[INFJ] INFJs

[redacted]

sure. i like that response.

although i wouldn't be so sure that you fully understand Fe or Fi.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

sure. i like that response.

although i wouldn't be so sure that you fully understand Fe or Fi.

Must I?

 

[redacted]

Must I?

heh, no. i guess that wasn't your point at all, either.

 

[lazyhappy]

i love infjs. i view they are the best "feeler" type.
Not only is fe better then fi (emo) but thier 3rd function is Ti (the best function XD). My INFJ is one of the smartest people i know. and i believe that she is way wiser then alot of Ts i met. Brilliant revolutionists and people were infjs such as Martin Luther King Jr, Dr. Phil (i think he's one), my best friend and my therapist XD...
and the J doesn't make them closed-minded at all, like alot of the other j's I met... and in fact, the INFJ combination of traits is one of the best combinations i've seen. INFJs are brilliant but kind and revolutionary!

edit-
and sorry if i'm putting down other types... i'm tired (that's a good enough excuse... i guess...) and sorry if i seemed freaky but... i'm in a weird mood for i just realised to the extent of which infj's are cool... Even though i got Einstien's type or whatever, Martin Luther cared more, sacrificed more and tried harder... i view that as more beautiful then some smart prodigy. (but yet that is my opinion)... and you are cool too brit o.o... and adam sandler (why not)... i'll throw you in there...

 

[Athenian200]

i love infjs. i view they are the best "feeler" type.
Not only is fe better then fi (emo) but thier 3rd function is Ti (the best function XD). My INFJ is one of the smartest people i know. and i believe that she is way wiser then alot of Ts i met. Brilliant revolutionists and people were infjs such as Martin Luther King Jr, Dr. Phil (i think he's one), my best friend and my therapist XD...
and the J doesn't make them closed-minded at all, like alot of the other j's I met... and in fact the INFJ combination of traits is one of the best combinations i've seen. INFJs are brilliant but kind and revolutionary!

Why, thank you so much! I appreciate your endorsement of our type. It won't go unnoticed.

 

[Eve]

i love infjs. i view they are the best "feeler" type.
Not only is fe better then fi (emo) but thier 3rd function is Ti (the best function XD). My INFJ is one of the smartest people i know. and i believe that she is way wiser then alot of Ts i met. Brilliant revolutionists and people were infjs such as Martin Luther King Jr, Dr. Phil (i think he's one), my best friend and my therapist XD...
and the J doesn't make them closed-minded at all, like alot of the other j's I met... and in fact, the INFJ combination of traits is one of the best combinations i've seen. INFJs are brilliant but kind and revolutionary!

edit-
and sorry if i'm putting down other types... i'm tired (that's a good enough excuse... i guess...) and sorry if i seemed freaky but... i'm in a weird mood for i just realised to the extent of which infj's are cool... Even though i got Einstien's type or whatever, Martin Luther cared more, sacrificed more and tried harder... i view that as more beautiful then some smart prodigy. (but yet that is my opinion)... and you are cool too brit o.o... and adam sandler (why not)... i'll throw you in there...

(WOW... i just realised what this topic is about- "the Fi effect". pff... STFU BlueWing, god damn.)

As much as I agree with you that most INFJs are awesome, I have been working and learning a lot from one in the past year, I doubt Dr. Phil is an INFJ (and that's a compliment to INFJs), hardly think of him as a revolutionary or in any way comparable to MLK.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

i love infjs. i view they are the best "feeler" type.
Not only is fe better then fi (emo) but thier 3rd function is Ti (the best function XD). My INFJ is one of the smartest people i know. and i believe that she is way wiser then alot of Ts i met. Brilliant revolutionists and people were infjs such as Martin Luther King Jr, Dr. Phil (i think he's one), my best friend and my therapist XD...
and the J doesn't make them closed-minded at all, like alot of the other j's I met... and in fact, the INFJ combination of traits is one of the best combinations i've seen. INFJs are brilliant but kind and revolutionary!

edit-
and sorry if i'm putting down other types... i'm tired (that's a good enough excuse... i guess...) and sorry if i seemed freaky but... i'm in a weird mood for i just realised to the extent of which infj's are cool... Even though i got Einstien's type or whatever, Martin Luther cared more, sacrificed more and tried harder... i view that as more beautiful then some smart prodigy. (but yet that is my opinion)... and you are cool too brit o.o... and adam sandler (why not)... i'll throw you in there...

(WOW... i just realised what this topic is about- "the Fi effect". pff... STFU BlueWing, god damn.)

The Fi effect is akin to the Fe following Ni to the realm of Introversion. This is where the INFJ is much distinct from the EFJ types. For this reason we often see INFJs write poetry and novels, and discern emotion in depth--much like the aforementioned INFPs(in my INFP profile---Kierkegaard, Virgil, Shakespeare)--Representatives of the INFJ type would be Goethe, Dostoevksy and Camus.

No doubt the EFJs, especially ENFJs have the ability to write poetry and novels (discern the human element in depth like the INFs do) however, because their F is aimed at outwards (more at activity rather than contemplation) they are less likely to engage in such activities.

That is the aforementioned Fi effect indeed, or in depth scrutiny of the human element. Essentially, what the two groups of authors had in common is in depth scrutiny of Feeling. This needs not be attributed strictly to Fi, but to the interplay of Feeling and Intuition. Introversion does help, but it is not a necessary factor. For this reason, many ENFJs, like Ivan Turgenev for example, have also mastered the enterprise of scrutiny of Feeling, as well as ENFPs,(Leo Tolstoy). However, Introversion did prove to be a slight advantage as the INFs managed to probe deeper. As we clearly see that Virgil(INFP) and Goethe(INFJ) had powerful insights into human nature, as well as profound and careful scrutinty of the phenomena they set sight on. Now, their Extroverted counterparts--Tolstoy(ENFP) and Turgenev, seemed to lack the profundity and cautiousness of thought that the previous two had.

Thus, the Fi effect that I see in the INFJs is the ability to probe deeply and scrutinize carefully. This should not be attributed strictly to Fi, but to the factor of Introversion. (Technically the ENFs with a well developed secondary function could also learn to do this, though it comes the easiest to the most Introverted of Idealists. Hence, the easieast to the INFP and second easiest to the INFJ.)

So, you'd be happy to replace the Fi effect with the Introversion factor in addition to the interfuse of Intuition and Feeling.

*P.S

Next time you come here make sure you leave your value judgments and baseless intuitions at the door because I just cant be made to suffer fools.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Not only is fe better then fi (emo) but thier 3rd function is Ti (the best function XD).]

You're using the word smart in a fashion radically biased towards the NT temperament. Being smart in the way Virgil and Shakespeare were has little to do with Thinking. This is the respect that the INFJs are 'smartest' in. Indeed smarter than other NF types in the 'NT way' because of their Thinking faculty.

Brilliant revolutionists and people were infjs such as Martin Luther ).]

INFJs can become quite the powerful political force because of their commitment to their vision (Ni) and drive to transduce it to external world phenomena.

and the J doesn't make them closed-minded at all, like alot of the other j's I met... and in fact, the INFJ combination of traits is one of the best combinations i've seen. INFJs are brilliant but kind and revolutionary!).]

J has almost nothing to do with close-mindness. The code J translates as-Extroverted Judgment(applying judgment to the external world)--or Extroverted Thinking or Extroverted Feeling.

Close mindedness is associated with the lack of openness to ideas. That is property of Sensation, or lack of Intuition to perceive ideas with.

SJs, the least Intuitive of all are often reviled for being closed-minded. They are also known for having strong Judging tendencies. Yet, their closed-mindedness is about their Si (which eclipses Intuition) and not their Extroverted Judgment.

Now, if we take the same--keep the Extroverted Judgment and make them Intuitive--thus the INJs. We notice that the INTJ and the INFJ are most open to ideas, whilst the ISTJ and ISFJ the least.

The INFJ and the INTJ, because of their in depth scrutiny of Intuition (factor of Introversion), in this regard outdo (they are more open to ideas) their dominant Extroverted Counterparts (ENPs).

INFJs are brilliant but kind and revolutionary!).]

The dominant Introverted Intuition gives the INFJ the radically individualistic and perceptive mindset necessary to fit the above description.

 

[Kiddo]

*P.S

Next time you come here make sure you leave your value judgments and baseless intuitions at the door because I just cant be made to suffer fools.

Value judgments and baseless intuitions? Perhaps some NT would be kind enough to provide definitions and examples of these. This counterargument seems to be fairly common despite often being unsubstantiated.

I find it hard to believe that the subjective experience and interpretation of one person is any more or less subjective than that of another, especially when discussing theory.

 

[faith]

Now, if we take the same--keep the Extroverted Judgment and make them Intuitive--thus the INJs. We notice that the INTJ and the INFJ are most open to ideas, whilst the ISTJ and ISFJ the least.

Haha... I never thought of it that way. It makes me wonder just what my ISFJ mom has gone through having an INTJ son and an INFJ daughter.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Value judgments and baseless intuitions? Perhaps some NT would be kind enough to provide definitions and examples of these. This counterargument seems to be fairly common despite often being unsubstantiated.

I find it hard to believe that the subjective experience and interpretation of one person is any more or less subjective than that of another, especially when discussing theory.

No, I do not think that all value judgments are inane and all intuitions are baseless.

Value judgments (F) are good at making person-centered decisions. Hence a value judgment that has substance is one that discovers what is going in our hearts or the hearts of other people. Many NF poets and novelists have demonstrated mastery with this skill--as is well known such works are renowned for having brilliant insights into human nature and human relationships.

Intuitions help us collect information through abstract perception (Jung plausibly argues that this faculty is unconscious, I can explain why I embrace this position--though better save this for later.. as this is only tangentially relevant to our discussion.)

Hence, in order to play our intuitions into the realm of conscious use, they must be interfused with a conscious faculty--thinking or feeling. In this regard all Intuitions are baseless, as they are unintelligible, yet the can become intelligible after we have applied the proper judgment to our hunches.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I mentioned value judgments are best for discerning interpersonal notions. Does this mean that they are but lame for impersonal problems? Not necessarily, as many NFs have shown us that it is possible to derive insights about all things through feelings. I deem for this method to be an option, yet less reliable because it is subjective (not as easily seperated from our personal predispositions as Logic, and this process is more difficult to verify--as it cannot be laid out to the open for all to see, as easily as a mathematical equation. (T-logic)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

When an NT calls a feeling baseless, they usually mean that the Feeling either was not properly seperated from the person's biases, thus by reading their claim--we learn more about that person, rather than the subject---yet such a person insists that their claim be accepted as the truth. (Or so the NT perceives the last part).

Thus, in this regard the NT is not saying that your feelings are not valid, or that you're wrong for having felt this way, but simply that your feeling-based notion does not evince the truth.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In regards to my second point--how Feelings are not as easily put out to the open as Thoughts and because of this the insight is difficult to verify. Hence, if we do not manage to verify the insight--we must accept it on trust. This is inconsistenct with the NT epistemic ethic of critical analysis.(Or only believing in things that we, on our own endeavor have ensured to be true.)

*This leaves us with one serious problem to ponder*.

The Feeling based insight may very well hold true, yet because the Feeler cannot get it out to the open the NT may not understand what the NF has in mind. As well as, the NT may entertain an intuition or a feeling that the Feeling based insight is sound, however, if he cannot ascertain of this being the case by virtue of his method of critical analysis, he will be forced to reject it. This does not mean that he dismisses it entirely. If on his own thinking he later discovers an argument for the point the Feeler made, he will embrace it. Not because of a change of heart, but because based on his own Thinking (not in a vernacular sense of the word, but in Jungian.)--he has come to believe that the insight was sound. I do that a lot.

 

[Kiddo]

Whoa, what a long winded way of saying that Feelers are biased and Thinkers are not because they use Logic. And yet I have seen nothing in your arguments up until now that is substantiated by more than intuitively based deduction or empirical inference. The Logic in theory rests only in testing the intuitively based guesses made from the available evidence, and is in no way a defense for your arguments. I make that claim, because your logic is no doubt biased by your imperfect knowledge.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Whoa, what a long winded way of saying that Feelers are biased and Thinkers are not because they use Logic. And yet I have seen nothing in your arguments up until now that is substantiated by more than intuitively based deduction or empirical inference. The Logic in theory rests only in testing the intuitively based guesses made from the available evidence, and is in no way a defense for your arguments. I make that claim, because your logic is no doubt biased by your imperfect knowledge.

Here is an example of a Logic oriented statement--2 plus 2 is four. A simple formula.

Value judgment--I value honesty.

Essentially, everyone is biased, yet Ts tend to be less so because they tend to remove themselves from the picture for their decision-making.

The fact that ITPs often argue (often logically consistently) in favor of radically individualistic notions and ETJs (also often logically consistently) in favor of radical collectivist positions shows us that none of us are insulated from the predispositions of our temperament.

Very often we are unable to logically deduce our starting premises, and for this reason we often wind up with a logically impeccable argument leading to false conclusions.

Zeno's paradoxes is a famous example of this.

Zeno's paradoxes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A nutcase example to better illustrate the point is as follows:

Any man who is 6,5 or taller is the tallest in town.
Bill Clinton is 6,7
Bill Clinton is the tallest in town.

By the way...---I dont think that Ts are as logical as 2 plus 2 is 4..there ARE impediments for them to overcome on that path..in addition to establishing sound premises.

 

[chippinchunk]

i love infjs. i view they are the best "feeler" type.
Not only is fe better then fi (emo) but thier 3rd function is Ti (the best function XD). My INFJ is one of the smartest people i know. and i believe that she is way wiser then alot of Ts i met. Brilliant revolutionists and people were infjs such as Martin Luther King Jr, Dr. Phil (i think he's one), my best friend and my therapist XD...
and the J doesn't make them closed-minded at all, like alot of the other j's I met... and in fact, the INFJ combination of traits is one of the best combinations i've seen. INFJs are brilliant but kind and revolutionary!

edit-
and sorry if i'm putting down other types... i'm tired (that's a good enough excuse... i guess...) and sorry if i seemed freaky but... i'm in a weird mood for i just realised to the extent of which infj's are cool... Even though i got Einstien's type or whatever, Martin Luther cared more, sacrificed more and tried harder... i view that as more beautiful then some smart prodigy. (but yet that is my opinion)... and you are cool too brit o.o... and adam sandler (why not)... i'll throw you in there...

(WOW... i just realised what this topic is about- "the Fi effect". pff... STFU BlueWing, god damn.)

Cool, and thank you. (though I deny my J -damn-) I see that you have much praise for the INFJ. Amazing, I feel so special . And I agree with you 99.9% (that small other goes to your rash blurt).

Yet i'm with ya all the way

 

[Kiddo]

The fact that ITPs often argue (often logically consistently) in favor of radically individualistic notions and ETJs (also often logically consistently) in favor of radical collectivist positions shows us that none of us are insulated from the predispositions of our temperament.

Oh, I'm sure your logic is impeccable. But logic can produce many different answers to the same question, which leads me to believe that logic is only as good as the information it is based upon. How unbiased would you say your personal knowledge is? What is more dangerous, the illusion of objectivity, or speaking with known subjectivity?

I love INTPs but they tend to forget that valuing logic is just as much a value judgment as any other value judgment is. To say their logic makes them significantly less biased than those who make subjective value judgments is laughable. Logic is a system of reasoning, a tool that can be used to measure the validity of arguments against what you already know. But since what you already know is subjective, the tool is no less subjective or unbiased than its source.

Logic is fantastic at recognizing other's biases and subjectivity. But how well can you use it to measure your own? The answer is you can't unless you experiment or have someone else use their logic to point out the biases for you. Or at least that is what I have observed. Therefore logic is no shield, only a sword. People can only effectively use it to tear down others arguments, for when they try to use it defend their own, they are in no way cutting through their own bias.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Oh, I'm sure your logic is impeccable. But logic can produce many different answers to the same question, which leads me to believe that logic is only as good as the information it is based upon. How unbiased would you say your personal knowledge is? What is more dangerous, the illusion of objectivity, or speaking with known subjectivity?

I love INTPs but they tend to forget that valuing logic is just as much a value judgment as any other value judgment is. To say their logic makes them significantly less biased than those who make subjective value judgments is laughable. Logic is a system of reasoning, a tool that can be used to measure the validity of arguments against what you already know. But since what you already know is subjective, the tool is no less subjective or unbiased than its source.

Logic is fantastic at recognizing other's biases and subjectivity. But how well can you use it to measure your own? The answer is you can't unless you experiment or have someone else use their logic to point out the biases for you. Or at least that is what I have observed. Therefore logic is no shield, only a sword. People can only effectively use it to tear down others arguments, for when they try to use it defend their own, they are in no way cutting through their own bias.

OhBy the way...---I dont think that Ts are as logical as 2 plus 2 is 4..there ARE impediments for them to overcome on that path..in addition to establishing sound premises..

 

[miss fortune]

BW don't you have anything better to do than sit around insulting the INFJs? Really *pffft* :rolli:

 

[SolitaryWalker]

BW don't you have anything better to do than sit around insulting the INFJs? Really *pffft* :rolli:

No type I appreciate more---with one exception in favor of the INFP, as is well known.

 

[miss fortune]

then you should be nice to them!

 

[redacted]

I deem for this method to be an option, yet less reliable because it is subjective (not as easily seperated from our personal predispositions as Logic, and this process is more difficult to verify--as it cannot be laid out to the open for all to see, as easily as a mathematical equation. (T-logic)

true, but Ni/Fe can make up different explanations for each member in a social setting. an INFJ will explain something to a T in a premise/deduction fashion, and will explain it in a value-judgment way to an F. (strong Ti is necessary for this versatility, i'll admit.)

When an NT calls a feeling baseless, they usually mean that the Feeling either was not properly seperated from the person's biases, thus by reading their claim--we learn more about that person, rather than the subject---yet such a person insists that their claim be accepted as the truth. (Or so the NT perceives the last part).

Thus, in this regard the NT is not saying that your feelings are not valid, or that you're wrong for having felt this way, but simply that your feeling-based notion does not evince the truth.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In regards to my second point--how Feelings are not as easily put out to the open as Thoughts and because of this the insight is difficult to verify. Hence, if we do not manage to verify the insight--we must accept it on trust. This is inconsistenct with the NT epistemic ethic of critical analysis.(Or only believing in things that we, on our own endeavor have ensured to be true.)

*This leaves us with one serious problem to ponder*.

The Feeling based insight may very well hold true, yet because the Feeler cannot get it out to the open the NT may not understand what the NF has in mind. As well as, the NT may entertain an intuition or a feeling that the Feeling based insight is sound, however, if he cannot ascertain of this being the case by virtue of his method of critical analysis, he will be forced to reject it. This does not mean that he dismisses it entirely. If on his own thinking he later discovers an argument for the point the Feeler made, he will embrace it. Not because of a change of heart, but because based on his own Thinking (not in a vernacular sense of the word, but in Jungian.)--he has come to believe that the insight was sound. I do that a lot.

i totally agree with this. but i don't think it applies well to xNFJs (it works for Fi, or Si/Fe). Ni will question Fe's stances in order to gain objectivity. in fact, Ni is probably MORE objective than Ti, since Ti assumes the input it gets is true, and is limited to deductive logic.

and with INFJs (well, for me at least), Ni and Ti create an NTish attitude. i like to think of myself as an NT-Rational with the extra ability to apply my ideas interpersonally. and i honestly find it much much easier to explain my ideas to NTs than to NFs. i can explain my thought process to both, but i have to leave certain "bad" things out to the NFs, whereas i can let go completely with NTs, since they're so much less likely to be offended. plus, i already have a crazy obsession with logic (my dad, an INTP, was my main role-model).

 

[spirilis]

then you should be nice to them!

I grin at this, mainly because I can imagine if I were in BW's shoes I would think "Huh? I am not being mean to them--merely only trying to glean information from and about them--by which I may better appreciate them!" to which my core response is, "where did this come from?"

It plainly illustrates how the original intention of one's actions is often obscured because others interpret it from completely different mindsets.