Video: INFP vs. INFJ: Andrew Garfield and Carey Mulligan

[highlander]

• Excellent comparison of Fi vs Fe by comparison of two actors and how they interact during an interview

 

[mergewithgod]

I loved the clarity of your explanations...who produced this video and explanation...could I see more of your work?...man do I miss being around those "Carey" types...I want sincerity more than anything else but really love those who display their ability to know you are there in the room with them...that warmth and humanity.. being touched by their words...could you contact me re the above please...Mergewithgod...thanks...

 

[skylights]

I love this video. I think it does a great job demonstrating Fi/Fe difference. To me they both seem like lovely, concerned, warm, deep-thinking individuals, and it's pleasing to watch them share and interact.

I do think it's worth noting, even though Garfield isn't using Fe in that first example, he does say something about shifting into the same position as Mulligan making him feel like they're bonded, aligned, and he does communicate self-consciousness that others may be impacted by him changing positions, even though he does it without asking. It's a good example of how Fi can still be personable/social even though it prioritizes individual needs/freedoms. An interesting difference is how Fi usage tends to more responding/mirroring and informing - more passive/responsive behavior - whereas Fe usage tends to gently taking the lead and guiding others. Both do touch base with others and seek personal feedback, Fi just, as the video notes well, carries much personal and context-independent content (useful to examine Ti/Te in that light as well), whereas Fe users are so beautifully aware and respectful of the feelings of the people in their immediate environment.

The way Mulligan responded to Garfield after him sharing his feelings on school is why I love being around many FJs. That ease of soothing, encouragement, and warm support.

 

[Yaru]

Really useful video. I am way more INFP, but I do have some INFJ behaviors sometimes, I guess that's because my Fe isn't completely dead (Even because I often can perceive how people is feeling like and it can strongly affect my mood. I've learned to control that better because wasn't let me live.) but they can often be more unnatural to me.

Getting really talkative about a certain subject and get really self conscious when realizing it ...it happens all the time.

I don't know. I still can relate to some INFJ traits.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

[Previous thread on this video.]

 

[OrangeAppled]

Yep, I hate it.

I think that guy is ENFP. I don't see him as INFP nor relate to his "style" of communicating speaking. He seems quite extroverted, and I struggle to grasp why he's type as a Fi-dominant.

Compare him to other celebrity Fi-dom males, and it's pretty obvious he is operating from an ExFx style, not an IxFP style.

Jung on Fi:
It makes people silent and difficult of access... It comes out with negative judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference as a means of defense.

Still waters run deep' is very true of such women. They are mostly silent, inaccessible, and hard to understand... They neither shine nor reveal themselves.

If this outward aspect is more pronounced, it arouses a suspicion of indifference and coldness...

Expression of feeling, therefore, remains niggardly...

Since this type appears rather cold and reserved, it might seem on a superficial view that such women have no feelings at all....To the outside world, or to the blind eyes of the extravert, this intensive sympathy looks like coldness, because it usually does nothing visible...

 

[reckful]

Yep, I hate it.

I think that guy is ENFP. I don't see him as INFP nor relate to his "style" of communicating speaking. He seems quite extroverted, and I struggle to grasp why he's type as a Fi-dominant.

Compare him to other celebrity Fi-dom males, and it's pretty obvious he is operating from an ExFx style, not an IxFP style.

Jung on Fi:
It makes people silent and difficult of access... It comes out with negative judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference as a means of defense.

Still waters run deep' is very true of such women. They are mostly silent, inaccessible, and hard to understand... They neither shine nor reveal themselves.

If this outward aspect is more pronounced, it arouses a suspicion of indifference and coldness...

Expression of feeling, therefore, remains niggardly...

Since this type appears rather cold and reserved, it might seem on a superficial view that such women have no feelings at all....To the outside world, or to the blind eyes of the extravert, this intensive sympathy looks like coldness, because it usually does nothing visible...

As a side note, and as I've previously noted, Jung generally associated the personality characteristics that get somebody typed P on the MBTI with P-doms, not J-doms. So Jung's Fi-dom description should really be matched to an INFJ (Jungian stack: Fi-Ni-Se-Te), not an INFP (Jungian stack: Ni-Fi-Te-Se).

But that's not to say it's a good match for INFJs, either. I really don't think Jung's Fi-dom description is anything like a respectable portrait of the real-world people who come out as either INF type on the MBTI. The INFPs I've known certainly haven't been anything like above-average in the outward coldness department. Reserved, especially with strangers, yes — to the extent of their introversion, and depending on the circumstances. But an outward demeanor dominated by "negative judgments" and/or "an air of profound indifference"? Not hardly.

So I'm surprised to find you deciding whether somebody in a video is an INFP based on how well their communication "style" matches Jung's over-the-top (and predominantly negative) Fi-dom description. It's not as jump-the-sharky as his Si-dom description, but almost any modern INFP or INFJ portrait — whether from a dichotomy-centric source or a function-centric source — does a substantially better job of capturing those types than Jung did.

As you know, Jung viewed a typical Fi-dom as a woman whose core feature was deep, oversized passions that didn't tend to match up with anything in the real world, and so, "being shut off from every means of expression," her "intensive feeling ... acquires a passionate depth that comprises a whole world of misery and simply gets benumbed." And it's not hard to imagine any Limbic (especially) and strongly-introverted IN feeling like that description — like many of Jung's descriptions of (what he saw as) all the introverted types' fraught relations with their "turbulent" and problematic emotions — seems to capture some of the flavor of their emotional awkwardness, and their tendency to feel like their grandest passions more typically alienate them from the "real world" than connect them to the real world.

But as a description of either of the INF types in more ordinary mode, and how they're likely to characteristically come across to others, I'd say Jung's portrait leaves a lot to be desired.

Assuming you subscribe to the INFJ=Ni-Fe model, do you consider Jung's Ni-dom description a good match for a typical INFJ, and would you be inclined to judge whether someone in a video was an INFJ based on how well they corresponded with that description? Describing Ni-doms and Si-doms both, Jung said "nothing is outwardly visible but reserve, secretiveness, lack of sympathy, uncertainty, and an apparently groundless embarrassment"; and he noted that "their communications are without the personal warmth that alone carries the power of conviction. On the contrary, these types have very often a harsh, repelling manner, though of this they are quite unaware and did not intend it." Do you think that's a good fit for Carey Mulligan (or most INFJs)?

 

[OrangeAppled]

As a side note, and as I've previously noted, Jung generally associated the personality characteristics that get somebody typed P on the MBTI with P-doms, not J-doms. So Jung's Fi-dom description should really be matched to an INFJ (Jungian stack: Fi-Ni-Se-Te), not an INFP (Jungian stack: Ni-Fi-Te-Se).

I disagree, because MBTI is going by the extroverted function when it determines "P" or "J", which are just shorthand for a whole mentality. Ji and Je in Jung's theory are quite different, as are Pe & Pi. They have opposite attitudes. He notes how they have to basically suppress the other, ie. to be a Pi-dom, you are rejecting Pe in a sense (more specifically, a Ni-dom rejects Se, but of course the suppression of it still "comes out", in a rudimentary, negative form).

IMO, the MBTI "P" characteristics are a result of the Pe+Ji mentality, and the "J" characteristics are a result of the Je+Pi mentality, and so Pi often has as much influence in "J traits" as Je does.

Socionics makes the mistake of thinking that Ji and Je are the same if they have the same function (ie. feeling or thinking), just whether the person is an introvert or extrovert. So it makes Fi sound like Fe-aux in an IxFJ, which is why the types don't match up to MBTI neatly. They change the whole dynamic of the psychological types that Jung set up, by removing how the attitudes relate. MBTI is more faithful to it, IMO. Ji and Je are totally different because the attitude changes how the function relates to reality, and that's why Fe & Fi are totally different types, not simply the same type with a different I/E preference. This is why the "P" in MBTI is referring to a whole mentality which includes Ji.

So an INFP, aka FiNe, exhibits Pe qualities at times, especially when it comes to extroverted things like interacting. Being Ji-dom in itself leads to MBTI "P" personality traits. However, they still are Fi-dom, and will be characterized by Fi more than Ne, and so that's the key. Is this person, who shows both Fi and Ne thinking, characterized by Fi or by Ne?

For Garfield, I see a personality characterized by Ne, not by Fi. While his thinking shows some of both, his demeanor is that of the Ne-dom, and his evident mentality is more Ne also.

I have yet to hear any argument for why he is INFP and not ENFP - instead, someone makes a video and says he is INFP, and now it's unquestionable .

But that's not to say it's a good match for INFJs, either. I really don't think Jung's Fi-dom description is anything like a respectable portrait of the real-world people who come out as either INF type on the MBTI. The INFPs I've known certainly haven't been anything like above-average in the outward coldness department. Reserved, especially with strangers, yes — to the extent of their introversion, and depending on the circumstances. But an outward demeanor dominated by "negative judgments" and/or "an air of profound indifference"? Not hardly.

On INFP messageboards, that description is pretty popular, as in, many relate a lot to it. Personally, it fits me better than most INFP descriptions, and it's what led me to type as Fi-dom. Van Der Hoops is good to me also, and perhaps less densely worded than Jung and easier for people to see an average Fi-dom in. It says pretty much the same thing, but in softer language.

Van Der Hoop: Here the activities of feeling are hidden, and from the outside there is, as a rule, little to tell us that we are dealing with a person of feeling-type.
They conceal their sensitiveness behind a mask, which may be childish or simple, or again conventional, remote, or it may be friendly...
Outwardly, their feelings are not very obvious, for when these are affected, these people tend to withdraw into themselves...
In ordinary life their mask conceals what they really are.
..There is...something very individual about them...which will come to expression....especially in two situations: when they achieve real contact with another person; and when, in a state of high emotional excitement, they stand up for a threatened ideal.
In the first case, a very profound relationship of mutual understanding may suddenly come into being....

I would end up quoting the whole description if I continued.

That video is not a "profound relationship of mutual understanding" unfolding before our eyes.

Also, feeling coming out in negative judgments doesn't mean the person is critical all the time - it means they have a "benevolent neutrality" (which stems from a profound indifference), aka they don't reveal how they feel about things at all, although they may seem kind and easy-going. In most everyday matters, nothing strikes me as significant enough to summon emotional energy, and whether or not I seem like a nice, easy-going, quiet person or an aloof, dismissive, rude person, depends a lot on the interpretation and attitude of the other person.

Example - someone is excited about something, but to you, a Fi-dom, it is personally not exciting. You find it hard to mimic their emotional energy, because your mentality is to reject influence of the object so as to maintain purity of your feelings, and this can look like you are a "downer". Even if you give the appropriate, polite response (because you can intellectually grasp that their excitement is valid for them), that person feels like your not meeting their emotional energy is a devaluation of their feeling. However, to the Fi-type, it's simply not abandoning their own feeling to adopt someone else's, but not opposing them either. Sensitive people, as Jung notes, will take this as a rebuffing of their feeling and the value behind it. He's describing how the Fi types protection of their own feeling and outward indifference can appear to others, and it can be seen as cold or as a "sympathetic repose".

Most Fi descriptions note that strong feeling tends to come out in response to a violation - THAT is the "negative judgement" that comes to the surface. So in everyday matters, there is someone who seems unaffected but perhaps pleasant and easy-going, until something violates a value, and then they express themselves very strongly.

That aligns pretty well with most IxFPs, IMO.

The mirroring that Garfield shows and the adapting of his manner to match someone nearby so as to generate rapport, is indicative of an Extroverted mentality. Mirroring is far more associated with Ne & Fe than Fi. He is adjusting himself to the object, a key point in the definition of the extrovert.

So I'm surprised to find you deciding whether somebody in a video is an INFP based on how well their communication "style" matches Jung's over-the-top (and predominantly negative) Fi-dom description. It's not as jump-the-sharky as his Si-dom description, but almost any modern INFP or INFJ portrait — whether from a dichotomy-centric source or a function-centric source — does a substantially better job of capturing those types than Jung did.

As you know, Jung viewed a typical Fi-dom as a woman whose core feature was deep, oversized passions that didn't tend to match up with anything in the real world, and so, "being shut off from every means of expression," her "intensive feeling ... acquires a passionate depth that comprises a whole world of misery and simply gets benumbed." And it's not hard to imagine any Limbic (especially) and strongly-introverted IN feeling like that description — like many of Jung's descriptions of (what he saw as) all the introverted types' fraught relations with their "turbulent" and problematic emotions — seems to capture some of the flavor of their emotional awkwardness, and their tendency to feel like their grandest passions more typically alienate them from the "real world" than connect them to the real world.

But as a description of either of the INF types in more ordinary mode, and how they're likely to characteristically come across to others, I'd say Jung's portrait leaves a lot to be desired.

It's incomplete because it leaves out the extroverted function. No person is a "pure type". INFPs have Ne qualities also. The Ne description is an over-the-top charismatic, energetic, fickle, novelty-seeking person. This is what brings animation to the Fi-dom who is otherwise "shut off from every means of expression".

This is also why people can sometimes confuse types, such as typing an ENFP as INFP. Again, I say compare that Garfield guy to more prototypical INFP males and you can easily he has the nature of an extrovert, not an introvert.

You make my point for me - a core feature vs something anyone may possess to a degree.
Some of what he describes is just introversion, but this goes beyond that to being a core feature of Introverted Feeling type. They don't just possess that trait, they are defined by it.

Assuming you subscribe to the INFJ=Ni-Fe model, do you consider Jung's Ni-dom description a good match for a typical INFJ, and would you be inclined to judge whether someone in a video was an INFJ based on how well they corresponded with that description? Describing Ni-doms and Si-doms both, Jung said "nothing is outwardly visible but reserve, secretiveness, lack of sympathy, uncertainty, and an apparently groundless embarrassment"; and he noted that "their communications are without the personal warmth that alone carries the power of conviction. On the contrary, these types have very often a harsh, repelling manner, though of this they are quite unaware and did not intend it." Do you think that's a good fit for Carey Mulligan (or most INFJs)?

Yes, I consider his Ni-dom description to be good, although it is hard to grasp because of his dense & esoteric writing style. When you apply his Te & Fe descriptions to it, then I can easily see how the INTJ & INFJ personalities emerge.

However, I think his worst description is Fe, because I think he understood it the least (which is why I don't think he is INFJ, although that's another topic entirely). He has bias in his descriptions, but he does better job of focusing on mentalities over specific behaviors than some other typologies (ie. socionics, Keirsey), and if you understand the descriptions as mentalities, then you have a less narrow view of how a person of that type may appear. The indifference of the Fi type may not always look cold, in fact, it may even be confused for "too nice" if they are indifferent enough to not resist the flow much (more common in e9s, but also a result of Ne - being open to possibilities and moving with them as they develop, without being attached to any of it).

When he mentioned "harsh, repelling" for Pi-dom - that's the IxTJs. Aren't they often characterized that way from the outside? When he mentions lack of "personal warmth", then he means animation, which is certainly less in an IxxJ than in an extrovert. People associated animated demeanors with Feeling, but it's far more accurately connected to Extroversion. Feeling only becomes animated when it requires emotion to express a feeling-value, and that's not something Fi types do a lot in a public setting (unless there's a violation). IxFJs use Feeling as an auxiliary, so it exists as part of their mentality, but they are far less characterized by it.

I don't know much about Mulligan, but she doesn't seem characterized by Fe (which I think the video even admits). She is likely Pi-dom, but beyond that, I don't know.

Most INFJs I've known can be warm and animated in close company also - among strangers or people they do not trust, then they can seem very aloof and reserved. That's a common thing with introverts, yes.

However, being an IxFJ, she is more inclined to match someone's feeling, even if she doesn't personally feel it (and a disturbing thing about FJs is that they are often unaware of this, because their own feeling genuinely seems to shift to match others - both Jung & Van Der Hoop describe this aspect of the Fe type). She still doesn't adjust to the object nearly as much as Garfield does, and that's an I/E difference more than anything.

 

[Starry]

For Garfield, I see a personality characterized by Ne, not by Fi. While his thinking shows some of both, his demeanor is that of the Ne-dom, and his evident mentality is more Ne also.

I have yet to hear any argument for why he is INFP and not ENFP - instead, someone makes a video and says he is INFP, and now it's unquestionable

He's an ENFP (or possibly an ESFJ as I didn't watch the entire video but I definitely lean ENFP here.) He's in no way an INFP.

 

[skylights]

[MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION],

I haven't researched deeply, but of what I have read about Garfield, much of it suggests INFP-like characteristics - "sincere", "soulful", "sensitive", explaining how his dad always romanticized the movies and can sort of live that vicariously through him. He is complimented for his depth and nuance of emotion, and he speaks to feeling concern, fascination, and idealism in regards to starting a family. He speaks of how being bullied as a child allowed him to better portray a victimized character and he talks about how falling in love in character is a joyful experience. Again, this is only what I have read, but it is very much content filled with idealism, impression, reflection, how he feels, how he experiences other people and situations. Within the video itself, he delves deeply into that one subject that he is passionate about, and describes his feelings and the ethical implications.

It all seems very much F-laden content, with Ne-like content really only tying things together. He seems warm and hesitantly open, but certainly that is not impossible from an INFP, particularly considering that he is an actor by trade and is "performing" in a way for the interview. Those are the reasons I did not consider questioning INFP for him - it seems like a very reasonable fit. Whereas many agreed that Robin Williams was a good Ne dominant example - so much more initiating, engaging, idea-focused. Still a beautiful and soulful person but he seemed to communicate his genuineness through the "zest" and yearning he put into his characters. Whereas Garfield seems to imbue vulnerability and depth instead. Though perhaps that could also be an Enneagram difference.

I am not completely sold on the matter and am just brainstorming, so please do not take this as a debate - just some thoughts to add. I would be interested to hear if you have counterexamples and a different perspective.

 

[OrangeAppled]

He's an ENFP (or possibly an ESFJ as I didn't watch the entire video but I definitely lean ENFP here.) He's in no way an INFP.

I think he's an FP, but seems pretty obviously extroverted.

[MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION],

I haven't researched deeply, but of what I have read about Garfield, much of it suggests INFP-like characteristics - "sincere", "soulful", "sensitive", explaining how his dad always romanticized the movies and can sort of live that vicariously through him. He is complimented for his depth and nuance of emotion, and he speaks to feeling concern, fascination, and idealism in regards to starting a family. He speaks of how being bullied as a child allowed him to better portray a victimized character and he talks about how falling in love in character is a joyful experience. Again, this is only what I have read, but it is very much content filled with idealism, impression, reflection, how he feels, how he experiences other people and situations. Within the video itself, he delves deeply into that one subject that he is passionate about, and describes his feelings and the ethical implications.

It all seems very much F-laden content, with Ne-like content really only tying things together. He seems warm and hesitantly open, but certainly that is not impossible from an INFP, particularly considering that he is an actor by trade and is "performing" in a way for the interview. Those are the reasons I did not consider questioning INFP for him - it seems like a very reasonable fit. Whereas many agreed that Robin Williams was a good Ne dominant example - so much more initiating, engaging, idea-focused. Still a beautiful and soulful person but he seemed to communicate his genuineness through the "zest" and yearning he put into his characters. Whereas Garfield seems to imbue vulnerability and depth instead. Though perhaps that could also be an Enneagram difference.

I am not completely sold on the matter and am just brainstorming, so please do not take this as a debate - just some thoughts to add. I would be interested to hear if you have counterexamples and a different perspective.

That could be any Feeling type. I don't think he's "hesitantly open". I think he's very effusive and animated. He definitely comes across as initiating and engaging to me. I don't say he is not INFP because he is unlikable - rather, I think he has the performing charm of an ENFP.

The video notes he is "championing" - that is Fi parenting through Ne!!! That's the ENFP's use of Ne!

Of course, the video claims Fe values are universal and Fi values are about what an individual relates to - when it's almost the opposite (the authors of the video don't know what they're talking about there). Fi-dom are fantastic listeners, who use their whole mind to absorb what others are saying, to get at their psychology.

Instead, what Garfield displays, is the Ne tendency to be concerned with matters which reflect himself. That's Ne, not Fi!

The weak point in the emotional life of the extraverted intuitive is his vanity. His enthusiasm is usually only aroused by something in which he himself can play an important part. He is thrilled by other people only when they have some value for his personal life, or, more especially, when they appreciate something in him.

They note how he talks without noticing how others are reacting....which sounds just like this Ne description:
Here, also, there will be found great liveliness and flexibility in the feelings, which are very individual in their mode of expression. Many clever people belong to this type, and the majority of artists. There is a lively expression of feeling, but it does not last long, the intuitive person being more concerned with expressing himself, and making a strong momentary impression on others, than with the formation of a lasting relationship. To this type, also, belong those people who carry on entire conversations without paying the slightest attention to the replies or remarks of the other person.


Robin Williams was an addict and also a performer. He seemed very different in interviews where he was not performing - more melancholy, subdued, and sensitive.

 

[Riva]

Of course, the video claims Fe values are universal and Fi values are about what an individual relates to - when it's almost the opposite

*Confused*

Is it the relates to part?

 

[Southern Kross]

Disclaimer I haven't watched the video but watched the original interview ages ago, when it came out (as a film fan) and remember it. I'm short on internet data this month.

I kinda agree with you [MENTION=10496]skylights[/MENTION]. You being a bit of an ambivert probably puts you in a good position to argue for the case that INFPs are not necessarily that contained. I'm not ambiverted, but certainly show (in fits and starts) an exuberance when I get onto a subject that engages me. I'm actually pretty talkative and expressive when I get going; enough so that I could potentially convince a stranger I'm an extrovert.

I identify with Andrew Garfield in some ways. He has this nervous energy, a passionate heart, and a desire to communicate but seems restricted by his shyness. At the same time he is very private and prefers to keep to himself. I always thought him an INFP up until the last year or so where the nervousness seemed to dissipate and he appeared more comfortable in the spotlight, which made him seem more ENFP. However, I'm not convinced which he is one. I think he may be an ambivert so it will be difficult to know which way he leans. He could well be a Social dom too which adds a sort of extrovert spin on the usually more reticent INFP (speaking for myself anyway). It would also address some of the things you quoted [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION], as it adds a bent for causes and frequent ranting about some issue or another (again, speaking from personal experience ). Is it also true of you, Skylights?

And I was thinking, OA, about what you said on Fi being universal not Fe. I think there is an argument that both are, albeit in different ways. The way the opposing functions interact (ie. Fe-Ti and Fi-Te) is to move from the particular to the universal or vice versa. I like to say that FJs lean towards people and FPs lean back. FJs start with the overview (eg. norms, standards, common patterns of human behaviour) and move towards the individual, applying those concepts and using them as a filtering system. FPs start with the individual (eg. specifics, quirks, characteristics) and then steps back to filter that information through wider concepts of human behaviour. My theory is that this is partly why FJs come across more warmly in general - people seem to be conscious of that figurative movement towards people.

 

[Starry]

One of the things I neglected to mention the other night regarding that opening and the "supposed difference between Fe & Fi" as it pertains to "social appropriateness" and asking if it was okay to sit cross-legged...

I mean, it's stupid really. I've been talking quite a lot about critical thinking lately and someone clearly wasn't making use of it during the creation of this video.

Instead of Fe & Fi... I'm thinking male & female gender roles were at play here as social science supports that females (of all types/backgrounds) are more concerned with "social appropriateness" in general. Likewise, why would Garfield ask for permission to sit cross-legged when the interview was already underway and Mulligan was already sitting in that position? Nevertheless, (as was mentioned previously in both threads) I feel Garfield was demonstrating a concern for appropriateness when he basically said "I'm going to sit like this because Mulligan is..." or, in other words, "I'm assuming this is okay."

stupid.

 

[skylights]

I don't think he's "hesitantly open". I think he's very effusive and animated. He definitely comes across as initiating and engaging to me.

That's interesting to me, because my impression was very much of engagement but not so much initiation.

The video notes he is "championing" - that is Fi parenting through Ne!!! That's the ENFP's use of Ne!

I'm not sure that's really accurate - All Fi users are going to use Fi to defend and prescribe, because it deals with values and ethics, but simply standing up for a cause does not make him an ENFP. He is not specifically guiding another person, but rather describing his ideals and views. I am surprised that disconnecting with the immediate environment is only attributed to ENFPs - that seems like an NFP trait in general, even a trait that extends to all Ns, though it is mediated by Fe in NFJs.

I do think you are very accurate that Fi references universal values, though I agree with SK that it is simply getting at universals from a different direction than Fe. Clearly he is tapping into a universal right to be an individual and be unique and respected. That seems much more Fi to me than Ne - I barely see Ne content at all from him in this, really. Ne is patterns, reaching across, blazing through subjects, looping everything into the greatest context possible. He's not really talking much about any of that, is he? He's really more zooming in on an issue and then exploring that single issue and pulling it into a universal context. To me that seems more like INFP using Ne to help demonstrate and apply a Fi value.

I kinda agree with you [MENTION=10496]skylights[/MENTION]. You being a bit of an ambivert probably puts you in a good position to argue for the case that INFPs are not necessarily that contained. I'm not ambiverted, but certainly show (in fits and starts) an exuberance when I get onto a subject that engages me. I'm actually pretty talkative and expressive when I get going; enough so that I could potentially convince a stranger I'm an extrovert.

That's how I am, too. Fits and starts. And for me it really, really depends on how comfortable I feel with the people and about the subject. If you get me on a subject I care about, then I can voice something very strongly. But otherwise I tend to be quieter - and I am more responsive than initiating, always. I avoided using myself as an example because I'm sure many people still identify me with ENFP, but maybe it's a good point that I feel like I'm very near the dividing line between the types, and from where I'm looking I don't see it hard to group Garfield into the introvert category.

However, I'm not convinced which he is one. I think he may be an ambivert so it will be difficult to know which way he leans. He could well be a Social dom too which adds a sort of extrovert spin on the usually more reticent INFP (speaking for myself anyway). It would also address some of the things you quoted [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION], as it adds a bent for causes and frequent ranting about some issue or another (again, speaking from personal experience ). Is it also true of you, Skylights?

Very much, yes, lol. I think what ends up happening sometimes is that Social and Ne kind of build on each other, "amplifying" the Fi value quickly into a universal with application, so to speak. I think this is very much like what OA was referring to in terms of championing - do you experience that, too?

I still maintain that I get so, so much more Fi out of him than Ne, though. I have a cousin very close to my age (mid-20s) who is an ENFP, and she is so much the "champion", but her content is not F content. She occasionally will delve into feelings and impressions and so on, but mostly she is a broad skimmer, as Ne doms are: she glides from subject to subject, readily linking her business ideas to the city she lives in to our cities in our home to her experiences here and how we all get along together. She clearly has complex and developed ideas, and also very strong values, but she tends to manifest those values as she lives, not as a forerunning focus that she has to stop constantly to process, as I do. Rather, she applies "parental" Fi by offering support, by encouraging people into new contexts, by inviting them along and including them, by sharing her ideas with them and asking their ideas, by building on their ideas and affirming their direction, by standing up for others and by soothing wounds when she sees hurt, by drawing everyone back into the big context. I suppose that could also be an Enneagram or simply personal difference, but it is striking when I think about the possibility of Garfield being a Ne dom - where is the N?

I could easily see Garfield as so/sx... maybe 4w3, 6w7. An ambiverted Enneatype and an extraverted stacking, to speak in relative terms. It is interesting to me that he clearly pops in and out of other-awareness, which I think is what makes me see hesitation and perhaps introversion out of him. An ENFP might be oblivious to Fe cuing and the way others are immediately responding, certainly, but it is rare to see extraverts withdraw so quickly like Garfield does when they have an engaging audience. Even Garfield's body language to me seems somewhat withdrawn, pulled inwards. I know that personally, I feel a push-pull in terms of other-awareness - I know that I should be aware (thanks, heavy Social instinct superego), but it is very draining to focus on people and try to be interpersonally aware. So, like Garfield and the couch, sometimes I will wind up with a halfway gesture between hey I want to acknowledge you guys but I'm going to do my own thing anyway. Where I think with ENFPs it's often a more congenial, inclusive, hey I'm going to do my own thing now and everyone else can do their own thing too! Fi as good parent: Fi is somewhat authoritative, setting boundaries, keeping everyone happy and safe and rewarded for good behavior. Fi is not really authoritative in INFPs, it is like the little protagonist who is on the hero cycle of growth, transformation, and reconciliation. At least, that is my perspective given my experience and my understanding.

Regardless of which type fits him better, he clearly falls close to the introvert-extravert boundary. He's an interesting case.

 

[lulabelle]

I think he's an FP, but seems pretty obviously extroverted.



That could be any Feeling type. I don't think he's "hesitantly open". I think he's very effusive and animated. He definitely comes across as initiating and engaging to me. I don't say he is not INFP because he is unlikable - rather, I think he has the performing charm of an ENFP.

The video notes he is "championing" - that is Fi parenting through Ne!!! That's the ENFP's use of Ne!

Of course, the video claims Fe values are universal and Fi values are about what an individual relates to - when it's almost the opposite (the authors of the video don't know what they're talking about there). Fi-dom are fantastic listeners, who use their whole mind to absorb what others are saying, to get at their psychology.

Instead, what Garfield displays, is the Ne tendency to be concerned with matters which reflect himself. That's Ne, not Fi!

The weak point in the emotional life of the extraverted intuitive is his vanity. His enthusiasm is usually only aroused by something in which he himself can play an important part. He is thrilled by other people only when they have some value for his personal life, or, more especially, when they appreciate something in him.

They note how he talks without noticing how others are reacting....which sounds just like this Ne description:
Here, also, there will be found great liveliness and flexibility in the feelings, which are very individual in their mode of expression. Many clever people belong to this type, and the majority of artists. There is a lively expression of feeling, but it does not last long, the intuitive person being more concerned with expressing himself, and making a strong momentary impression on others, than with the formation of a lasting relationship. To this type, also, belong those people who carry on entire conversations without paying the slightest attention to the replies or remarks of the other person.


Robin Williams was an addict and also a performer. He seemed very different in interviews where he was not performing - more melancholy, subdued, and sensitive.

I completely agree; he's way too consistently energetic and animated to be an INFP. And of course CelebrityTypes has him listed as an INFP on their site; they're so horrible at typing

 

[reckful]

I completely agree; he's way too consistently energetic and animated to be an INFP. And of course CelebrityTypes has him listed as an INFP on their site; they're so horrible at typing

Jung himself said he thought more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted. And I'd say his percentages were off (not to mention quite a bit of his E/I characterization), but there's a pretty general consensus today that E/I falls along a spectrum and lots of people aren't that far from the middle.

Around half of people are considered MBTI introverts, and many of them are relatively mild introverts — and mild introverts are nothing like quiet little mice who just don't have it in them to be "energetic" or "animated." And yes, that applies to mildly-introverted INFPs as well as the mildly-introverted versions of the other types.

In fact — are you hanging onto your seat? — a person can actually be a strong introvert and be very energetically passionate and animated under the right circumstances. I'm a strong introvert (for example), and anybody who's ever gotten me going on a pet subject knows I don't suffer from a generalized lack of "energy" or "animation." If you're never animated, maybe you just don't get enough sleep.

Lots of introverts are actors, too. And if you think an introverted actor (and especially a mild introvert) who's doing an interview — where he's expected to be, you know, "on" and engaging — and who's talking about things he feels strongly about, couldn't possibly be "energetic and animated," I'd say you've got an exaggerated/extreme view of what introversion involves.

Also, as a final complicating factor, the Big Five dimension (neuroticism) that doesn't have a corresponding MBTI dimension can have a significant impact on whether someone tends to come across as more "animated" or calm in conversation, regardless of whether they're extraverted or introverted. And introverts are actually somewhat more likely to be above-average in neuroticism than extraverts, and some studies have indicated that artists (of various kinds) also tend to be above-average in neuroticism.

By the way, I'm not familiar enough with Garfield to have any kind of strong view on whether he's E or I — or NFP, for that matter, although I'd note that that's a very common actor type. I'm just saying that the fact that he tends to be "energetic and animated" in interviews is no reason to say he couldn't be an INFP — and especially a mildly introverted INFP. A quick Google seems to indicate that he's most often typed as an introvert, and that he considers himself an introvert.

Here's a bit from People Magazine | Andrew Garfield protected as child

Andrew needed special care when he was growing up.

"I didn’t act a lot when I was a teenager, I started around 16. But it was more at school than in the theater. Initially I was very shy and sensitive. In a certain way I’ve always needed to be protected, because I was slim and the youngest in my family," he explained to leiweb.it. "Then I started to want to protect the others, especially the weak or the introverted people, like I was."

 

[lulabelle]

Jung himself said he thought more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted. And I'd say his percentages were off (not to mention quite a bit of his E/I characterization), but there's a pretty general consensus today that E/I falls along a spectrum and lots of people aren't that far from the middle.

Around half of people are considered MBTI introverts, and many of them are relatively mild introverts — and mild introverts are nothing like quiet little mice who just don't have it in them to be "energetic" or "animated." And yes, that applies to mildly-introverted INFPs as well as the mildly-introverted versions of the other types.

In fact — are you hanging onto your seat? — a person can actually be a strong introvert and be very energetically passionate and animated under the right circumstances. I'm a strong introvert (for example), and anybody who's ever gotten me going on a pet subject knows I don't suffer from a generalized lack of "energy" or "animation." If you're never animated, maybe you just don't get enough sleep.

Lots of introverts are actors, too. And if you think an introverted actor (and especially a mild introvert) who's doing an interview — where he's expected to be, you know, "on" and engaging — and who's talking about things he feels strongly about, couldn't possibly be "energetic and animated," I'd say you've got an exaggerated/extreme view of what introversion involves.

Also, as a final complicating factor, the Big Five dimension (neuroticism) that doesn't have a corresponding MBTI dimension can have a significant impact on whether someone tends to come across as more "animated" or calm in conversation, regardless of whether they're extraverted or introverted. And introverts are actually somewhat more likely to be above-average in neuroticism than extraverts, and some studies have indicated that artists (of various kinds) also tend to be above-average in neuroticism.

By the way, I'm not familiar enough with Garfield to have any kind of strong view on whether he's E or I — or NFP, for that matter, although I'd note that that's a very common actor type. I'm just saying that the fact that he tends to be "energetic and animated" in interviews is no reason to say he couldn't be an INFP — and especially a mildly introverted INFP. A quick Google seems to indicate that he's most often typed as an introvert, and that he considers himself an introvert.

Here's a bit from People Magazine | Andrew Garfield protected as child

sure, it's not a concrete infallible way to tell if someone's an extrovert or not but most of the time an extrovert will have this kind of energy about them that introverts usually don't have. There's definitely a trend, if it can't be predicted this way 100% of the time

 

[OrangeAppled]

People boiling it down to " introverts can energetic and animated" have entirely missed my point. Oversimplification is the main problem with that video.

 

[reckful]

People boiling it down to " introverts can energetic and animated" have entirely missed my point. Oversimplification is the main problem with that video.

I wasn't replying to you. I was responding to lulabelle's assertion that Garfield was "too consistently energetic and animated to be an INFP."

As long as you're back, though...

What do you make of Garfield's characterization of himself as "shy" and "introverted" in that People article?

Repeated for ease of reference:

Andrew needed special care when he was growing up.

"I didn’t act a lot when I was a teenager, I started around 16. But it was more at school than in the theater. Initially I was very shy and sensitive. In a certain way I’ve always needed to be protected, because I was slim and the youngest in my family," he explained to leiweb.it. "Then I started to want to protect the others, especially the weak or the introverted people, like I was."