[INFP] (patiently) ask an INFP!!1

[Aesthete]

Neither hard, nor unanswerable. A state of perfection which started with an act of genocide would be no perfection at all. I'd rather stick to taking the long way round and do it right.

Good point.

 

[Standuble]

Neither hard, nor unanswerable. A state of perfection which started with an act of genocide would be no perfection at all. I'd rather stick to taking the long way round and do it right.

What if it were the only way to perfection? This question is made difficult to answer as perfection is subjective. Someone who sees a situation where a problem has been neutralised or permamently resolved to be the best state of affair may see the elimination of a problem (by any method) as the way to perfection.

 

[Anew Leaf]

The difficulty in answering the question is that it's trying too hard to create a situation that doesn't exist without mental gymnastics and a blatent disregard for how physics works.

 

[Nicki]

I love INFPs. How is inferior Te like for you?

 

[William K]

The difficulty in answering the question is that it's trying too hard to create a situation that doesn't exist without mental gymnastics and a blatent disregard for how physics works.

Ok, how about this? What if the cure of cancer requires a part from an endangered animal that you can't extract without killing the animal?

 

[Anew Leaf]

Ok, how about this? What if the cure of cancer requires a part from an endangered animal that you can't extract without killing the animal?

Capture animal.

Breed if able to breed. Clone if breeding doesn't work.

Harvest.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Since we're on a trend.

There is a kitten and a puppy in immidiate danger of getting hurt.
(Let's say a spoon falls from the kitchen table onto the unsuspecting sleeping kitty and the dog is on the last stair, going to plummet down onto the floor)
You're alone, can not call on anyone to help and only have time to help one of the two cute animals in distress.

Will you make a descision, or will you fail both because you couldn't decide?

 

[flameskull95]

I love INFPs. How is inferior Te like for you?

It's usually a negative thing or a situation usually forces us to use Te. In those cases, it's pretty crap and I could get my head tensed in thinking tasks. I might even do this thing, where I arrogantly act like I 'have all the answers, despite how others may feel about it'. Then I will objectively put down another person, for all his/her flaws, which in most cases I view subjectively and not through a big picture understanding of it.

I think Te is more positive when it couples with Ne. When the person connects patterns of logical sequences and I've heard this is the INFP way of every being 'decent' at Maths, - to positively create an image which elaborates on all the possibilities underlying a situation/principle and to organize trains of these thoughts into logical processes to solving a problem. I think we seek to be 'clear' on things, and sometimes I've noticed my Te goes blunt when I think too deeply into a principle without any awareness of the overall context. That's when I screw up in manifesting it positively.

I've heard that a lot of Te users have the tendency to say something they did was 'good enough'. While on the other hand, I don't know how I would be able to say something I did was 'good enough' if I'm always depreciating my own successes (Eg: "It's good enough... for a dump truck").

Since we're on a trend.

There is a kitten and a puppy in immediate danger of getting hurt.
(Let's say a spoon falls from the kitchen table onto the unsuspecting sleeping kitty and the dog is on the last stair, going to plummet down onto the floor)
You're alone, can not call on anyone to help and only have time to help one of the two cute animals in distress.

Will you make a decision, or will you fail both because you couldn't decide?

I would go for at least one. It also kind of depends on which one I'm closest to. If I was equidistant from both, I might quickly realize the cat to be sleeping and that the spoon would fall on the cat and it would scream and wake up. Then I might go for the spoon, at that point I would either catch the spoon or miss the spoon and put the cat in even more danger by falling onto it. (but hopefully the latter won't happen).
I guess the dog would just fall down and get back up again, it is the last stair.

I have a question about a phenomenon which I don't know if it is Fi or something else, so I was curious what people thought. I think this is something that anyone can suffer from, but I was wondering if it was more difficult for Fi. I have noticed that Si can have sensory imprinting, and so wondered if Fi can have emotional imprinting. This may be incorrect since an equivalent phenomenon involving Ti doesn't seem present as far as I can perceive it. Anyway, what do you all think about this experience?

Emotional imprinting:
People who have been deeply hurt in relationships can sometimes become emotionally imprinted upon. The frames through which they viewed and understood the hurtful partner are brought into new relationships, especially during conflict. They can impose the guilt, behaviors, and assumed responses onto a new person who operates differently. A neutral comment can be understood as an attack, motivations from the hurtful partner are assumed to be felt within the new partner.

This can occur with great complexity as a result of the complexity of the past hurtful partner and the dynamic of the relationships. From what I have seen with friends and family, this tends to surface primarily in conflict and when feelings of vulnerability surface.

Yeah.. I think this is the characteristic domtert loop for the INFP. I would perceive new situations but in the light of old past feelings, as random details from my environment propagate random possibilities in my head to how things 'will always be'. This discourages me from new events, as these are turned into false rationalizations/motives that I would detect in a brand new environment or situation. These motives are usually against me in some way, and manifest as some sort of paranoia/anxiety.

And I can say certain incidents or people have made it so I can just fall back into a certain state of mind that can allow me to relive this imagery with almost the exact same emotions that connect to that imagery, with the slightest stimuli. And when I say with the exact same emotions, I mean not necessarily the emotions that were there when the said traumatizing experience happened and I reacted to it, but the old emotions that are mainly created by the reviewing part just after the traumatizing past experiences. The situations bring pain, the memories bring more depression/fear. "He is saying that because he means this !" "He said this. He's out to get me isn't he? What else could he possibly mean by that. IT has to be because of this." "He actually held on to that? He didn't let that go? What a bunch of deep seated hatred he has for me" . "He's one of those people ! People like that treat other people like that will never change !"

And btw, I've always thought that would be the same for INTPs? Instead of emotion they would conserve past methods of thinking despite new situations that would require new thinking (Which would be less harmful for the INTPs I reckon, but it might still be there?)

 

[RaptorWizard]

Are any INFPs into interaction with the physical world, such as interest in sciences (physics, astronomy), or even in sports (basketball, soccer)?

 

[mintleaf]

I think I use it pretty often for an interior function. I'm not sure exactly how this relates to Te, but whenever I have to do a group project, I'm good at listing possible ideas/steps/responsibilities, organizing them, and setting the project into motion. Other than that...I don't really plan anything, haha. When it comes to individual projects of any kind, my Ne takes over completely. Not sure why.

 

[Aesthete]

Are any INFPs into interaction with the physical world, such as interest in sciences (physics, astronomy), or even in sports (basketball, soccer)?

I was once interested in physics a while back - no idea why - but the interest dropped within a few months. I've had short-lived passions for sports, but nothing serious.

The closest thing to the physical I can think of is my interest in history. I know a lot of stuff about the cultures of the "northern barbarians" of Europe and the horsemen of the Steppes (especially the Huns); I will have to read more on them to not forget everything, though. My knowledge begins to come to a stop some time after the seventh century (though not completely), so I have to study some more.

 

[Aesthete]

I think I use it pretty often for an interior function. I'm not sure exactly how this relates to Te, but whenever I have to do a group project, I'm good at listing possible ideas/steps/responsibilities, organizing them, and setting the project into motion. Other than that...I don't really plan anything, haha. When it comes to individual projects of any kind, my Ne takes over completely. Not sure why.

I've noticed the same thing with me. I'm guessing the problem is that maybe we expect that we have to do everything in the group - or we feel better when we have everything under control - which can lead to a bit of stress. I still prefer working alone so that I know that if something goes wrong, it's my fault, and also because, if I want to do something, I don't have to argue with anybody if it's a good idea or not: I just get straight to it. Group-projects probably help us develop our Te.

 

[Udog]

Are any INFPs into interaction with the physical world, such as interest in sciences (physics, astronomy), or even in sports (basketball, soccer)?

I love sports, but I really need someone to help keep me on track, otherwise I tend to get into my head and don't practice as much as I should. But I was deep into soccer when I was younger, and spend at least a couple of days a week playing tennis.

 

[Little Linguist]

I definitely have "serious" questions concerning Fi (Fi is an interesting animal) but it's been my experience that Fi'ers really don't want/like those serious questions - and sometimes the dialogue becomes delicate, stressful, or even heated (both IRL and on the forum). So, if my question fits the "uncomfortable" category, just politely let me know and I'll skip on my merry way. I come not to stir up the pot, but to understand the animal that is Fi.

I'll ask it bluntly: Why do you guys not clearly express what Fi is feeling/thinking? If you're upset, mad, angry, disappointed, frustrated, feeling ignored/betrayed, etc. - why not just tell the other person exactlly what those feelings are, which then gives that other person something tangible to work with. Basically, my confusion with this part of Fi is that if you never voice what's going on inside (plainly, clearly), then you'll probably never get any results that resemble what you're hoping for/wanting.

If I could draw an analogy, it'd be something like this: The Fi'er really, really wants a shiny red sports car for their birthday (or a penguin, or a pony, or something along these lines). When someone asks you, "What would you like for your birthday?" (cuz they want to get you something you'll really like), you just say, "Ehhh, I dunno, a gift card"
And, so, you end up getting a gift card and you feel upset or kind of sad that you didn't get the sports car. Well, you didn't get it cuz you didn't ask.

Or, the Fi'er wants to spend time with someone they love. And they talk to the person they love on the phone and the person says, "Whatcha doing tonight?" And the Fi'er says, "Heh, not much." So, the other person thinks, "Hmmm, OK, they aren't doing much and I'd like to see them, but I know they like their space and I don't want to impose, so I'll just leave it at that and maybe see them next week sometime." Then they say, "OK Fi'er, good talking to you, we'll catch up next week." And then find out later that Fi'er was very upset and wanted them to come over.

Why doesn't Fi'er just say, "Yo, check it out. I want a red sports car for my birthday and I also want you to come over tonight and hang out with me cuz I miss you." Straight up. Tell it like it is. Done! Finished! Wish granted. It can be so easy, so simple. But, instead, you never voice these Fi desires and so the other person..........never knows what it is you wanted. Inevitably, this will cause feelings of hurt and neglect and "he just doesn't know me".

I've heard 2 different reasons for this "holding back": 1) It's hard and/or uncomfortable to express. 2) Fi'er doesn't want the other person to do something for them "just because they told them they wanted it" (thereby "prompting" the action); instead, Fi'er only wants things to be done for them without prompting, completely of the other person's free will.

If I compare Fi to my own Ti, then yeah, I can relate that it's sometimes hard to express "complex thoughts" into mere words (and some things get lost in translation), but if I really want something, you better believe I'm coming out with it eventually.

Why Fi'ers? Why?

Again, if this question/probing seems in any way hostile, critical, or uncomfortable, just send me on my way and I'll leave. I think it gets touchy sometimes and that's not my intention here.

These are excellent questions that made me ponder a great deal.

1. Why don't I just say I want something?

There could be multiple reasons for this:

a) Value-driven:

- If I want something badly enough, I should save up and buy it myself instead of expecting someone else to do it for me. (self-reliance)
- If I want something, and mention it, it might make the other person uncomfortable because they can't do it. (consideration of others)
- If I want something, and mention it, I should reciprocate likewise, and I might not be able to (balance and partnership)
- If I want something, I should do it myself to prove I am adequate and competent to my counterpart. (pride)

b) Tactically motivated:

- If I ask someone for something, I am indebted to them in a way I might not want.
- If I ask someone for something, they might hold it against me later.
- If I ask someone for something, it might change the dynamic of the friendship/relationship/familial connection.
- If I ask someone for something, I might not be able to reciprocate and/or pay the person back.

2. Why don't you just say what you are feeling/thinking?

a) It is hard for me to put into words - and I am worried I will 'say the wrong thing,' or 'say something ambiguous that will be misinterpreted.'
b) I am afraid of driving the person away - which, by the way, is a really stupid reason. Either the person respects you or doesn't. If they don't, they shouldn't be with you anyway, but it is one of those irrational things.
c) I feel what I am feeling or thinking is stupid, and I don't want to embarrass myself or lose face or lose the person's respect.
d) Many of my feelings are extremely capricious and/or impulsive, and I don't want to make a big deal over a minor mood shift.
e) I think so generally, and so big-picture, that I think anything I think or feel is generally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
f) I fear the (negative) reaction of others.

Over time, however, I have learned that this kind of behavior is generally ***EXTREMELY*** destructive if pursued on a regular basis. Very much so. And so I have swallowed my pride and taken the risk. Because it is equally important to me to be authentic and true to myself. How will a relationship grow if there is no straight-forward honesty??? And really - think of it this way - how can a person really, truly know me if I do not express what I am thinking and feeling? They don't see ME - they see a shadow of me. And maybe, perhaps, that is also the issue - a fear of closeness and intimacy. OMFG the person will KNOW AND SEE me ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!! Help!!!! LOL And really, that does not bode well for close friendships, connections, and relationships of any sort.

So at the end of the day, I decided, to heck with all that crippety crap!!!! I'm going to try being straight-forward, and not just about the topics I love debating about, where I feel comfy about taking a stand. But about *me*.

But it is really hard for me to balance being open about feelings and tactful....Ah, personal development - thou dost elude me!!!!

 

[SolitaryWalker]

What are the main ways in which the INFP differs from a typical NF type? Sorry about the simplistic question, I am rather new to typology but I'd like to learn more.

 

[Standuble]

What are the main ways in which the INFP differs from a typical NF type? Sorry about the simplistic question, I am rather new to typology but I'd like to learn more.

There is no typical NF type, each of the types have considerable differences. INFPs primarily differ from the others as each individual is directed and controlled by their own value system which isn't shaped by society as a whole. Personal wants, desires, morals and ethics are detached from the mainstream and any changes to them must go through the INFP's inner world first. ENFPs are the extraverted version of the type and use the same system but it does not lead them - they are driven by exploring the connections that exist in the real world and possible applications for objects and concepts that already exist. Both are essentially counter-counter and/or eccentric but how they is focused in different areas. INFPs by their introverted nature can end up hermits (I fit this category) and aloof from the world as a whole. ENFPs do need time alone too but from what I understand this is for different reasons than the INFPs (purely for the sake of calming down so their minds can process the connections they have perceived) and are more receptive to the world as a whole. INFPs are usually very different from each other and argue more often than not, finding connection with each other more by appreciation of having a similar thought process.

INFJs and ENFJs are actually fundamentally different to the above types. Ethical and personal values are shaped a lot more by what the society values/what moral systems have the observably most beneficial outcomes. The structure of their life is a lot more apparent to the outside world (INFPs have strong organisation and structure in their inner world whilst the roles are reversed for the NJs) and are more concerned with impersonal logical consistency/ what they think is logical than the NFPs concern with what they personally value.

I work in stereotypes here about the various types.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me.

There is no typical NF type, each of the types have considerable differences.

It seems that there is no such thing as a typical NF type because there are four NF types as opposed to just one. However, it seems that there are some characteristics that all four types share. As an NF type, an INFP obviously has some of these characteristics, hence, the question for me is what other qualities in addition to those characteristics the INFP has.

INFPs primarily differ from the others as each individual is directed and controlled by their own value system which isn't shaped by society as a whole.

Wow, that sounds very specific. Developing value systems is a very complicated activity that requires a great deal of determination and conscious practice. To do that, a person would need to carefully analyze what moral principles are worth fighting for, which principles of society are misguided and how the misguided notions can be corrected. One would have to be considerably skilled at ethical discourse and even moral philosophy to pull that off. It seems to me that it is a mistake to ascribe such lofty characteristics to the profile of an INFP or any type for that matter. After all, even six year old children are sometimes labeled as INFPs and they certainly don't have the philosophical acumen to think in a manner that leads to a wealth of discoveries centering on illumination of original moral insights and trenchant criticisms of society's moral failures.

This is why typology just seems to make little sense to me, the INFP is portrayed as a "moral philosopher", the INTP as the "mathematician/physicist", the INTJ as the Scientist, the ENFJ as "messiah". What the heck is going on here, we're assigning all of these four-letter codes to children and all sorts of unremarkable adults, yet we're ascribing all sorts of panegyric qualities to the basic features of their personality. Can someone here help me understand how I can resolve this apparent absurdity?

Personal wants, desires, morals and ethics are detached from the mainstream and any changes to them must go through the INFP's inner world first..

I see, it would seem that an introvert has a tendency to detach from the mainstream social view, but I am not sure if it is fair to say that every introvert can achieve that. My hunch is that INFPs have a tendency to strive for a perspective that's independent from society's mainstream view, though it seems puzzling to assert that all INFPs by definition have achieved that goal. I don't think that any person who has "Thinking" as part of their type is an exceptionally good logician or any person who has "Feeling" in their type is empathetic. Such skills can be developed only with deliberate practice.

ENFPs are the extraverted version of the type and use the same system but it does not lead them - they are driven by exploring the connections that exist in the real world and possible applications for objects and concepts that already exist.

I'd guess the whole internal dynamic of the type changes when it becomes first and foremost extroverted and intuitive as opposed introverted and feeling-oriented. I don't find the idea that by reversing the order of functions in a type, we end up with simply an extroverted version of the type. Should we say that an ESTJ is an extroverted, thinking, sensing and judging version of the INFP?

Both are essentially counter-counter and/or eccentric but how they is focused in different areas.

I guess you can say that introverts in general tend to detach from the mainstream ethos and that may lead to eccentricity, but I remain troubled by the idea that a certain type is eccentric by definition.

INFPs by their introverted nature can end up hermits (I fit this category) and aloof from the world as a whole.

I don't understand why the INFP would be more likely to end up as a hermit than any other introverted type or why that's even a serious concern for any introvert. Even the most reserved of individuals effortlessly and naturally maintain some sort of social connection, generally seclusion is a result of other mental health problems that are irrespective of MBTI type.

ENFPs do need time alone too but from what I understand this is for different reasons than the INFPs (purely for the sake of calming down so their minds can process the connections they have perceived) and are more receptive to the world as a whole.

Doesn't everyone need time alone, even the most extroverted of us? I don't see how this tells us any more about the ENFP than it does about other extroverted types.

INFPs are usually very different from each other and argue more often than not, finding connection with each other more by appreciation of having a similar thought process.

I guess that could be true if INFPs follow through on their natural tendencies to become unconventional in their values, but a lot of INFPs who fail to actualize their potential will remain social conformists and typically similar to an average person in society. Besides, I'd imagine that even the most self-actualized of INFPs may reach unique values and have moral disagreements with other people who share their type, yet it's unclear how different they can be. In general, it's difficult for any person to construct his own moral framework in a manner that is both coherent, plausible and at the same time dramatically different from the mainstream view. We can debate about issues such as racial equality, discrimination, sexism, fair labor practices and so on, but we generally share similar fundamental assumptions about the overarching moral principles such as human dignity, fairness, the value of human life and so on. At best, we're just modifying our opponents' conclusions and explaining how the moral premises that we all agree on lead to a different conclusion from their own. For example, most American racists of the anti-bellum south accepted Lincoln's proposition that all men were created equal, they just didn't regard blacks as human. Hence, the anti-slavery activists had to correct them by pointing out that blacks were humans and the moral beliefs of the racists behooved them to reconsider their commitment to slavery. Martin Luther King made a similar argument by appealing to the deep-seated values of human dignity and fairness that even the most ardent of his opponents subscribed to. I guess my point is that the autonomy of moral reasoning can only lead one to deviate from the mainstream view so far, I doubt it'd be enough to make self-actualized INFPs dramatically differ from those who are less morally autonomous or those who are just as autonomous but reject some of their convictions.

 

[Standuble]

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me.

It seems that there is no such thing as a typical NF type because there are four NF types as opposed to just one. However, it seems that there are some characteristics that all four types share. As an NF type, an INFP obviously has some of these characteristics, hence, the question for me is what other qualities in addition to those characteristics the INFP has.

To be honest I do not know what characteristics NF's share as a group outside of superficial observation. A sense of idealism, a desire to change the world and to desire a deep emotional connection with others perhaps but these are more of a running, general theme IMO which most if not all behaviour the four NF types plugs into in some shape or form. If I were to label additional trait to INFPs I would say: strong artistic traits and writing abilities (though this isn't limited to this type) and the ability to be good listeners and help others self-reflect on their problems as they are probably the best person to find a solution (though again I think many types have this capacity or perhaps better capacity than INFPs.) I would not know how to answer your question another way other than this and what I previously posted.

Wow, that sounds very specific. Developing value systems is a very complicated activity that requires a great deal of determination and conscious practice. To do that, a person would need to carefully analyze what moral principles are worth fighting for, which principles of society are misguided and how the misguided notions can be corrected. One would have to be considerably skilled at ethical discourse and even moral philosophy to pull that off. It seems to me that it is a mistake to ascribe such lofty characteristics to the profile of an INFP or any type for that matter. After all, even six year old children are sometimes labeled as INFPs and they certainly don't have the philosophical acumen to think in a manner that leads to a wealth of discoveries centering on illumination of original moral insights and trenchant criticisms of society's moral failures.

This is why typology just seems to make little sense to me, the INFP is portrayed as a "moral philosopher", the INTP as the "mathematician/physicist", the INTJ as the Scientist, the ENFJ as "messiah". What the heck is going on here, we're assigning all of these four-letter codes to children and all sorts of unremarkable adults, yet we're ascribing all sorts of panegyric qualities to the basic features of their personality. Can someone here help me understand how I can resolve this apparent absurdity?

Your guess in this case is as good as mine. I guess they could remove the panegyric elements from the personality descriptions for a start. Perhaps remove percentages of populationsor statements like "rare, rarest" etc. from the pages as they don't help describe a person's personality, it just imbues them with a sense of rarity which may not have any basis in reality. Provide a description of each cognitive function said type uses on said page which isn't fancy and just states what the function does without championing it or criticisng it. If they must abolish the type description all together and name it after its functions so rename INFP FiNeSiTe. Basically cut out all the crap and perceived strengths/weaknesses of the type and just leave it to small statements devoid of opinion.

Also I must note that whilst I indeed used Fi from a very young age (my defiance as a child drove my family crazy apparently) in retrospect I believe that it was a very primitive system and that I was as impressionable as everyone else when Fi was still developing. I am also not afraid to admit that I am an unremarkable adult and that my dominant functions are not remarkable in the grand scheme of things either. I think the theory could state that all functions (including the dominant) starts out as basic and make it clear that all it means that the more dominant functions have a greater resource pool to potentially develop from and that there is no guarantee any function would sufficiently develop or that they would master its use. My Fi of today is the product of many years of continuous use and conscious effort and I would not make the claim that it is developed or mastered.

I see, it would seem that an introvert has a tendency to detach from the mainstream social view, but I am not sure if it is fair to say that every introvert can achieve that. My hunch is that INFPs have a tendency to strive for a perspective that's independent from society's mainstream view, though it seems puzzling to assert that all INFPs by definition have achieved that goal. I don't think that any person who has "Thinking" as part of their type is an exceptionally good logician or any person who has "Feeling" in their type is empathetic. Such skills can be developed only with deliberate practice.

Of course, the whole second part was me dealing with stereotypes so treat as you see fit. I'm sure many introverts would not but that they are inclined to do so merely on the grounds that their need for time alone to energise and perhaps lack of focus on the outside world (I don't actually know whether this applies to all introverts or not) would cause them to miss out on a certain amount of information on "what's in" for instance due to their need to be by themselves. Over time this has a cumulative effect where they come out of touch and become unaware or uninformed of certain key details which would allow them to stay mainstream. But I'm just speculating here.

I'd guess the whole internal dynamic of the type changes when it becomes first and foremost extroverted and intuitive as opposed introverted and feeling-oriented. I don't find the idea that by reversing the order of functions in a type, we end up with simply an extroverted version of the type. Should we say that an ESTJ is an extroverted, thinking, sensing and judging version of the INFP?

I would agree with that statement though I would think of it more as "extroverted, thinking, sensing and judging version of humanity" or something on those grounds with the types being little more than permutations.

I guess you can say that introverts in general tend to detach from the mainstream ethos and that may lead to eccentricity, but I remain troubled by the idea that a certain type is eccentric by definition.

Heh, my use of stereotypes again. I would say certain types are eccentric only by perspective. E.g. Si-dominants viewing an Ne-dominant as strange because their perspective is that to be an Si-dominant is the normal thing to be and due to apparently numerical advantage this perspective becomes the most popularly accepted. If the Ne-dominant was the most common type then their perspective of who or what is eccentric would be the Si-dominant.

I don't understand why the INFP would be more likely to end up as a hermit than any other introverted type or why that's even a serious concern for any introvert. Even the most reserved of individuals effortlessly and naturally maintain some sort of social connection, generally seclusion is a result of other mental health problems that are irrespective of MBTI type.

Stereotypes on my part again, see above. Btw, I never said INFPs would be most likely to be hermits just more likely than ENFPs. Most introverted types in their desire for alone time could become this in some capacity methinks.

Doesn't everyone need time alone, even the most extroverted of us? I don't see how this tells us any more about the ENFP than it does about other extroverted types.

Every person would inevitably need time alone even if that time alone was just sleeping. I was referring to the ENFPs claim that they are more introverted than the other extroverted types and possible reasons for why they would be more than the others. But I was only guessing as I'm in no position to say.

I guess that could be true if INFPs follow through on their natural tendencies to become unconventional in their values, but a lot of INFPs who fail to actualize their potential will remain social conformists and typically similar to an average person in society. Besides, I'd imagine that even the most self-actualized of INFPs may reach unique values and have moral disagreements with other people who share their type, yet it's unclear how different they can be. In general, it's difficult for any person to construct his own moral framework in a manner that is both coherent, plausible and at the same time dramatically different from the mainstream view. We can debate about issues such as racial equality, discrimination, sexism, fair labor practices and so on, but we generally share similar fundamental assumptions about the overarching moral principles such as human dignity, fairness, the value of human life and so on. At best, we're just modifying our opponents' conclusions and explaining how the moral premises that we all agree on lead to a different conclusion from their own. For example, most American racists of the anti-bellum south accepted Lincoln's proposition that all men were created equal, they just didn't regard blacks as human. Hence, the anti-slavery activists had to correct them by pointing out that blacks were humans and the moral beliefs of the racists behooved them to reconsider their commitment to slavery. Martin Luther King made a similar argument by appealing to the deep-seated values of human dignity and fairness that even the most ardent of his opponents subscribed to. I guess my point is that the autonomy of moral reasoning can only lead one to deviate from the mainstream view so far, I doubt it'd be enough to make self-actualized INFPs dramatically differ from those who are less morally autonomous or those who are just as autonomous but reject some of their convictions.

Good point however one important piece of information is that INFPs can hold views similar to that of their peers with deviance not guaranteed. Fi does not care what you value just as long as its true to what you believe subconsciously. I think the definition of conform is key in this case, an INFP can easily come to agree with the morals/ethics of their society (if Fi approves of it then the moral/ethic is adopted) as their second function is always exploring for new info and possibilities. But the actual specifications of what is adopted by the INFP could be different than which the rest of the society holds, like-minded values with a twist. I imagine it as e.g. rest of society having a value of 2.100000 whilst the INFP has a value of 2.143876 for instance. The finer points of their moral beliefs may unnoticeably differ from the cultural norms with conformity being apparent but ultimately rather superficial. It's a case of having common beliefs rather than being in the same camp. In the stereotype of the reclusive INFP (whether self-actualised or not) then he can have deviant views purely because he does not interact with his society and remains completely ignorant of its customs.

 

[Southern Kross]

I love INFPs. How is inferior Te like for you?

Forceful, decisive, demanding, uncompromising.

It's a source of struggle within me; it's a strict master I must either accommodate or defeat. It doesn't outwardly rear its head often but I can feel it there in the background. It's also comforting to a primitive part of myself to have things click in a Te-way; to have real structure and clarity in a chaotic world.

Since we're on a trend.

There is a kitten and a puppy in immidiate danger of getting hurt.
(Let's say a spoon falls from the kitchen table onto the unsuspecting sleeping kitty and the dog is on the last stair, going to plummet down onto the floor)
You're alone, can not call on anyone to help and only have time to help one of the two cute animals in distress.

Will you make a descision, or will you fail both because you couldn't decide?

Stop with the moral dilemmas already. Don't you know that INFP hate them? We despise lose-lose situations.

Are any INFPs into interaction with the physical world, such as interest in sciences (physics, astronomy), or even in sports (basketball, soccer)?

I love sciences, especially physics and astronomy. Actually in my last year of high school physics was my best subject. I'm also really into sports. I played a whole lot at school and participate in the odd thing now and then these days. I also like watching sport too - rugby in particular. I like nature and the outdoors as well.

Although, I am aware that this is unusual for a INFP...

What are the main ways in which the INFP differs from a typical NF type? Sorry about the simplistic question, I am rather new to typology but I'd like to learn more.

It's hard to answer this because I so feel that NFs are my tribe and that we fundamentally on the same page. If I had to come up with something:

- we're more standoffish and solitary. We don't need as much direct connection to other people and prefer to observe from afar. We don't need to impress ourselves on others as much.
- we're not as warm and engaging. We can sometimes seem more like IXTXs by comparison
- we're more socially awkward. We aren't as good at interacting with and winning people over.
- we tend to be a little more weird. It's not like the endearing kookiness of ENFPs - it tends to be more arbitrary, disconcerting, and sometimes, unsettling for others.
- we tend to have a dark streak

 

[Nicki]

What causes you to use inferior Te? What situations demand it from you?