[INFP] Flavors of INFP: Enneagram

[Seymour]

Would there then be a different "natural" enneagram? Or naturally people don't fit any of them?

So, opinions differ, but my opinion is that the value of the enneagram is mostly in the "negative enneagram." That is, the primary value of the enneagram is how it describes unhealthy habitual defense mechanisms. My feeling is that what defense mechanisms one habitually uses arise out a combination of predispositions and the environment (including what roles are available and advantageous in one's family's dynamics). I think the enneagram provides real value by describing those unhealthy defense mechanism in a way that's not overly pathologizing, and that it presents them as being on the ordinary spectrum of health (rather than only existing in the deeply disturbed).

So, the negative enneagram (the vices) is the part that has been most valuable for me, personally. The enneagram of virtue I've found less useful, although that may say more about me personally than about the enneagram in the abstract.

I think enneagram might have more to do with how you use your preferences, or what you use them for, rather than shifting those preferences themselves.

So do you really think that affecting how one uses one preferences and for what would have no effect on instruments like the MBTI?

For example, do you really think an e1 wouldn't tend to test as more Judging? Or that an e4 or e5 wouldn't test as more introverted (because of wanting to avoid exposure because of feelings of shame or inadequacy)? If enneagram type is only loosely correlated to MBTI type (and available evidence says that's the case), then wouldn't you expect that an e4 INFP would tend to be a little more retiring and hidden than an e1 INFP, for example?

 

[GreatBigCranberries]

So, opinions differ, but my opinion is that the value of the enneagram is mostly in the "negative enneagram." That is, the primary value of the enneagram is how it describes unhealthy habitual defense mechanisms. My feeling is that what defense mechanisms one habitually uses arise out a combination of predispositions and the environment (including what roles are available and advantageous in one's family's dynamics). I think the enneagram provides real value by describing those unhealthy defense mechanism in a way that's not overly pathologizing, and that it presents them as being on the ordinary spectrum of health (rather than only existing in the deeply disturbed).

So, the negative enneagram (the vices) is the part that has been most valuable for me, personally. The enneagram of virtue I've found less useful, although that may say more about me personally than about the enneagram in the abstract.

Actually I agree about the usefulness of enneagram, by itself at least. Isn't being healthy even characterized in enneagrams as becoming less distinctly one type (i.e. becoming balanced among the types)? But it also does seem useful for providing sub classifications within MBTI types to understand how people with the same functions can turn out so different.

So do you really think that affecting how one uses one preferences and for what would have no effect on instruments like the MBTI?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by instruments like MBTI. Are you asking if I think the theory would be affected, or testing results? I do think that the differences between people with the same MBTI types but different enneagrams is that they are using the same functions to slightly different ends. If that makes sense?

 

[GreatBigCranberries]

For example, do you really think an e1 wouldn't tend to test as more Judging? Or that an e4 or e5 wouldn't test as more introverted (because of wanting to avoid exposure because of feelings of shame or inadequacy)? If enneagram type is only loosely correlated to MBTI type (and available evidence says that's the case), then wouldn't you expect that an e4 INFP would tend to be a little more retiring and hidden than an e1 INFP, for example?

Yeah, I do think different enneatypes could be prone to mistyping as different things, but that's ultimately a fault in the tests themselves, which don't actually test your cognition but rather what you think your behaviour and general attitude are like.

I think maybe 'preferences' was too broad a term, because it seems like we each meant different things by it. I was thinking of a person's preferred functions, and that those didn't change between different enneagrams types (with the same MBTI type), that it wasn't like people were starting to prefer their weaker functions as a result. But I totally would expect differences in behaviour.

 

[Seymour]

Actually I agree about the usefulness of enneagram, by itself at least. Isn't being healthy even characterized in enneagrams as becoming less distinctly one type (i.e. becoming balanced among the types)? But it also does seem useful for providing sub classifications within MBTI types to understand how people with the same functions can turn out so different.

Well, other than disagreeing about whether functions are really a thing, I agree. (And I think the function descriptions are useful, but only insofar as they describe a set of preference combinations: (S/N + J/P), (T/F + J/P)... with a little E/I influence thrown in.)

The enneagram definitely adds a different dimension than to MBTI type alone. For me in a work environment, for example, I find the enneagram to be useful mostly when dealing with dysfunction, but the MBTI is more useful when dealing with communication and more day-to-day interactions with coworkers. On a personal relationship level, I generally find the enneagram more useful for dealing with more personal relationships, although MBTI remains useful for smoothing out basic communication issues (like suggesting patience with the way my husband, a strong Sensor, has to go into mind numbing detail about his work day).

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by instruments like MBTI. Are you asking if I think the theory would be affected, or testing results? I do think that the differences between people with the same MBTI types but different enneagrams is that they are using the same functions to slightly different ends. If that makes sense?

By instruments like the MBTI I mean specifically results from the MBTI "tests" (like the MBTI step I, step II, etc... and other similar tests, including free online tests), not specifically the theory of type dynamics (which I think is very hard to defend from any empirical standpoint, even if folks find it useful as a personal lens).

Yeah, I do think different enneatypes could be prone to mistyping as different things, but that's ultimately a fault in the tests themselves, which don't actually test your cognition but rather what you think your behaviour and general attitude are like.

I think maybe 'preferences' was too broad a term, because it seems like we each meant different things by it. I was thinking of a person's preferred functions, and that those didn't change between different enneagrams types (with the same MBTI type), that it wasn't like people were starting to prefer their weaker functions as a result. But I totally would expect differences in behaviour.

Well, empirically speaking, the MBTI measures something that's useful and does result in measurable correlations with various interesting things. Type dynamics appears describe something which has been utterly unmeasurable (and make no useful real-world predictions or correlations), despite motivated people trying to find some evidence to support it.

Still, that aside, the MBTI asks questions about what describes a person better, or what they would prefer. I find it hard to believe that habitual defense mechanisms play no role in behavioral and situational preferences, even if I think pure MBTI preferences might indicate a different result. For example, I think my preferences are towards Feeling, but fears of being found to be inadequate/incompetent tend to push me towards trying to analyze things objectively so I won't look like an idiot. That doesn't make me a Thinker, but that does mean I'll tend to behave a bit more like a Thinker as far as the effort I put into objectively analysis (and so how much objective analysis I'll appear to "prefer," even if it's just as a backstop to my insecurities). So I think on MBTI instruments I'll tend to test as more Thinking than my actual Feeling preference warrants. When I'm in a more relaxed and secure environment, I think my Feeling preference is more obvious.

 

[GreatBigCranberries]

Well, other than disagreeing about whether functions are really a thing, I agree. (And I think the function descriptions are useful, but only insofar as they describe a set of preference combinations: (S/N + J/P), (T/F + J/P)... with a little E/I influence thrown in.)

The enneagram definitely adds a different dimension than to MBTI type alone. For me in a work environment, for example, I find the enneagram to be useful mostly when dealing with dysfunction, but the MBTI is more useful when dealing with communication and more day-to-day interactions with coworkers. On a personal relationship level, I generally find the enneagram more useful for dealing with more personal relationships, although MBTI remains useful for smoothing out basic communication issues (like suggesting patience with the way my husband, a strong Sensor, has to go into mind numbing detail about his work day).



By instruments like the MBTI I mean specifically results from the MBTI "tests" (like the MBTI step I, step II, etc... and other similar tests, including free online tests), not specifically the theory of type dynamics (which I think is very hard to defend from any empirical standpoint, even if folks find it useful as a personal lens).



Well, empirically speaking, the MBTI measures something that's useful and does result in measurable correlations with various interesting things. Type dynamics appears describe something which has been utterly unmeasurable (and make no useful real-world predictions or correlations), despite motivated people trying to find some evidence to support it.

Still, that aside, the MBTI asks questions about what describes a person better, or what they would prefer. I find it hard to believe that habitual defense mechanisms play no role in behavioral and situational preferences, even if I think pure MBTI preferences might indicate a different result. For example, I think my preferences are towards Feeling, but fears of being found to be inadequate/incompetent tend to push me towards trying to analyze things objectively so I won't look like an idiot. That doesn't make me a Thinker, but that does mean I'll tend to behave a bit more like a Thinker as far as the effort I put into objectively analysis (and so how much objective analysis I'll appear to "prefer," even if it's just as a backstop to my insecurities). So I think on MBTI instruments I'll tend to test as more Thinking than my actual Feeling preference warrants. When I'm in a more relaxed and secure environment, I think my Feeling preference is more obvious.

I think it's natural though, to try to explain what is behind the results you see, even if all you can do is speculative theorizing. Admittedly, I'm partly functioning under the assumption that functions exist just because I've found them useful in understanding different communication styles. The more I feel like I can get inside a person's head the less annoyed I am at the resulting behaviour. But most explanations of functions are really vague and contradictory and useless. Still I think there's something to the theory, difficult as it may be to defend. There are just certain not easily definable qualities that I see in the people I know across different types and those seem to line up with their supposed functions.

*Sigh*, but now that you've questioned it I have to go re-examine my understanding of personality types. Just when I thought I knew something, it's up in the air again.

 

[fetus]

This is all good information. I'm trying to gain as much knowledge as I can so I can better understand myself. Different typology systems get confusing for me sometimes, because they're so tangled up in each other. For instance, determining whether it's Fi or 4. Once you throw in psychiatric conditions, it gets really tough. Depression, low self-esteem, and suicidal behavior are not exclusive to 4's obviously, but it's easy to test as such if you've gone through that in the past. I feel like 4's are portrayed as the only ones who struggle/have struggled with those sorts of things, so that could possibly lead to mistypes. Same thing for anxiety and 6. Y'know?

 

[pinkgraffiti]

First of all, that was me.

Secondly, I was careful to express it as testing close to the F/T border.

Thirdly, (even though I didn't think so at the time) there's no empirical evidence for type dynamics yet solid evidence that preference strength matters.

My personal feeling is that enneagram type (and the associated unhealthy coping mechanism) can effectively push one a little "out of true" as far as the expression of MBTI type goes. Hence, a type 1, for example, will tend to come across as more Judging, while a type 4 is likely to come across as more Feeling. Sometimes the effect of MBTI type reinforces MBTI preferences, in other cases (and perhaps more distressingly for the individual), it shifts one away from one's natural preferences.

What do you think?

Sorry, I didnt know it was written by someone from the forums. I like your descriptions, particularly the type 5 INFP description.

My only question about these kinds of analyses is: When are we in a scientific/statistical terrain and when do we start entering "horoscope" mode? Meaning, the relevance of MBTI amongst other types of personality classification (and there have been so many, and such ridiculous ones as well during the years, since the Greek and Roman civilizations...I studied them) is the scientific aspect of MBTI. We are actually discussing things that for the most part exist ans have been proven to exist.
So when I read something like F/T border, I wonder of we have a scientific basis for that, or we have entered the realm of interpretation and "horoscope". I am also surprised (absolutely not to offend you personally) but I am surprised that anyone can write anything on MBTI and the enneagram. My girlfriend (also INFP) complains to me that she doesnt believe in MBTI because she thinks it's just people giving their opinions on a forum. I then showed her actual articles published in PubMed, as well as texts by important scholars, which she appreciated. But I am surprised to see that I should be more careful when reading things about MBTI and the enneagram, because they could have been written by anyone with an internet connection, even my grandmother (again, not personal, it's just how Im surprised by this).

So....appart from this rant (and Im sorry), I really liked your descriptors. Could you please do them for ENFPs too?

 

[uumlau]

I think it's natural though, to try to explain what is behind the results you see, even if all you can do is speculative theorizing. Admittedly, I'm partly functioning under the assumption that functions exist just because I've found them useful in understanding different communication styles. The more I feel like I can get inside a person's head the less annoyed I am at the resulting behaviour. But most explanations of functions are really vague and contradictory and useless. Still I think there's something to the theory, difficult as it may be to defend. There are just certain not easily definable qualities that I see in the people I know across different types and those seem to line up with their supposed functions.

*Sigh*, but now that you've questioned it I have to go re-examine my understanding of personality types. Just when I thought I knew something, it's up in the air again.

The functions don't "explain" behavior of a person, so much as show you "where they're at". Same for Enneagram or any other typology. It's kind of like a match.com profile, but more useful.

As a typology, however, that means NO UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES underlie the type. Saying "Fe dom" is more or less (much less in some people's opinion who don't like functions!) just the same as saying "ExFJ" three MBTI letters for just one function. If you regard it in that light, they're just descriptions of what you see, not "explanations".

Yes, Jung had a lot of theories, but if you read closely, it's NOT theories but observations. In other words, it's "this set of patterns go together, and that set of patterns go together" and so on. The main reason that functions are problematic for a lot of people is that they seem to believe that there is some sort of "theory" behind it, which is subject to "proof". This is not the case. No typology can be proved or disproved. Rather, typologies have varying degrees of usefulness.

Wanna know something weird? COLOR is a typology. There is no such thing as "color" in the world. No I am not kidding. We can measure wavelengths of light of course, but "color" is something generated by the mind to interpret the light. Most colors are a spectrum of different wavelengths, and lots of different combinations of wavelengths can look like the same color. So we can describe a lot of different things as being "red", but the underlying reality has all sorts of different physical things going on to make something look "red" to us. However, we can (mostly) agree on whether something is red or blue or green, etc., so it lets us identify things, classify things, and otherwise keep track of them, like any typology. But there is no causal connection. An apple is red, and a fire truck is red, but fire trucks are otherwise nothing like apples - but it's still useful to label them as "red". But you can't "prove" that they're both red, you can only AGREE that they're both red. See the difference? Same with MBTI and Enneagram and so on.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

I think when we speak about different flavours of enneagram, we need to take wings and stackings into account too, INFP 4w3 is for example different than an INFP 4w5, so/sp is different than sx/so and so on... Also I do not believe, that all the variations are possible, INFPs are most likely 4s, I could see 6, or perhaps 2 as another possibilities for INFP, but hardly anything else. But... I like to play, I like to play with this idea and I'll describe how each an every INFP will be different enneagram vise.

INFP 1 - The most of a perfectionist and orderly of all INFPs. Hardworking for what they believe is right, very firm moral compas, having personal values and adhering to them would be especially important for an INFP 1. INFP would also develop their Te far better than any other of this type because of the need for control and order. This INFP might often switch to ESTJ moods, or simply come across are very firm in usage of their Te.

INFP 2 - This would be the most bubbly and people oriented type of INFP. The true lover of people and their uniqueness. This INFP would probably have very special gifts combined, they would be great at understanding people on the individual and personal level and help them just as much as they can, while not being too tensive about it, like Fe types sometimes can be. This type would most likely come across as an ISFJ.

INFP 3 - This combination is hard... This INFP would probably feels in a conflict with their own persona, their own desire and needs. An introverted achiever, who can be competitive while staying sympathetic and emotional. This INFP would probably learn well how to put their feelings aside, when a job needs to be done. Tough and focused, while staying sentimental. I can imagine such INFP would have to fight with their introversion and feel at the conflict between their need of being alone and being appreciated. Sometimes they might experience outbursts of extraverted energy. I can imagine this INFP would be highly motivated to achieve something great, to change society or to become a famous artist. There is a risk of emotional troubles and turbulence when such INFP forgets about their feelings completely or try to ignore them. I think they would be very likeable and charming beings, naturally shy but very charismatic and skilled with social contact, they'd use their Fi+Ne to not only understand and sympathize with people, but also to win them over and to become the sweethearts of the group. They'd probably come across more as J types, or ENFPs.

INFP 4 - This is too... everyone knows that. Special snowflake syndrome, I am so unique, I am so dark, I am so original and artistic, nobody understands me, I am alone, I am too special for this world... the classic INFP 4 stuff.

INFP 5 - This would be by far the most introverted type of INFP. Logical and sentimental at the same, they would come across as mysterious and geeky. Probably would spend most of their time alone, doing research and learning. Feelings would be more analyzed than felt, but still would have strong impact on the individual. The most academic type of an INFP, needs both emotional and intellectual stimulation. Probably might hide their feelings alot out of fear of being vulnerable, they might even reject their feelings when unhealthy and then fall into emotional breakdowns.
This INFP would mostly come across as INTP and they would be the ones who would definitely mistype themselves as one.

INFP 6 - I think this type is not so rare for INFPs. They are less sentimental and goofy than other NFPs and more analytical and critical. They would have troubles with opening up emotionally, they need to check people out in order to feel safe around them. The most security oriented type of INFP, I can imagine this type to be a perfect homebuddy, someone who likes their safety and comfort and does not like to leave it. This INFP would also be a good trouble shooter and problemer solver, they would easily understand systems and learn about them.
If such INFP gain their trust to someone, you can count on them 100%. Never leaves a friend in troubles. If they find their calling, they can become passionate and hardworking.

INFP 7 - This INFP would most likely seem like Ne dominant. I imagine, their need for excitement and fun would be more in their head though. They would enjoy wild flights of fantasy, adventures in their mind never end. Probably very bohemian kind of this type, would enjoy fine things in their life. They might be escaping from their emotionality to the fantasies, or worse might use alcohol, drugs or other substances to escape from their deep feelings.
This INFP would probably feel in a conflict a lot. They might seek understanding and harmonious relationships, but also need freedom and adventure. They also strive to have both, security and support and individuality and open possibilities.
This INFP would probably love to travel, would be excited about getting to know new cultures, people and learning new ways of thinking.
I can imagine INFP 7 to be a successful journalist, cultural worker or travel agency worker.

INFP 8 - This... this is really the most conflictual type I can think of. This INFP would be very individualistic, strong and emotionally independent. Would fight fearlessly for what they believe is right. This type would probably enjoy creating an image of a "badass" persona to hide their emotions. I can imagine they would fear relationships as they might see them as a thread for their sentiments. Probably would be a lone-wolf kind of INFP, strong and passionate on the outside, but sentimental on the inside. Might have hard time to deal with their emotions, might even fight them or hate them. I think this INFP wouldn't like to be a classic leader type, but would hate to follow anyone. Rebels going their own way.

INFP 9 - This is not rare, actually type 9 fits Fi quite well and can be a good fit for many INFPs. This INFP would be very peaceful and conflict avoidant. Introverted, but seeks harmonious relationships with others, sometimes might find themselves in a conflict between adapting to others and adhering to their own values. Stubborn when threatened, but not aggressive. This INFP would be a perfect sponge for emotional atmosphere, malleable and soft, would attract strong and bossy people.
This type needs to built a firm ground for their ideals and values and to make sure others don't cross the line. INFP 9 can have problems with being too generous with their energy and time, because they don't want anyone to feel bad and wish everyone to feel welcomed. They need to be careful about adhering to what they believe is right unless they might find themselves in a circle of compromises and unfulfilled needs.

 

[Luigi]

INFP 4 - This is too... everyone knows that. Special snowflake syndrome, I am so unique, I am so dark, I am so original and artistic, nobody understands me, I am alone, I am too special for this world... the classic INFP 4 stuff.

Congratulations... you just convinced me that I have accurately determined my MBTI and Enneagram. Thank you very much for the validation and reassurance.

 

[Seymour]

Sorry, I didnt know it was written by someone from the forums. I like your descriptions, particularly the type 5 INFP description.

My only question about these kinds of analyses is: When are we in a scientific/statistical terrain and when do we start entering "horoscope" mode? Meaning, the relevance of MBTI amongst other types of personality classification (and there have been so many, and such ridiculous ones as well during the years, since the Greek and Roman civilizations...I studied them) is the scientific aspect of MBTI. We are actually discussing things that for the most part exist ans have been proven to exist.
So when I read something like F/T border, I wonder of we have a scientific basis for that, or we have entered the realm of interpretation and "horoscope". I am also surprised (absolutely not to offend you personally) but I am surprised that anyone can write anything on MBTI and the enneagram. My girlfriend (also INFP) complains to me that she doesnt believe in MBTI because she thinks it's just people giving their opinions on a forum. I then showed her actual articles published in PubMed, as well as texts by important scholars, which she appreciated. But I am surprised to see that I should be more careful when reading things about MBTI and the enneagram, because they could have been written by anyone with an internet connection, even my grandmother (again, not personal, it's just how Im surprised by this).

So....appart from this rant (and Im sorry), I really liked your descriptors. Could you please do them for ENFPs too?

If you are interested in the empirical side of things, I would suggest following the link to reckful's post on type dynamics. He also has a solid post on debunking the MBTI debunkers, which gives one a good background on how the MBTI measures up scientifically.

One thing I do like about the MBTI (as opposed to the Big Five) is that it better captures the additive nature of preference combinations. There's the descriptions of the "functions," and there are descriptions of groupings like the Kiersey temperaments. NF, for example, is not a "cognitive function," but there are commonalities among NF's as a group (even among those that don't care a single cognitive function). And even if I don't believe in type dynamics, I do think that the function descriptions describe preference combinations in a way that is descriptive and useful.

I also like [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION]'s post above, and he's right that typology in general (and even a trait approach, like the Big Five) is all about finding categories (or scales) that describe something useful. At their best, they enable us to describe reality (whether internal or external) better.

If there are parts that don't make any useful real-world predictions or correlations and can't be detected, then I think we are in the realm of astrology, horoscopes and tarot cards. People can find those meaningful and they can suggest narratives that seem to fit, but that's more about our human ability to create and see patterns, not because they are "true" in themselves.

As far as writing enneagram "subtypes" for ENFPs... I don't really feel qualified, since I'm not an ENFP and don't know that many in real life. Maybe start a thread on the topic, take a stab at describing your own combination and ask others to help?

 

[fetus]

I think when we speak about different flavours of enneagram, we need to take wings and stackings into account too, INFP 4w3 is for example different than an INFP 4w5, so/sp is different than sx/so and so on... Also I do not believe, that all the variations are possible, INFPs are most likely 4s, I could see 6, or perhaps 2 as another possibilities for INFP, but hardly anything else. But... I like to play, I like to play with this idea and I'll describe how each an every INFP will be different enneagram vise.

INFP 1 - The most of a perfectionist and orderly of all INFPs. Hardworking for what they believe is right, very firm moral compas, having personal values and adhering to them would be especially important for an INFP 1. INFP would also develop their Te far better than any other of this type because of the need for control and order. This INFP might often switch to ESTJ moods, or simply come across are very firm in usage of their Te.

INFP 2 - This would be the most bubbly and people oriented type of INFP. The true lover of people and their uniqueness. This INFP would probably have very special gifts combined, they would be great at understanding people on the individual and personal level and help them just as much as they can, while not being too tensive about it, like Fe types sometimes can be. This type would most likely come across as an ISFJ.

INFP 3 - This combination is hard... This INFP would probably feels in a conflict with their own persona, their own desire and needs. An introverted achiever, who can be competitive while staying sympathetic and emotional. This INFP would probably learn well how to put their feelings aside, when a job needs to be done. Tough and focused, while staying sentimental. I can imagine such INFP would have to fight with their introversion and feel at the conflict between their need of being alone and being appreciated. Sometimes they might experience outbursts of extraverted energy. I can imagine this INFP would be highly motivated to achieve something great, to change society or to become a famous artist. There is a risk of emotional troubles and turbulence when such INFP forgets about their feelings completely or try to ignore them. I think they would be very likeable and charming beings, naturally shy but very charismatic and skilled with social contact, they'd use their Fi+Ne to not only understand and sympathize with people, but also to win them over and to become the sweethearts of the group. They'd probably come across more as J types, or ENFPs.

INFP 4 - This is too... everyone knows that. Special snowflake syndrome, I am so unique, I am so dark, I am so original and artistic, nobody understands me, I am alone, I am too special for this world... the classic INFP 4 stuff.

INFP 5 - This would be by far the most introverted type of INFP. Logical and sentimental at the same, they would come across as mysterious and geeky. Probably would spend most of their time alone, doing research and learning. Feelings would be more analyzed than felt, but still would have strong impact on the individual. The most academic type of an INFP, needs both emotional and intellectual stimulation. Probably might hide their feelings alot out of fear of being vulnerable, they might even reject their feelings when unhealthy and then fall into emotional breakdowns.
This INFP would mostly come across as INTP and they would be the ones who would definitely mistype themselves as one.

INFP 6 - I think this type is not so rare for INFPs. They are less sentimental and goofy than other NFPs and more analytical and critical. They would have troubles with opening up emotionally, they need to check people out in order to feel safe around them. The most security oriented type of INFP, I can imagine this type to be a perfect homebuddy, someone who likes their safety and comfort and does not like to leave it. This INFP would also be a good trouble shooter and problemer solver, they would easily understand systems and learn about them.
If such INFP gain their trust to someone, you can count on them 100%. Never leaves a friend in troubles. If they find their calling, they can become passionate and hardworking.

INFP 7 - This INFP would most likely seem like Ne dominant. I imagine, their need for excitement and fun would be more in their head though. They would enjoy wild flights of fantasy, adventures in their mind never end. Probably very bohemian kind of this type, would enjoy fine things in their life. They might be escaping from their emotionality to the fantasies, or worse might use alcohol, drugs or other substances to escape from their deep feelings.
This INFP would probably feel in a conflict a lot. They might seek understanding and harmonious relationships, but also need freedom and adventure. They also strive to have both, security and support and individuality and open possibilities.
This INFP would probably love to travel, would be excited about getting to know new cultures, people and learning new ways of thinking.
I can imagine INFP 7 to be a successful journalist, cultural worker or travel agency worker.

INFP 8 - This... this is really the most conflictual type I can think of. This INFP would be very individualistic, strong and emotionally independent. Would fight fearlessly for what they believe is right. This type would probably enjoy creating an image of a "badass" persona to hide their emotions. I can imagine they would fear relationships as they might see them as a thread for their sentiments. Probably would be a lone-wolf kind of INFP, strong and passionate on the outside, but sentimental on the inside. Might have hard time to deal with their emotions, might even fight them or hate them. I think this INFP wouldn't like to be a classic leader type, but would hate to follow anyone. Rebels going their own way.

INFP 9 - This is not rare, actually type 9 fits Fi quite well and can be a good fit for many INFPs. This INFP would be very peaceful and conflict avoidant. Introverted, but seeks harmonious relationships with others, sometimes might find themselves in a conflict between adapting to others and adhering to their own values. Stubborn when threatened, but not aggressive. This INFP would be a perfect sponge for emotional atmosphere, malleable and soft, would attract strong and bossy people.
This type needs to built a firm ground for their ideals and values and to make sure others don't cross the line. INFP 9 can have problems with being too generous with their energy and time, because they don't want anyone to feel bad and wish everyone to feel welcomed. They need to be careful about adhering to what they believe is right unless they might find themselves in a circle of compromises and unfulfilled needs.

Thank you! I've been waiting for something like this.

 

[Tinyclaws]

INFP 4w3, with strong wing I think. Sometimes I feel like I can use Fe, although I hate it. I think I'm more about people pleasing than 4w5 or 5w4. It's weird that some people think I'm an extrovert. It's like I've acted the part well, but I wish I were truer to myself.
Also, I don't dress or act flamboyantly like what they said about 4w3, just my attitude , to my chagrin. lol.
And I think e5 or 4w5 is cool.

 

[anahamplified]

I am an INFP with enneagram 4w3, I can relate to this.

 

[runvardh]

6w7 648

"I really do want to be your friend; but I'm not sure you want to be mine..."
"Damn it! Just put it down - I'll fix it"
"Don't all volunteer at once - I'll do it..."
"Can I keep you?"
"This has been going too well too long..."
"I hate being right..."

 

[Lsjnzy13]

I've been typed as 9w1, 2w1, and 4 with no wing. I'm guessing that type 2 INFPs are more extroverted than 9 and 4 cos the times where I get type 2 are all when I did the test with a group of friends next to me. Not sure about others though, I'm still learning about enneagram types.
I've also been mistyped as a 7w6 once, but that was straight after me and a group of friends went on a roller coaster!

 

[Hawthorne]

I am an INFP 7 though I relate to 5 the most but I'm not as withdrawn as 5s because "withdrawn" implies there's something actually being held back and I have nothing. I'm also very bland and normal. NOt especially quirky though i'm good at playing quirky to make a point? Yes, i think this is true.

 

[misfortuneteller]

Most INFPs are 9w1s not 4w5s. 4 being common for any MBTI type doesn't make sense. Several 9w1 INFPs have even confessed that they love the idea of being a 4w5 which is seeming more and more like a pattern. I don't know why 9w1s are often described like ISFJs when most of them are actually IxFPs. The only type that should be linked to Fe should be 2 not 9.