[NF] INFP - The moral challenger

[hjgbujhghg]

INFP is mainly described as the idealist, a quiet person who does his best to live according to his internal values and beliefs, but what about the other side of an INFP personality? I think an INFP can raise and nurture his own psyche and sensitivity to the point he becomes a moral challenger.
Fi in the INFPs as their dominant function works, judges and processes the reality according to what seems to be right and good for the type as the individuality, as a person as an owner of an emotional reason, while the INFP stays critical to whatever seems to be in a conflict with his own values and disturbs the internal harmony. That is the reason why many Fi users might become critical to general values applied within the society. Many INFPs would hold these critics silent, feeling insecure, or unable to express their disagreement with the social norms, but that's when the Ne comes in play. Ne is all about the possibilities, the play with the external reality and about testing the limits. Ne is naturally attracted to the unusual, controversial and shocking. When deeply held personal values are connected to the desire for the controversial, the desire to play with the limits and the norms, I think INFP might become the type, who would be morally and psychological playful and who would enjoy the game of change and challenge the known, stereotypical norms and values. I think INFP is the one who would have the greatest desire for breaking the customary morals and traditional values and transform them to something new and unusual.
What are your opinions people? Is such a thing close to an INFP?

 

[Evastover]

hehe, I find it odd that this isn't completely obvious.

Many INFP's like to challenge and/or attempt to change the status quo, or be "morally and psychologically playful" as you put it. If anything, it's more rare to find an INFP who's more concerned with withholding their opinions out of politeness for others.

I'm pretty very sure that I've never met another INFP who "stays quiet" about their views and opinions. Even if they try to, it's very obvious how they feel about something (which frustrates me sometimes... arfjfj, I have no poker face). If someone says something I disagree with, I try not to react before I've fully considered it- though if it's an opinion I've considered many times before, I'm apt to be judgemental. But even then, few things bother me to the point of stirring an adverse reaction. It's not that I want to keep quiet about my views, it's just that I'm not really bothered.

I'm much more likely to react as "moral crusader" if something is actively hurting someone and I can do something about it. If I can do something, I will. I think the distinction here though is that it's in regards to fixing a problem, not arguing or discussing it. Discussing views is all nice and fun, but I reiterate that if it's not really affecting anyone, it doesn't really bother me.

 

[Studmuffin23]

Everything on this thread is a pretty spot-on description of how Fi works. It's like the Ti of virtue.