Video: INFJ Profile - Michael Pierce

[highlander]

• Michael Pierce's description of the INFJ

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Here's the written version.


I thought this was interesting:

Some, in reaction to this rather god-like composite image, have gone the other route and considered INFJs to be characteristically flawed, overly metaphysical, overly emotional, overly idealistic, and overall neurotic cranks. Neither of these descriptions gives a very insightful image into what really makes an INFJ an INFJ. Both descriptions are too vague and emotionally biased.
​

I find it really tedious to put up with the backlash of over-the-top type descriptions for INFJs- as if, at the 'big meetings', we clearly all agreed on the annoying over-the-top qualities and therefore all INFJs are rightfully objects of the contention created. (The reason I initially liked typo c is because it seemed to me like the INFJs here didn't have that going on- at least, not all of them, and the ones that do never seem to last here very long.) It's tedious because too often it distracts from any actual dialogue taking place about actual type differences. Honestly, delusions of 'magical superhuman empathy and insight into another person's "essence" and general super-specialness' grandeur are equally rampant across the entire NF quadrant. When it comes down to it, I don't actually have a 'favorite NF'- I'll take someone who isn't delusional about their self image (believing the use of some preferred cognitive function grants them super powers) over any specific 'type' any day of the week. This over-identification with 'type' or certain cognitive function pollutes a great deal of typology discussion, so it's nice to see a description prefaced with something like an acknowledgment of that. I agree that both the "god-like composite image" and the backlash against it (as well as the backlash against the people who show up across the internet identifying as INFJ, seemingly wanting to milk that image) regularly feel like irrational distraction from actual dialogue about what makes an INFJ an INFJ.

***

As for the rest of his description- I would have guessed he is NP (apparently he's not) because I pick up on a relatively common bias that NPs tend to have. To sum: INJs need to be careful because the way they "repress" Se makes them deviate from shared reality in bad way- not in the good way like those NPs, who deviate from shared reality to investigate knowledge/truth for the sake of itself. While there's some truth to his explanation- the consequences of an NP taking flight from shared reality usually amounts to ignoring problems, being unwilling to acknowledge and/or being blind to the significance of a problem; whereas the consequence of an INJ taking flight from shared reality can result in 'out there' theories- it still seems biased to say that only one of those is speculating on some kind of 'truth for the sake of itself'.

From the description:

Meanwhile, introverted intuition is contemplative, in that it has no real interest in reality, but perceives the possibilities of ideas within their own mind, developing more and more compelling and delicious intellectual ideas, theories and understandings.​

Or from the INTJ description:

Like the INFJ, the INTJ represses Se, which results in similar difficulties and reservations. The INTJ’s perception of the real world is very unreliable; they are so focused on what could be that it takes concerted and unpleasant effort to focus on what already is. As a result the INTJ often misses or ignores even large amounts of data in the conception of their vision, always drifting away from reality before managing to review all the evidence, a mistake the ISTJ hardly makes. This is another reason why the INTJ should not be considered logical or scientific in the regular sense: because their focus is not on logic or data, but on ideas and visions of the possible future, which, while appearing logical, are very often self-contradictory or paradoxical. The INTJ may hold passionately to ideas and theories that have no real evidence to support them at all.​

It's just kind of imbalanced to me that this^ is how Ni navel gazing is described- while Ji(Ne) navel gazing is described as pursuing some kind of 'truth' for the sake of itself. I think that Pi and Ji are equally interested in discerning a 'truth' for the sake of itself about shared reality- it's just that Ji dom/aux takes a path that's immediately visible to others and INJ's route is more hidden away in the individual. Hidden doesn't mean absent. So it's surprising to hear this guy identifies as INJ because (IME) this seems to be a relatively common bias in NPs, at least in typology discussions.

There's (at least) a couple different ways to understand "reality" here. There's a way of seeing it as an unchanging thing that exists outside of us, as a bunch of universal truths that we can spend our lives trying to discern. And then there's (as my signature states) understanding that the closest we can come to discerning it together, in order to share it simply for the purpose of being able to interact intelligibly with each other, is some collective hunch. I think JiNe and NiJe take different aspects of that 'collective hunch' for granted as a collective hunch- not as gospel truth, but simply as a functional collective hunch to in order have the freedom to dissect other aspects of reality according to their own preferred focus. It's really kind of stunning how conflicting priorities- and people mistaking the need for a functional collective hunch toehold as someone trying to dictate a (very wrong/inaccurate) 'gospel truth'- can cause problems.

***

Also, I think there's something interesting to this notion that INJs are "aggressive" to the external world and "passive" to the internal world, where the reciprocate is supposedly true about INPs. It's kinda true. That INJs prefer internal freedom and INPs prefer external freedom- that 'freedom' for one is exhausting chaos for the other- is nothing new.

I think my concern is that using the terms "aggressive" and "passive" could easily be conflated to imply INJs don't question their inner evaluations as much INPs do- that INJs are more 'passive' to their own inner assessments than INPs are. Because that's not true. (eta: And this is a touchy point because, again, sassy NP antics*.) The only reason for that INJ impatience/"aggression" with the external world is because there's such a low bandwidth- least Se- for information to go back and forth. Being passive to our inner experience is about being inherently inclined to be paying attention in that direction- it's not about believing all inner assessments without questioning them.

*Totally stole "sassy Ji antics" from @Wind-Up Rex. Because damn it all, that's exactly what they are.