJ may be the type (or one of the types) that tends to exhibit this streak in the strongest form, and to a somewhat stronger degree than a typical INFP.
On the other hand, though, I think it would be a mistake to think that a typical INFP — because Fe vs. Fi — is more like the INFJ's opposite than their close cousin in this regard.
If you move past the empathic sensitivity to emotions (and "vibes") and focus on behavior, and you're talking about an INF with a notably strong service to others streak — i.e., someone with a core drive to look for opportunities to proactively do things for others to enhance their "comfortable feelings" and promote harmony, etc. — then I'd say that's a somewhat better INFJ-over-INFP indicator than just the empathic/emotional sensitivity to pain/tension/conflict.
Booyah:
INFJ: "I can sympathize with where you're coming from--allow me to emphasize some sort of cultural bond or familial connection that relates us in an objectively observable way and suggests that we have some degree of responsibility toward each other. Only through committed responsibility to these objective relationships can we form the social hierarchy by which we will decide--together through collective experience--what constitutes moral and ethical behavior within the communal bonds of our lives together. Morality is simply too important to be decided by any individual without any input from the consensus of the people he trusts, loves and respects."
Booyah indeed. I'd say relating strongly to that gets you some INFJ points. In the next spoiler is some stuff I recently posted in an IN_P's type-me thread (at PerC) about NPs tending to be more individualistic/relativistic about "truths" and values than NJs.
Since I'm dichotomy-centric rather than function-centric, I'm more inclined to talk about NJs and NPs than "Ni types" and "Ne types." But, whichever labels you want to use, your strong tendency — which you've now described in many posts — to love looking at things from multiple angles and revel in the fact that, in many cases (at least as you see it), there's no "one truth" but rather a multiplicity of possible truths (relative to the observer's individual perspective) is quintessentially Ne (NP) and not Ni (NJ).
Any mature NJ certainly understands that there are lots of things about the world that are most accurately viewed as matters of individual opinions and values, but an NJ is less likely than an NP to use the word "truths" to refer to those things, at least partly because NJs are also characteristically believers in a realm of less relativistic truths.
And what's more, and maybe most importantly from a typological standpoint: regardless of what any particular NJ's ultimate philosophical views about the nature of "truth" might be, a typical NJ has a preference for more solid, non-relativistic truths. So, for example, a particular INFJ counselor might well tell you, if queried in high-level-philosophical terms, that many of the most important "truths" about life are ultimately matters of individual perspective — while also having a strong tendency, at the temperament level, to believe that she more often than not, by virtue of her above-average insight into psychological/social/etc. matters, knows what's best for the other people in her life (clients and friends alike).
As between IN_Js and IN_Ps, I really don't think there's any question that IN_Ps are the ones more characteristically inclined to be relativistic, and to think and speak in terms of "my truths" vs. "your truths." And what's more, and maybe most importantly from a typological standpoint: that relativistic multiplicity of truths isn't just something an INFP is likely to accept in some kind of grudging, deferring-to-reality way (the way an INFJ might). Instead, like you, INFPs are characteristically jazzed by the rich multiplicity of possible "truths," and the freedom that offers each special-snowflake INFP to find (and/or make) her own "truths."
As you say, "I derive tremendous enjoyment from examining a perspective from vastly different angles and coming up with my own unique understanding of it."
Here's Linda Berens describing Ne:
Berens said:
When you find yourself letting your mind wander endlessly through thoughts that cannot be said, developing hypotheses from data, or inferring the meaning of something, you are engaging in extraverted iNtuiting. Using this process, we tune in extemporaneously to a multitude of possibilities and potentials. This helps us understand shifting relationships and meanings and be responsive to them as they occur.
Extraverted iNtuiting involves seeing things "as if," with various possible ways of representing reality. Using this process, we can hold many different ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and meanings in our minds at once with the possibility that they are all true. ...
Extraverted iNtuiting involves realizing that there is always another view. An example is when you listen to one friend tell about an argument and understand perfectly and then listen to another friend tell a contradictory story and understand that view also. Then you wonder what the real story is because there are always so many different possible meanings.
As already mentioned, I think of the NJs as the types most likely to come across as know-it-alls, and know-it-alls are not people whose declarations tend to have a "this is my truth" (or "this is my perspective") tone, but rather people with more of a tendency to sound like they think they know what the truth (or the correct perspective) is — for you as well as them.
Again, though, this is not to say that, when it comes to the values an INFJ cares most about, they're likely to be values that the INFJ has deferentially adopted from outside because they're the values of the majority (or of some "group" the INFJ is part of). Nor is it to say that an INFJ is particularly likely to feel like they have any right to be trying to impose their values on others who disagree — nor is it to say that an INFP isn't likely to think the world would be a better place if more people shared the INFP's values.
What I'm saying, rather, is that a typical INFP will tend (at the gut — temperament — level) to be more comfortable/accepting of the fact that so many important-feeling truths/values seem to be relativistic/individualistic, while an INFJ is more likely to be someone who, while they may semi-grudgingly accept the idea that lots of important-feeling truths are arguably relative on some rational/philosophical level, have a stronger core drive (again, at the temperament level) to want to discover/establish a body of truths/values that have a more universal quality — or are at least shared within some relatively cohesive social group.
As a final note to maybe help keep the complications here in perspective: Let's say you're looking at a progressive social movement involving some oppressed or discriminated-against or otherwise disadvantaged minority and where the proponents are very much in the minority (this year, anyway). Are INFJs likely to be underrepresented or overrepresented (as compared to their percentage of the general population) among the more active members of that movement? Not only would I say overrepresented, I'd say INFJ may be the quintessential type for that. And you could certainly say that the INFJ's focus is on group values in that case, but the INFJ is looking to change the established values, rather than deferring to existing values.
Ideally, inferior Se should eventually help the INFJ to stop looking for deeper meaning in places where it's neither intended nor useful, to appreciate the more immediate value in that which is tangible and real to others (even though she herself may see it as trivially insubstantial), and to maintain a degree of spontaneity in terms of ability to pay attention to and imitate what others around her see as current and worthy of attention. Sometimes this is the only way the INFJ can get anyone to pay enough attention to what he's saying to make any real noticeable impact or difference in the world--and that's something most INFJs struggle their whole lives to feel like they are doing.
All the INs have a tendency to be head-in-the-clouds types and, if anything, I'd say the average IN_P may tend to be somewhat more, not less, absent-minded-professory than the average IN_J. How remote/alienated any IN feels from S-world is more likely to hinge on how strong their N preference — and, to some extent, their introversion — is than whether they're (supposedly) an "inferior Se type" or a "tertiary Si type."
INFJ will express feelings, explore group values, other people's feelings and so forth.
NFPs, on the other hand, have an identical attitude towards Si. As such, they will often keep memorabilia such as diaries, scrap-books, photographs, and such so they can feel the past over and over again, and often seek out Si-dominants who have a similar tendency to store their experiences into objects.
Why anyone would expect Si — normally characterized predominantly in terms of things SJs tend to have in common — to apply to an NFP in the "identical" way that Fe (mostly things FJs tend to have in common) applies to an INFJ is a mystery to me. In any case, I suspect the notion that a fondness for "memorabilia" is something that's much more characteristic of INFPs than INFJs is pretty much just pure trying-to-impose-the-functions-model-on-the-facts rather than something that has anything to do with real life INFJs and INFPs.
Ni searches for depth, meaning and significance in the world. It can be thought of an elastic web of insights that is constantly being refined and expanded. The goal of the function is to filter out biases and refine perception to arrive at the "one truth". Monism, the notion that there is one truth is at the core of Ni.
Although I'd say that kind of overstates the case, it's obviously consistent with the stuff in that earlier reckful-recycle about relativistic vs. more universal truths/values. From a type-you perspective, though, what's most significant is that, overstated though it may be, you quoted it to indicate that you relate to it — which, again, I'd see as worth an INFJ-over-INFP point or two.
Ni-Fe makes INFJs natural psychologists because it helps them model how minds work. They are not naturally introspective about their feelings but have a great deal of insight into their minds and thought processes. The psyche's ego-defense mechanisms and self-deception are weakened by the constant filtering of Ni, therefore they can be highly sensitive and are known to have fragile egos. This obsession with truth results in the INFJ being seen as naive and innocently honest about their own motives and that of others. The auxiliary Fe absorbs the emotions and mood of the social environment. It is extremely good at interpreting facial expressions to quickly spot out insincerity or malevolent intent in other people. It also results in a natural desire to like people and be liked by them, which provides Ni with an intersting topic to study (humans). The default orientation of feeling is extroverted so INFJs constantly look for the perfectly trustworthy person to whom they can share their internal world or true selves. Feeling is usually expressed when it is experienced, otherwise it is translated into action or rationalized by Ti. As Fe users, they tend to process their feelings through self-disclosure or direct action, so they are not prone to passive aggressive behavior or emotional suppression. The INFJ does not have constant awareness of their internal feelings and reactions, so the stress they experience daily may accumulate and manifest in a somatic form in sickness or a physical feeling of malaise. This lack of awareness in mood can be seen in their facial expressions, as they do not try to (or are not good at) displaying facades. Other people may get the wrong impression that an INFJ is feeling sad or gloomy when the person actually feels neutral because the INFJ is focused in his/her internal world. Fe also provides the INFJ with a "higher purpose" to strive towards, this is usually something external such as a political/social movement, liberating the oppressed, feeding the poor. Their concern for others makes them great social leaders and humanitarians.
I disagree with the characterization that INFJs "are not naturally introspective about their feelings." I'd say both INF types are naturally introspective about their feelings. INFPs moreso? I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that but, more importantly, I'd say this is another characteristic where INFJs and INFPs are better viewed as close cousins than opposites.
And similarly, if an INFJ is any more prone to have a "fragile ego" than an INFP, I'd say it's at most a relatively minor matter of degree, rather than a case where INFJs are among the types with the most fragile egos and INFPs are among the types with the least fragile egos. I'd say that, all other things being equal, an INFJ's self esteem is more likely to be strongly affected by what others think of them than an INFP's, but someone whose sense of self-worth hinges more on their own self-evaluation is perfectly capable of having a fragile ego. Fragile egos come in multiple varieties.
I also don't think INFJs are prone to be significantly more naïve than INFPs. If anything, I think FJs tend to be somewhat more cynical, especially as they get older. FWIW, I've more than once heard ENFPs characterized as on the gullible (overly trusting) side, and that's consistent with my RL experience. And note that the characterization of INFJs as "being seen as naïve and innocently honest about [others'] motives" seems inconsistent with the later comment that INFJs are "extremely good at" detecting "malevolent intent in other people."
And I think the writer makes a mistake — albeit a pretty common one — when they say, "Feeling is usually expressed when it is experienced, otherwise it is translated into action or rationalized by Ti. As Fe users, they tend to process their feelings through self-disclosure or direct action, so they are not prone to passive aggressive behavior or emotional suppression." I'd say the confusion basically originates in the fact that Jung's "Fe" description was a description of Fe as manifested in an Fe-dom (i.e., an extravert with an F preference), and much of Jung's description of Fe and Fe-doms involved stuff that Jung said was characteristic of extraverts generally (like the tendency to adopt majority values, discussed above) — and was not characteristic of introverts of any type. For further discussion of why Jung wouldn't have associated emotional expressiveness with INFJs (or any other introvert), see this PerC post and this PerC post. As Jung explained: "Both [extraverts and introverts] are capable of enthusiasm. What fills the extravert's heart flows out of his mouth, but the enthusiasm of the introvert is the very thing that seals his lips."
I agree with the last two sentences of the quoted paragraph. As previously noted, INFJs may be the types most likely to be overrepresented in social movements and causes aimed at benefiting oppressed and/or discriminated-against and/or otherwise disadvantaged minorities. INFPs are likely to believe in all those same causes but, all other things being equal, I'd say the average INFJ is more likely to be actively involved, and more likely than the (potentially more self-absorbed) INFP to feel like there's an unacceptable hole in their life if they're not actually out there making some kind of proactive contribution along those lines.
It's probably also worth noting that the author of that particular paragraph (psyphics) later commented, "My article does a poor job of contrasting the two types."
I was researching A lot about introverted intuition because I was almost uncertain that I had it. And then I found this from this link: http://personalitycafe.com/infj-forum-protectors/7730-introverted-intuition.html
...
- I have been under A LOT of stress and I have been delving into the physical pleasures and ESTP is not my route. I have poor coordination and don't take pride in being an athlete. Only reason why I like running is because it feels like it's the only thing I can do well, it's so simple for my body to learn (although form helps improve and everything) plus I LOVE the complex of science and taking something like biochemistry would convince I am an INFJ (little jealous of intj's high Ni)
That Ni description comes from www.famoustype.com, which I don't consider a good source. Here are some quick takes on some of the stuff you quoted:
famoustype said:
Ni's constantly wonder and guess in their head - they do this so often that they often don't even realize that they are doing it. It more or less becomes a part of them. Ni's easily get lost in the mind and are thus very introspective, and often pull out ingenious ideas and insights. They view life more globally than any other type, striving to never let themselves forget about the big picture. Ni's constantly shift their perspectives, and view and understand things from different angles and in different ways.
This is no more true of IN_Js than IN_Ps, and the last sentence is more quintessentially IN_P.
famoustype said:
Under extreme stress Ni's become paranoid and overly withdrawn. Their inferior function jumps them, and they become overly interested in details and obsessed with physical pleasure. They become slaves to childlike impulses, sometimes ruining themselves with their decisions in the process.
I suspect this is a good example of somebody imposing a theory — in this case, a faulty theory — on the facts. I'd say I'm a pretty typical IN_J in not becoming "obsessed with physical pleasure" or a "slave to childlike impulses" when I'm under stress. I'm inclined to think the most likely source for this aspect of an IN_J profile isn't observation of real life IN_Js under stress; it's somebody sitting there with their "cognitive function" model thinking, hmmm, somebody's "inferior function" is supposed to act up in a negative way under stress and IN_Js have "Se" as their inferior function, so what would that look like?
famoustype said:
Ni's confidently trust their intuitions, insights, ideas, and inspirations - often no matter what others say. Their thoughts become part of who they are. They don't need to rely on others, and they enjoy time to themselves. Their strong independence is a good thing, but they also have a natural suspicion about others and need to learn to trust them (INTJ's in particular).
As with the first paragraph, this doesn't really differentiate IN_Js from IN_Ps.
famoustype said:
Ni's prefer to think things through as completely as possible and dislike it when others come to quick, simplistic conclusions. Ni's are known to get frustrated with others. INTJ's are more likely to show this than INFJs, but nonetheless it is there, and often strongly felt. Ni's need to remind themselves that they are extremely rare and should be proud that they see things that others don't. Nonetheless one can certainly understand their grievance with what sometimes seems like the shallow, ignorant ways of the world.
It's actually typical for MBTI sources to say that J's are more likely to come to quick conclusions, while P's are more likely to resist closure while they think and rethink.
I'd agree that, all other things being equal, a typical IN_J is somewhat more prone to "get frustrated with others" than a typical (more easygoing and relativistic) IN_P. But all the IN types are prone, like Jung was, to have a sense of "grievance with what sometimes seems like the shallow, ignorant ways of the world."
On J/P and decisions, the next spoiler has some recycled reckful on that issue that wasn't in the long J/P post I already linked you to.
As previously noted, one of the rows in the J/P table in Gifts Differing declares that J's "like to have matters settled and decided as promptly as possible," while P's "like to keep decisions open as long as possible," and I think that's true as far as it goes, but I'm less willing to accept the arguably-related idea — not infrequently encountered on the internet — that J's generally find it easier to make decisions than P's.
Although, all other things being equal, I'd agree that J's have more of a core drive to have something settled, I'd also say that, if it's an important decision, and if it's the kind of decision that could, from an objective standpoint, turn out to have been the right decision or the wrong decision, a J is not very likely to make what most people would consider a rushed judgment — and I think that, partly due to other aspects of their overall MBTI temperament, that's arguably more true of INTJs than some of the other J types. And as a side note — and, again, assuming it's an important decision — I wouldn't say INTJs are notable sinners in the sense of being likely to stick with a decision and refuse to reconsider it in the face of new facts or evidence that it isn't working out well.
And now let's focus on the most horrible kinds of decisions everybody faces in life — namely, really big life decisions where there probably is no such thing as a right answer, or at least no way to confidently determine it in advance (and maybe not in hindsight either). For those kinds of decisions — law school or film school; career or employer choices; buying a house — I disagree with the idea that a J is significantly less likely to agonize over one of those decisions, or feel really "at sea" about one of those decisions, than a P. In fact, I think there are reasons to think an average J may tend to agonize more about one of those life decisions. For one thing, because of a J's greater drive to have things settled, it's arguably more important to a J to feel like whatever decision they make will turn out to have been the right one. A P is at least somewhat more likely to be OK with viewing their decision as tentative, and to be more comfortable with the notion that, oh well, if Plan A doesn't work out, they can always switch to Plan B and give that a try.
As a final note, I think an INTJ may be more prone to overagonize about a big life decision than at least some of the other types because an INTJ is more prone to overanalyze than some other types. An INTJ is probably more inclined than most types (although not more than INTPs, I wouldn't say) to feel like, if they just think about the decision long enough, and gather enough information, etc., dammit, they'll hopefully end up figuring it out — or, in any case, that the more INT-ish analysis they do, the more likely it will be that they'll make the right decision. You'd expect an ESTP, by contrast, to be somewhat more likely to be the one who throws up his hands at some point and says, "Who the hell knows? Flip a coin."
Ni's continually think about the future, what it may hold, and how what they are currently doing with their life affects it. Ni's are too often hypersensitive to contingencies, possibilities and implications. To the Ni, anything is possible and could happen. Some Ni's focus too much on those "coulds" and become worrywarts. Ni's need to develop their auxiliary function to keep them in touch with the reality of the external world. When Ni's don't use their other functions, their unique visions turn to far-fetched crackpot theories, and their confidence turns to downright obstinance.
All the IN types are prone to "think about the future, what it may hold, and how what they are currently doing with their life affects it," and I'd say an IN_P is actually more likely than an IN_J to think "anything is possible and could happen."
If you've read that long J/P post I previously linked you to, you know I agree that, all other things being equal, an IN_J is somewhat more likely to worry about the future than an IN_P — although being Limbic is also a substantial worrywart contributor.
When it comes to attitudes toward "possibilities," I'd say NPs tend to be the types who are the most likely to feel jazzed by the idea that there are so many damn possibilities, and "anything can happen," etc. An NJ is more likely to view the multifariousness of possibilities as part of the messiness of the world, and have a greater drive to want to reduce the multiplicity and figure out which possibility is "true," or "the best."
As you know if you read those RisaMoccasin posts I linked you to — and, specifically, the last part of this post — an INFJ is substantially more likely to be a religious worker than an INFP, and more generally (in my view), an INFJ is substantially more likely to find it conducive to latch onto a particular established religion and end up somehow feeling confident that it's the "true" one.
Getting back to the specifics of the famoustype quote, I'd say an IN_P is more likely than an IN_J to be found subscribing to "far-fetched crackpot theories." In the next spoiler is some more recycled reckful, this time on what I see as a noteworthy association between NFs (and especially NFPs) and "New Age" and/or mystical beliefs.
The whole world of stuff that gets lumped under the "New Age" umbrella — in the words of Wikipedia, that "decentralized Western social and spiritual movement that seeks ... the attainment of the highest individual human potential ... [and] includes aspects of astrology, esotericism, metaphysics, alternative medicine, music, collectivism, sustainability, and nature ... [and is also] characterized by an individual approach to spiritual practices and philosophies, and the rejection of religious doctrine and dogma" — tends to be much more N than S, but among N's, it's also fair to say than NFs tend to make up the "New Age" core. At the risk of annoying some of the NFs in the audience, I think it's fair to say that the more flaky any particular New Age practitioner seems, the more likely it is that they're an NF rather than an NT.
The mystical flavor of some N (and especially Ni) descriptions goes all the way back to Jung, who mostly considered the abstract/concrete component of N/S a component of I/E instead, and conceptualized an N preference primarily in terms of a special ability to perceive the contents of the unconscious and to envision, as Jung put it, "possibilities as to whence [something] came and whither it is going." Jung's Ni-dom portrait has a pretty strong mystical visionary aspect that I don't think a typical INTJ (for example) is very likely to identify with.
And it's not uncommon for MBTI tests — both dichotomy tests and functions tests — to include one or more N questions (or Ni or Ne questions) that I suspect an NF or NP is more likely to choose the N response to than an NTJ. I'd say NTJs are the most grounded of the N's in a number of ways, with the result that the N responses are sometimes too mystical/flaky/whatever to appeal to an NTJ.
As one example: One of the most well-known MBTI books is Please Understand Me, by David Keirsey, and it includes a 70-question test to determine your type. The original version of the book included this question:
Are visionaries
(a) somewhat annoying
(b) rather fascinating
This was supposed to be an S/N question. Response (a) was supposed to appeal to S's, and (b) to N's. But I thought it was a poor question because, I'm a really strong N but also a pretty strong TJ and, to me, "visionary" has a spiritual new-agey theories-out-of-thin-air connotation, so I chose (a) annoying. I thought the question was better designed to separate NF's from S's than N's from S's. Well, lo and behold, it looks like quite a few NTs (and maybe especially NTJs) must have had the same problem, because Keirsey adjusted the question for purposes of the later version of the book. In Please Understand Me II, the question now reads:
Do you find visionaries and theorists
(a) somewhat annoying
(b) rather fascinating
I still think the inclusion of "visionaries" makes it a weak question, but it's better than it was.
As another example: As I've said, I'm an INTJ with what I consider strong T and J preferences, and these Ni items from Nardi's cognitive functions test —
Experience a premonition or foresee the distant future.
Gain a profound realization from a mystical state or sudden release of emotions.
Feel attracted to the symbolic, archetypal, or mysterious.
— have too much of a flaky flavor for me to relate to them very well. To identify with that kind of stuff, I think it helps to be an NF or NP (or both), and it probably also helps to be at least somewhat prone to believe in ESP and/or other supernatural stuff — as Jung was. Jung most often gets typed as an INTJ, INTP or INFJ, and the people who consider him an INFJ sometimes point to his mystical bent as one of the reasons they think he was an NF rather than an NT.
FIRST FINAL NOTE: I should probably clarify that I'm not meaning to suggest that I consider it all that likely that an INFJ will have a significant mystical streak (or identify strongly with those Nardi test items) — and, all other things being equal, I think a typical INFP is more likely to embrace mystical stuff than a typical INFJ. (Again, I see both T and J as, to some degree, "grounding" influences.) But, because I think an INTJ is significantly less likely to relate to stuff with a mystical flavor, I most often point to INTJs when I'm making the point that I don't really think it's appropriate to characterize IN_Js (or NJs) in those terms.
SECOND FINAL NOTE: And just in case I've given you an overly strong impression that T's have a negative reaction to anything New-Agey, let me re-emphasize that, particularly if you're talking about less fringy/flaky New Age ideas and practices (meditation, yoga, eastern philosophy), you're likely to find plenty of NTs with at least a mild interest.
famoustype said:
More on Introverted Intuitives:
Take pride in their strong perseverance, drive, and will power.
I tested first as a 4w3, that made some sense, then 5w4 that made some sense too, then 9w1 which made some sense too (especially saying it embodies the other characteristics of other enneagram types)
I'm far from an Enneagram expert (or enthusiast), but my understanding is that Enneagram 5 is basically INT country and Enneagram 4 is basically INF country. If you picture Enneagram 4 and 5 positioned on a spectrum (with 4 on the left), I'd position the four IN types along that spectrum (from left to right) in INFP–INFJ–INTP–INTJ order, with INFP the most firmly in 4 territory, INFJ close to the 4/5 borderline, and INTJ more likely than INTP to have a 6 wing. (But I don't necessarily think a 5w4 INTP is more likely than a 5w6 INTP; just that a 5w6 INTP is probably less likely than a 5w6 INTJ.) My experience with type-me subjects at INTJforum has been that it's maybe as likely for an INFJ to be a 5w4 as a 4w5 — but that could be because a 5w4 INFJ is more likely to enjoy hanging with a bunch of INTJs than a 4w5 INFJ.
And, somewhat consistent with the spectrum positioning described above, I'm inclined to think that whether a particular E4 INF relates better to typical 4w3 or 4w5 descriptions will depend in part on the strength of their preferences, as follows:
Preference strengths favoring 4w3:
weaker I
stronger F
weaker J / stronger P
And so, conversely: Preference strengths favoring 4w5:
stronger I
weaker F
stronger J / weaker P
So, if I assume you're a strong F (which I do) and maybe a somewhat weak I, but also a J (or very weak P), you could say you're a 4 with possible tugs in both the 3 and 5 directions. And, again assuming a strong F, the fact that you've more often identified with a 5 wing (and even typed as a 5) is arguably worth a J point or two.
And I realize you're thinking maybe 9 at this point — but the point of my analysis here isn't really to do an Enneagram typing so much as to note what I think your reactions to 4w3 and 4w5 descriptions might say about your MBTI type.
It may interest you to hear that there was a thread with a poll at INTJforum a few years ago, asking, "Which gender do you feel more comfortable with?", and male INTJs (including me) said they favored hanging out with females by close to a two-to-one margin. (More strikingly, the female INTJs favored hanging out with males by an overwhelming ten-to-one margin.)
I'd say you should view that as worth a P point (and therefore one of the things you've described that would be more characteristic of an INFP than an INFJ) rather than being an "Se" thing that would favor INFJ over INFP. As far as impulsive spending goes, I'd say IJs are the most frugal types, EPs are the freest spenders, and EJs and IPs are in between.
================================
As a final note, I recently posted this in the type-me thread of a chronically late P at another forum:
I'll start with punctuality. But first, as an introduction to the punctuality issue, let me mention the neatness issue. Internet forumites inclined to badmouth the MBTI (or the J/P dichotomy in particular) as a collection of superficial stereotypes often point to the notion that J's are neat and P's are messy and roll their eyes. And it's true that, to a large degree, neat/messy isn't a very good J/P indicator, especially if you're talking about NJs and NPs. Neatness, to the extent that it functions as at least a half-decent type indicator, is more of an SJ thing than a general J thing. But FYI, there are no J/P items on the official "Step I" MBTI that relate to neatness.
Punctuality, on the other hand... can be an excellent J/P indicator. Not a definitive indicator, and that's first and foremost because it's generally a mistake to take any one personality-related characteristic as definitive with respect to any of the MBTI preferences. That said, though, if you're talking about one of those people who's almost never late to anything — and, in fact, is much more likely to be somewhat early, because they habitually allow extra time for unexpected delays — that's not a bad J indicator. And if you're talking about one of those people who's chronically late to things, that's actually a substantially stronger P indicator than almost-never-lateness is a J indicator. Why the asymmetry? Because, as I already noted, it makes more sense to look to temperament if you're trying to explain why somebody has a tendency to err in one direction or the other than if the attitude or behavior in question is something that pretty much just makes sense from a rational perspective, regardless of anybody's "personality type." It's not that hard to imagine a P — and especially a mild P — with somewhat of a temperamental tendency to run late eventually learning her lesson and adjusting her attitudes and practices to compensate for the temperamental tugs, with the result that she ends up being reliably J-like in the on-time department. By contrast, why would a J with a temperamental tendency to be on time want to willfully adjust their attitudes and practices to be habitually late?
I assume there are people in your life who really hate to be late and can be counted on to almost always be on time, and other people in your life who are more casual about the clock and are more likely to show up at least a little late than significantly early. If you're on your way to something and it's looking like you're going to be five or ten minutes late, would you say you tend to have more of a no big deal attitude at the gut level (assuming it isn't the kind of event where your lateness is going to cause some substantial bad consequence) or would you say you tend to have a pretty strong discomfort response at the gut level that's out of proportion to any substantial bad consequences that your lateness is likely to cause and is simply a response to the fact that, dammit, you're late? Or would you say, yeah, I have both kinds of people in my life, and I feel like I'm pretty much in the middle?
Introverted Intuitive types report being puzzled by others’ perception of them as rigid and intractable.This perception may result from their tendency to express their views directly and forcefully.This is especially true for INTJs. Misinterpretation of their forthright communication style as inflexibility may make others reluctant to present alternatives or argue their own point of view. But, as described in Chapter 3, dominant Perceiving types are unlikely to be wedded to their decisions, since they give greater weight to data (perceptions) than to conclusions (judgments). Experience bears this out for the most part. INTJs and INFJs readily modify their incorrect conclusions when they receive convincing contradictory new information.
The spiritual, sometimes mystical, bent of Introverted Intuitive types has been frequently noted.At the very least, they seem to be aware of subtle cues or nuances long before others notice them. INFJs are especially sensitive to unexpressed anger and conflict, whose presence is usually denied by others.This contributes to the sense of separateness from others that many Introverted Intuitive types report, which may lead them to doubt their own mental stability.
From Naomi Quenk's Book: Was That Really Me?
INFJ's are dominant perceiving and INFP's are dominant judging. However to extroverts it reflects what the letter really means as ENFP's the truest perceivers and ENFJ's the truest judgers.
