[MBTI General] Tips from INFPs for INTJs

[Mycroft]

Apparently there is a logistical error in the post you have quoted.

I meant to say noone, especially not the Sensing type can know things by default or without prior contemplation.

This message, "In other words, most of us, especially dominant Sensing types( a claim I make in support of why Thinking is more conducive to a clear perspective), appears to know things by default. "



This message was meant to be read as follows, In other words, most of us, especially dominant Sensing types( a claim I make in support of why Thinking is more conducive to a clear perspective), cannot to know things by default.

...you've lost me.

 

[Harmonic]

You're asking INFPs a question that they cannot answer. In order to get close to them, you must affirm their values. But their values are based on fleeting feelings (becuase the Thinking faculty is weak, it cannot discipline their passions, therefore they lack structure). Their values easily change (even from day to day) and you never know (nor do they) what their values are.

So, let me get this.

Every single Feeler has an underdeveloped Thinking function, therefore Feelers lack sufficient Thinking to control their Feeling-based conclusions (ex. lack of practical and logical decisions).

Since Thinking is diametrically opposed to Feeling, the inverse of the above statement must be true. Every single Thinker must have an underdeveloped Feeling function and Thinkers would lack sufficient Feeling to control their Thinking-based conclusions (ex. lack of consideration for human rights).

Am I right?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

So, let me get this.

Every single Feeler has an underdeveloped Thinking function, therefore Feelers lack sufficient Thinking to control their Feeling-based conclusions (ex. lack of practical and logical decisions).

Since Thinking is diametrically opposed to Feeling, the inverse of the above statement must be true. Every single Thinker must have an underdeveloped Feeling function and Thinkers would lack sufficient Feeling to control their Thinking-based conclusions (ex. lack of consideration for human rights).

Am I right?

No, not every single one, but most of usdo have an underdeveloped inferior function. This is because the inferior function represents the way of functioning that is least natural to us. The least natural by definition is what we have least natural aptitude towards. Quite obviously, most of us are good at things we are most talented at and respectively perform poorly at tasks that we are least talented at.

...you've lost me.

The bottom line is noone knows things by default. In order to have reliable knowledge as opposed to foundationless opinion you need to do some careful logical reasoning, this requires competent use of the Thinking faculty. For this reason, the Thinking type is the one most likely to acquire reliable knowledge.

 

[Harmonic]

No, not every single one, but most of usdo have an underdeveloped inferior function. This is because the inferior function represents the way of functioning that is least natural to us. The least natural by definition is what we have least natural aptitude towards.

Then how was a conclusion reached that the INFP in question was irrational (technically, it should be illogical) when we had no prior insight to them save her type?

 

[wildcat]

It helps not to be in English here. Feelers and Thinkers Know but in other languages there are two words for that: German Feelers Kennen and Thinkers Wissen while French Connaissent and Sachent. Maybe there is something similar in English Understand and Know.

Well.. actually the reverse is true.
But you made a point.

The reply of Orangey is good, too.
But it is in part another point.

Semantics is the study of meaning. And etymology is the study of origin.
Of the word.
Eventually it is only about one study.

Wisdom is sight.
I see = I get it.

When you get it you know.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Then how was a conclusion reached that the INFP in question was irrational (technically, it should be illogical) when we had no prior insight to them save her type?

Because the INFP in question is more likely to be in the category of 'most' than 'least' by very definition of 'likely'. For example, if you have 5 apples and 2 oranges in a bag, if you reach down you are more likely to get an apple than an orange because there are more apples than oranges. Analogously if we take one INFP out of them all (which could be over a 100 million) it is more likely that this INFP will be irrational rather than rational because most INFPs are irrational.

 

[Mycroft]

The bottom line is noone knows things by default. In order to have reliable knowledge as opposed to foundationless opinion you need to do some careful logical reasoning, this requires competent use of the Thinking faculty. For this reason, the Thinking type is the one most likely to acquire reliable knowledge.

I see. That being the case, I'm inclined to agree, although I'd make the distinction that a Thinking dominant is more likely to attain an objective interpretation of gathered knowledge.

Also, if you'll forgive me a small amount of Devil's Advocacy, wouldn't the ISTP be more in touch with objective truth, using his introverted thinking to act upon concrete data taken in directly through the senses rather than that which has been filtered through the "matrix" of intuition?

 

[Into It]

You see I told this person I like them, however now I only want to be close friends. But I think they still see me and think I am trying to get close because I want to go out. Thus any compliments I make, I fear, would be taken as hit ons, or ways to get them to go out with me, which is entirely not what I want... ugh.

Type aside, this kind of thinking will bury you. It's self destructive. So does your friend think you want to be the kind of friends who don't hang out? What does that even mean?? I'm just pointing this out because your fear seems irrational. I've never met an INTJ who couldn't find something interesting to say about whatever philosophical question they were asked. That should be prized enough by INFP's to give you some more confidence on this one. If you want to find someone who is NOT confident, I would check the INFP aisle first. You're obviously a very interesting person I can see from your posts. It sounds like as far as confidence is concerned, you have the choice to have the upper-hand. (The confident one is often attracting the other, it looks like). Optimistic is kind of like realistic + not being defeatist. Make your own luck on this one, you'll be okay. Just please try not to think in these fearful terms because the truth is when it comes to emotional connection, I don't think it is the action itself that is so important but rather the intentions, which is to say even if you did look like an absolute bumbling fool, it is all being done in an honest attempt to get to know someone better, and that will be seen.

 

[Harmonic]

For starters, let's make a note that Introverted Feeling isn't irrational . Introverted Feeling is illogical. (I'm making the assumption that your reasoning for thinking INFPs are so is because their primary function is Introverted Feeling)

This is precisely what Introverted Feeling does: it bypasses structural considerations and puts human value first. Such discrimination is unquestionably illogical, but it's in no way irrational. Indeed to place human value above statistical risk isn't possible without the ability to reason. (Pg. 368)

Sorry for the nitpick, just something that I wanted to clear up.

Because the INFP in question is more likely to be in the category of 'most' than 'least' by very definition of 'likely'. For example, if you have 5 apples and 2 oranges in a bag, if you reach down you are more likely to get an apple than an orange because there are more apples than oranges. Analogously if we take one INFP out of them all (which could be over a 100 million) it is more likely that this INFP will be irrational rather than rational because most INFPs are irrational.

I got two questions.

1. How can we guarantee that the INFP in question fit into the majority instead of the minority?
2. How do you take a group of INFPs and without any knowledge of them besides their type and make a decision that one group of INFPs can make logical decisions and the other group can't?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

For starters, let's make a note that Introverted Feeling isn't irrational . Introverted Feeling is illogical. (I'm making the assumption that your reasoning for thinking INFPs are so is because their primary function is Introverted Feeling)

Sorry for the nitpick, just something that I wanted to clear up.

I got two questions.

1. How can we guarantee that the INFP in question fit into the majority instead of the minority?
2. How do you take a group of INFPs and without any knowledge of them besides their type and make a decision that one group of INFPs can make logical decisions and the other group can't?

1)Irrational is synonymous with illogical. Logic represents the proper laws of reasoning. What is not logical, does not obey such laws, therefore goes contrary to reason and is by definition irrational.

Thomson uses the word 'irrational' in the strictly Jungian sense which is by definition 'unconscious' or perceiving. (This applies to intuition and sensation). It contrasts with 'rational' or conscious, which is both Thinking and Feeling.

2)Because we are dealing with probability, we cannot guarantee that the INFP in question will be illogical.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I see. That being the case, I'm inclined to agree, although I'd make the distinction that a Thinking dominant is more likely to attain an objective interpretation of gathered knowledge.

Also, if you'll forgive me a small amount of Devil's Advocacy, wouldn't the ISTP be more in touch with objective truth, using his introverted thinking to act upon concrete data taken in directly through the senses rather than that which has been filtered through the "matrix" of intuition?

With regard to simple matters yes. However, in order to solve complex problems, intuition is required.

The 'matrix' effect is more akin to S oriented thinking rather than N. An unimaginative person is more likely to be 'brainwashed' by conventional ways of thinking. The idea of the matrix is that most people do not see the world as it really is, but as a way those who wish to control them want them to see it. People who do not think critically believe what they are told (lacking imagination is one reason many people do not think critically).

It is indeed the case if Intuition is undisciplined(Thinking, not sensation is necessary in order to provide the proper structure in order to discipline the intuition for reasons mentioned earlier) it will lead to an illusory view of the world. However, this exercise of Intuition is still to be preferred to the way the Sensor uses it because whilst in the former case one may make numerous mistakes, yet the Sensor uses the Intuition almost not at all and therefore by default makes more mistakes.

This is much like if two students took a multiple choice test, one of them read every question but did not know the answer to any of them, yet took an educated guess with regard to all of them. The other student did not read any of the questions nor attempted to answer. The former is more likely to receive the higher of the two scores.

 

[OnlyGood]

Any INFP's out there have some other suggestions for INTJ's? If you don't feel comfortable sharing them here, please send me a PM!

 

[Mycroft]

With regard to simple matters yes. However, in order to solve complex problems, intuition is required.

The 'matrix' effect is more akin to S oriented thinking rather than N. An unimaginative person is more likely to be 'brainwashed' by conventional ways of thinking. The idea of the matrix is that most people do not see the world as it really is, but as a way those who wish to control them want them to see it. People who do not think critically believe what they are told (lacking imagination is one reason many people do not think critically).

It is indeed the case if Intuition is undisciplined(Thinking, not sensation is necessary in order to provide the proper structure in order to discipline the intuition for reasons mentioned earlier) it will lead to an illusory view of the world. However, this exercise of Intuition is still to be preferred to the way the Sensor uses it because whilst in the former case one may make numerous mistakes, yet the Sensor uses the Intuition almost not at all and therefore by default makes more mistakes.

This argument is self-denying; you begin by conceding that poorly-applied intuition will lead to incorrect beliefs, yet still assert that even a poor application of intuition, which would of your own assertion lead to incorrect beliefs, is superior to no application at all.

In concrete terms: if intuition is the key to proper understanding, why are INTPs markedly more likely than ISTPs to believe in not only a deity but the Christian god? Going by the logic of the above-quoted argument this is because the intuition of these INTPs is "undisciplined", yet contrary to your assertion that an S will "make more mistakes", ISTPs, by virtue of not applying intuition to the question, are the more likely of the two types to hold the empirically supported belief.

 

[quietmusician]

I've known my INTJ buddy since were in the sandbox. So even though we disagree sometimes, we still like each other. I think that is what's keeping us friends, we have a history. I think overall respect is key.