[MBTI General] Tips from INFPs for INTJs

[SolitaryWalker]

Process of Valuing does not involve Feeling alone, but both Feeling and Thinking.

One shall ask, what is a value? What do I mean when I say I value critical thinking? It means that I have an ethical maxim that critical thinking is desirable in some way. In further ramification we discover that I use both Feeling and Thinking to establish this maxim. I use thinking to discover what exactly my positive emotion is directed at and hence notice it is critical thinking.

Feeling, however, is used to generate emotion in itself. Thus, many Fs lack values because they are using only Feeling. In this case (in the case of most Fs), the only way they can be appreciated is if positive affirmation is fed to them. Doing the 'valuing' process that you speak of requires Thinking which is often nearly idle in Fs and INFPs.

Note 1: please refrain from altering my posts as you quote them. I refer specifically to the insertion of multiple question-marks. No, I don't think this is insignificant - I think it's a deliberate and misleading rhetorical device.".

You need to point out which of your posts were altered. I do not remember consciously altering the content, though I would not be surprised if they were misrepresented as often I am sloppy with the logistics of quoting.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

You need to point out which of your posts were altered. I do not remember consciously altering the content, though I would not be surprised if they were misrepresented as often I am sloppy with the logistics of quoting.

Post #37, in many of the places you quoted me.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Essentially, you're saying that how they treat you depends on how they interpret what actually happened. Which is exactly what all other types do. What you're also saying is that their judgement is almost never accurate, is irrational and "in most cases" whimsical. How do you substantiate this? You don't.

Jeff, do you understand what a valid argument is? (I am asking you this question because you have suggested you ought to have elected option B).

A valid argument is one that guarantees the truth of the conclusion if the premises are true.

In order to point out that my argument is invalid, you must first point out what my premises and the conclusions are. But that is purely informative for now, as you did not attempt to do this. Instead, however, you have made a limited attempt to show that my argument is unsound by suggesting that my conclusion may be false. An unsound argument is defined as either invalid or containing a false conclusion.

Especially the bolded. Unless you're defining "reasonable person" and "being understood" in novel ways, it's ridiculous to claim this. If you could have talked ("like you would talk to a reasonable person") to Shakespeare, Milton or Kierkegaard, for instance, would you expect to be understood by them? If so, then your assertion is false. You're saying all INFPs are incapable of understanding reasonable communication. You made no qualifications..

It is correct that in the passage you have quoted, my conclusion stood unsupported. However, support for such a conclusion could be found in the posts that have followed later and in this one.

I maintain that one cannot talk to an INFP like one can talk to a reasonable because the INFP lacks the analytical faculties. One who lacks the ability to think rationally (could only be achieved with the Thinking faculty is this is the only function associated with analytical resources) is simply irrational, which is synonymous with unreasonable. Thus, we cannot talk to an unreasonable person like we talk to a reasonable one.

Some means at least twq, it may or may not mean all.

Shakespeare, Virgil and Milton were exceptional INFPs who were competent at the use of their Thinking faculty.

Essentially, you're saying that how they treat you depends on how they interpret what actually happened. Which is exactly what all other types do. What you're also saying is that their judgement is almost never accurate, is irrational and "in most cases" whimsical. How do you substantiate this? You don't.

My argument for the judgment of the INFPs being inaccurate is as follows. In order to attain precision in thought, one must think logically. If one's Thinking faculty malfunctions, one will be unlikely to be proficient at logical thought. Therefore, because INFPs lack competence at the use of the Thinking faculty will be inaccurate in their judgments.

It is whimsical for the same reason, it is not organized by a logical agenda. It wont organize itself.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

3rd installment.



Firstly, "tend" is a significant word here which frequently seems to get lost in your subsequent applications. There was certainly no evidence of it in your earlier post which I originally responded to. Secondly, I would suggest instead that we tend to be more competent at the skill we practice a lot and less competent at the skill we practice little, relative to each other. This says little of value about how competent our skills might be relative to those of other people. Example: could an INTP with an IQ of 85 reason more soundly than an INFP with an IQ of 170? Unlikely, because even though the INFP may be naturally weaker in his use of logical analysis than he is in his use of valuing, he is still likely to be stronger in his use of logical analysis than the INTP even though logical analysis is the INTP's natural strength. In summary: a lot of practice does not guarantee competence, and less practice does not guarantee incompetence. Which leads us to here:



"Tend to be incompetent at providing structure to their worldview" at least seems a bit more qualified than "becuase the Thinking faculty is weak, it cannot discipline their passions, therefore they lack structure". A bit. And yes, INFPs do have Thinking as an inferior function, and therefore practice it the least. No problem with that. Your conclusion that they "tend to be incompetent at providing structure to their worldview" is what I take issue with, for the reason mentioned earlier. "Incompetent" is a strong word, meaning an inability to do something successfully. Possibly you didn't mean to use such strong language, but it's exactly the strength of the language I'm disagreeing with. Also, claiming that logical analysis is necessary to provide structure to values is a bit simplistic to me. Proposition: stronger values tend to take precedence over weaker values. If you have three values, the stongest will tend to have the most priority, followed by the next strongest and finally the weakest. Guess what you have there? Structure. Was logical analysis necessary to obtain it? Not as you seem to want to define it. This is saying nothing of INFPs with the superhuman ability to apply logic to their values despite being INFPs. And it says nothing of your definition of Feeling (which does not resonate with my understanding or experience of it at all).

There is no doubt that there is a strong correlation between having Thinking as the dominant function and using it a lot, and with having Thinking as an inferior function and using it little.

INFPs who know their values have analyzed their passions logically. If they did not, they were merely driven by unconscious forces that they do not understand. Do you suppose that their minds would concoct clearly concepts of what their ethical principles are and how exactly they want to live their lives?

If not, then it is the case that they have analyzed their passions.

By all means Jeff, if you have more ideas with regard to how we can have a structure of values or a structure of just about anything without logical analysis do let me know! Who knows, maybe with your method we will start seeing construction works erect houses right and left without exactly knowing what kind of a design they are building!

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Process of Valuing does not involve Feeling alone, but both Feeling and Thinking.

One shall ask, what is a value? What do I mean when I say I value critical thinking? It means that I have an ethical maxim that critical thinking is desirable in some way. In further ramification we discover that I use both Feeling and Thinking to establish this maxim. I use thinking to discover what exactly my positive emotion is directed at and hence notice it is critical thinking.

Feeling, however, is used to generate emotion in itself. Thus, many Fs lack values because they are using only Feeling. In this case (in the case of most Fs), the only way they can be appreciated is if positive affirmation is fed to them. Doing the 'valuing' process that you speak of requires Thinking which is often nearly idle in Fs and INFPs.

If this is how you're defining values and Feeling's relationship to them, then you're alone from the literature I've read. One of the key questions often used in distinguishing Feelers from Thinkers is, after all, "Do you mainly use values to make your decisions, or logic". Seems to me that in your rush to aggrandise Thinking you're misrepresenting Feeling.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Good grief, this is frustrating. Why does it have to take so much longer to unravel ignorance than to spout it? I just wasted 2 hours and apparently accomplished nothing more than giving BW a leg-up onto his hobby-horse.

 

[Leysing]

Good grief, this is frustrating. Why does it have to take so much longer to unravel ignorance than to spout it? I just wasted 2 hours and apparently accomplished nothing more than giving BW a leg-up onto his hobby-horse.

Why bother?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

If this is how you're defining values and Feeling's relationship to them, then you're alone from the literature I've read. One of the key questions often used in distinguishing Feelers from Thinkers is, after all, "Do you mainly use values to make your decisions, or logic". Seems to me that in your rush to aggrandise Thinking you're misrepresenting Feeling.

If you think my definition of Feeling contains error, you have to provide an argument for why this is so. It is meritless to say that what I wrote does not match anything you have read in other literature about MBTI.

The reason why this is the case is because most writers of typology lack the ability to analyze the system rigorously and in effect make many errors, misrepresentation of Feeling is one of them. Secondly, because they wish to be popular with their readers, (the few who understand Feeling), will present not the truth about the type, but alter the content in order to make it appear more favorable to their Feeler readers. This is a prudent practice because they know that this is the type that will take the description of their type personally, therefore, if they wish to remain popular it is wise of them to avoid making remarks about the Feeling type that will be viewed in a negative light by the Feelers.

Bottom line is, the question, 'do you use values to make decisions' with regard to Feeling is erroneous. A more accurate way to address the issue is, ' do you rely on fleeting, amorphous feelings to make decisions, or do you rationalize?'. Or 'are your decisions based more on your mood, feelings of the moment, instinct, hunches, whatever or do you look for an objective reason to make the decision'.

To claim that most Feelers make their decisions based on values means to affirm that they have a clear picture of what their principles are and know how to stay true to them.(This requires Thinking) This is manifestly false. Rarely do we hear a Feeler say, this is what I believe and this is what I am going to do. In most case, its 'I don't feel like it, or this feels right to me, or I feel this is what I should do'. Bottom line is, there is a big difference between knowing that you are staying true to your principles and only Feeling like you are.

 

[ArtlessFuture]

Ok, first off, to answer the OP's question: It seems that INTJ's and INFP's can usually find common ground, if the INTJ is in touch with his feeling side and the INFP has a thicker skin. But... you are dealing with a 15 year old INFP here. So that could be a problem depending on how mature she is.
Look what I just found at INFP Relationships

One real problem area for the INFP is their intensive dislike of conflict and criticism. The INFP is quick to find a personal angle in any critical comment, whether or not anything personal was intended. They will tend to take any sort of criticism as a personal attack on their character, and will usually become irrational and emotional in such situations. This can be a real problem for INFPs who are involved with persons who have Thinking and Judging preferences. "TJ"s relate to others with a objective, decisive attitude that frequently shows an opinion on the topic of conversation. If the opinion is negative, the TJ's attitude may be threatening to the INFP, who will tend to respond emotionally to the negativity and be vaguely but emphatically convinced that the negativity is somehow the INFP's fault.

Sooo yeah, you may want to do some reading about INFP relationships. But, all you have to do is keep these things in mind Be authentic and truthful. To get closer to an INFP you have to show them who you are. Most of us hate small talk. So talk about deeper things, about what interests you, or common interests that you share. So the good news is this:

In general, INFPs are warmly affirming and loving partners who make the health of their relationships central in their lives. Although cautious in the beginning, they become firmly loyal to their committed relationships, which are likely to last a lifetime. They take their relationships very seriously, and will put forth a great deal of effort into making them work.

So it seems the outcome either way can be very good.

Their values easily change (even from day to day) and you never know (nor do they) what their values are.

Maybe if they are 15 and haven't figured out who they are yet.

That is a totally fatuous endeavor. You cannot talk to an INFP like you talk to a reasonable person and be understood. Whether they appreciate you or not, or give you what you want or they do not has almost nothing to do with what has occured in the real world, but with their irrational and in most cases whimsical interpretation of what has occured.

What you are referring to is clearly an emotionally unhealthy INFP. This behavior occurs when Fi begins to dominate and extroverted intuition serves it. We can no longer take in things objectively, and then begin to do the things you describe above. This is not normal INFP behavior.

 

[Neo Genesis]

Jesus, BlueWing, the "unrational" feeling that I get from your posts is that you're a pompous prick. Now, I can sit here and wade through all that shit you posted about us and attempt to convey my disgust with your "logic" through my own, that action itself being illogical, or I could simply tell you that feelings aren't something you can just quantify and catagorize. Who cares if its logical or not? In my opinion, logic is overrated.



@OP Why rationalize when you can love? :grin I've been down that same road (personalities reversed), and even though I thought I had convinced myself I no longer held those feelings for her, I couldn't help but remain attracted to her for a very long time. So just go for it. What do you have to lose? Besides, if she's not feeling it, she'll let you know (through very subtle hints), and it really won't make much difference.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Jesus, BlueWing, the "unrational" feeling that I get from your posts is that you're a pompous prick. Now, I can sit here and wade through all that shit you posted about us and attempt to convey my disgust with your "logic" through my own, that action itself being illogical, or I could simply tell you that feelings aren't something you can just quantify and catagorize. Who cares if its logical or not? In my opinion, logic is overrated.



@OP Why rationalize when you can love? :grin I've been down that same road (personalities reversed), and even though I thought I had convinced myself I no longer held those feelings for her, I couldn't help but remain attracted to her for a very long time. So just go for it. What do you have to lose? Besides, if she's not feeling it, she'll let you know (through very subtle hints), and it really won't make much difference.

Yeah why rationalize things? If you feel there is a huge ass spider in your bed waiting to murder you, let it be. Who cares if its real or not. Just believe it.

If you think your neighbor is a pederast and a serial murderer, hey, just trust the feel, avoid that guy, it doesnt really matter what he is, only what you feel he is.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Maybe if they are 15 and haven't figured out who they are yet. .

You don't really know who you are unless you analyze yourself. Older INFPs know themselves better than the younger, but far from well as their reasoning skills are poor still, unless of course they happen to be exceptional people. It takes a lot of effort to be good at things that we have little natural talent towards.

Generally INFPs have poor analytical skills and therefore do not know themselves.

What you are referring to is clearly an emotionally unhealthy INFP. This behavior occurs when Fi begins to dominate and extroverted intuition serves it. We can no longer take in things objectively, and then begin to do the things you describe above. This is not normal INFP behavior.

Even when we are healthy , we still struggle with the use of our inferior function. Normal INFPs have exactly the problems I have described, the unhealthy ones have it even worse. The deal with the normal INFPs is that they have some kind of rationality to them and self-control (so able to use Thinking to some degree), though not a lot. So people just take it easy on them and try to affirm their values as much as possible, in effect the INFP's irrationality and lack of Thinking skills do not manifest easily. People generally are forced to confront only the unhealthy INFPs because they act out on their vulgar and irrational passions. We know how 'out there' those folks are. Yet we do not see the chaos going on in the mind of a healthy INFP because we rarely place them in the position where they show their true colors.

 

[Gish]

Why does thinking equate to reasoning?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Why does thinking equate to reasoning?

That is the definition of Thinking. thinking definition |Dictionary.com

 

[Mycroft]

Bluewing, could you clarify how you define "Thinking" and "Feeling", respectively? (I ask of interest, not to be glib.)

 

[OnlyGood]

As much as i've enjoyed reading a bunch of INTP comments, I think we scared off the INFP's.

Can we get back to the original request of tips for INTJ's from INFP's? I realize this in itself is a tough question because INFP's do not like to criticize. But maybe instead of INTP's and INTJ's coming back and criticizing the criticism, we could get some real and useful discussion going and learn something from each other?

I promise not to "attack" any INFP's if they will share their honest opinions about their experiences with INTJ's and their "tips" from experience.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

As much as i've enjoyed reading a bunch of INTP comments, I think we scared off the INFP's.

Can we get back to the original request of tips for INTJ's from INFP's? I realize this in itself is a tough question because INFP's do not like to criticize. But maybe instead of INTP's and INTJ's coming back and criticizing the criticism, we could get some real and useful discussion going and learn something from each other?

I promise not to "attack" any INFP's if they will share their honest opinions about their experiences with INTJ's and their "tips" from experience.

Honestly, if you enjoyed reading certain INTP comments (yeah, I'm talking about you, BW) then you probably want to avoid INFPs - for your sake and theirs.

 

[OnlyGood]

I think some clarification may be required. What I meant by saying that I enjoyed INTP comments was that I did not enjoy it. I was being sarcastic. I realize that this probably came across the wrong way. What i really meant was that since this is a topic between INTJ and INFP the INTP's should stay out

I truly value an open forum like this and absolutely hope that some mature INFP's will speak up and share.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Bluewing, could you clarify how you define "Thinking" and "Feeling", respectively? (I ask of interest, not to be glib.)

Thinking-Faculty of impersonal decision making.
Feeling-Faculty of conscious processing of emotion.

To expound on this, Thinking strives to make judgments based on impersonal criteria. The only way to do so is to think logically. Hence, Thinking and logical reasoning are interchangeable.

Feeling and Thinking are not commensurable. Because when we make a conscious decision, we necessarily engage in a process of reasoning. (For instance, whenever someone makes a decision of any kind, we will find a formula reminiscent to this in their thought, if A then B)

Thus, all conscious decision making is necessarily a product of thinking.

When Feeling predominantes, the logical reasoning is distorted in favor of affirmation of the prevalent sentiments within the psyche of the individual. Thus, unlike a Thinker, when a Feeler reasons, they do not follow the objective laws of reasoning, but distort such laws in order to give affirmation to their Feelings.

At the bottom, it is the Thinking that is making decisions. However, because Feeling plays such a significant role in the way the Feeler reasons (or uses the Thinking function) it appears that Feeling in itself is a decision making function. Yet in essence Feeling is a cognitive faculty of ours that simply brings our instinctual reactions (or emotions) to the attention of our conscious mind. For example, when we cut ourselves, it is Feeling that informs us clearly of what exactly has happened to us. Without a sound use of Feeling, those instinctual reactions would remain in the unconscious. (An interesting fact to correspond with this is that little girls cry more easily when cut than little boys, although both experience the same emotional reaction. The difference between the two is that the former is clearly informed of such an emotional reaction, whilst the latter is much less aware. I choose the little boy/girl example because the faculties that we are in closest natural attunement are most notable in early age as at that point we do not have time nor the sufficient resources to cultivate the faculties that we are less comfortable with.)

Thus, for the sake of further clarity, I reiterate my definitions. The above explains why I have defined my terms in such a fashion and the possible confusions that may have led others to provide different definitions.

Thinking-Faculty of impersonal conscious scrutiny.
Feeling-Faculty of conscious processing of emotion.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

I think some clarification may be required. What I meant by saying that I enjoyed INTP comments was that I did not enjoy it. I was being sarcastic. I realize that this probably came across the wrong way. What i really meant was that since this is a topic between INTJ and INFP the INTP's should stay out

I truly value an open forum like this and absolutely hope that some mature INFP's will speak up and share.

Heh, okay sorry about that. I missed your irony. I'll turn the floor over to the mature INFPs and probably a lot more BW.