[INFP] INFP preferred romantic type

[Little_Sticks]

Little sticks I don't think you read the title of this thread. It's for INFPs. And you stick in a chart. A chart!

lol...I had to though. The discussion was turning into INFPs with ISTJs. I felt obliged to help the poor INFPs escape that tragic end. You have the rest of your lives to live! Think twice! Just say no, lol.

I thought it was cute someone would do that; though I do laugh at the data some.

Well if all else fails, at least you thought it was cute

Did you make this chart yourself? LMAO!

It seems like you just matched up all NFs, all SFs, all STs, and all NTs for the good and excellent matches....

Yes, I did. Well, that is one observation, but it is somewhat logical and complex. I used some set mathematics

I'm sure this chart was developed by rigorous investigation and data collection into the success rate and happiness levels of relationships from a large sample of people from all types.

Just a rigorous cognitive function mathematical investigation. It would be nice to do a sample, but I question whether one would get honest answers from couples. Sometimes people can deceive themselves especially if inexperienced with most of the types.

I don't get it. Is that chart saying that an INFP with undeveloped shadow functions is best matched with an ENFJ or another INFP with undeveloped shadow functions?

And ENFP and INFJ. Just that ENFJ and INFP are just slightly higher.

Basically, how this chart is supposed to work is that you take your type and average it with any other type(s) you are as well. Then your highest scores are your more ideal matches. You could do something like assign each rank a number value in with constant intervals between each value.

So if you are an INFP with developed functions to classify as two types then you would average the scores of both types together and get your highest compatibility types.

Okay, I don't know if anyone will want to read this part, but this is the logic I employed to come up with the table.
So how the chart works mathematically is that you take your dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions and pair them against the other types dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions. This is done in such a way that two totals are created: total similarity and total interest. How the similarity is calculated is that you take Fe paired with Fe and add the value of the lowest Fe score to similarity and do this with all the functions. Then interest is calculated by taking Fe paired with Fi, same cognitive function paired with its extravert/introvert opposite.
I assigned the values to dominant=8, auxiliary=8, tertiary=4, inferior=2, all shadow functions =1. And the total score is the summation of the similarity score and the interest score.
And when I did this I found five different types of values
24 28 30 32 34
Horrible Bad Neutral Good Excellent

 

[Nonsensical]

Please say ENFP..please say ENFP...please say ENFP

 

[runvardh]

Please say ENFP..please say ENFP...please say ENFP

Only if you're female and you swear off chocolate.

 

[Udog]

Okay, I don't know if anyone will want to read this part, but this is the logic I employed to come up with the table.
So how the chart works mathematically is that you take your dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions and pair them against the other types dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions. This is done in such a way that two totals are created: total similarity and total interest. How the similarity is calculated is that you take Fe paired with Fe and add the value of the lowest Fe score to similarity and do this with all the functions. Then interest is calculated by taking Fe paired with Fi, same cognitive function paired with its extravert/introvert opposite.
I assigned the values to dominant=8, auxiliary=8, tertiary=4, inferior=2, all shadow functions =1. And the total score is the summation of the similarity score and the interest score.
And when I did this I found five different types of values
24 28 30 32 34
Horrible Bad Neutral Good Excellent

Heh, that's an interesting set of assumptions.

So basically:

1. A function is drawn to its introverted/extroverted opposite. Fi <-> Fe
2. In determining compatibility, both the dominate and auxiliary functions are equal (8 points), with a sharp drop to the tertiary relief function (4 points).
3. The interplay of a shadow function offers negligible compatibility, regardless of whether it's interplaying with another shadow or a dominate function.
4. On a population level, "interest" in the oppositely directed function plays as big of a factor as similarity.... for all types. (ENTJ - ENTJ is as likely to be as successful as INFJ - INFJ.)

Thoughts:
1) This is interesting. You may be onto something there.
2) Why are dom and aux equal? The dominate function pretty much defines us, while the auxiliary suggests how the dominate is executed and directed.
3) Why not just make shadow function interplay = 0 to clarify the negligible and equal effect they have?
4) Wouldn't some functions be better matched with its equivilant? Ni-Ni similarity seems to be pretty compatible. Te-Te seems to compete, and the similarity often breeds competition instead of melding.

Finally, the strongest matches are those that match perfectly with interest or with compatibility. This is a byproduct of the weighting system. Why do you believe this to be?

 

[Little_Sticks]

...
Heh, that's an interesting set of assumptions.
1) This is interesting. You may be onto something there.
2) Why are dom and aux equal? The dominate function pretty much defines us, while the auxiliary suggests how the dominate is executed and directed.
3) Why not just make shadow function interplay = 0 to clarify the negligible and equal effect they have?
4) Wouldn't some functions be better matched with its equivilant? Ni-Ni similarity seems to be pretty compatible. Te-Te seems to compete, and the similarity often breeds competition instead of melding.

Finally, the strongest matches are those that match perfectly with interest or with compatibility. This is a byproduct of the weighting system. Why do you believe this to be?

Good points.

This is how I see it though

2) Equal because they are both quite strong and one sort of relies on the other, so to speak. It's as if you can't have one strong without the other strong as well, but feel free to disagree if you think you have a better understanding of why that might not be the case.
3) I could do that. But it just didn't seem plausible for shadow functions to start off as completely non-existent from the get-go, but that might be better. It shouldn't affect the results too much though since it is so lowly scored.
4) This is a good point. But this is how I thought about it, at a basic level it just seemed that if another person shared the same function that it would be easier to relate. So when you say Te - Te would compete more I would say that you are right and that each would generally enjoy the competition, since it is their nature with Te. But perhaps that's over-looking some things too much. But I think generally speaking, when the people are healthy, their function relation, such as Te - Te would be positive.

Well I couldn't determine much of a difference between similarity and interest. It is almost as if similarity is an interest and an interest is a similarity. I guess that's why I weighed them together instead of rating types who were more balanced as higher in this regard. If I was to do this the S types which are known to be bad matches with certain N types come up as best matches which I just know isn't true.

 

[runvardh]

The other problem your chart misses is value set. It may not do much for SPs and NTs; but for SJs and NFs, we've gone to war about these things. Take a look at how even us INFPs will clash with each other about as much as we agree, if not more so for some of us. The incidence of this increases as balance decreases.

 

[Little_Sticks]

The other problem your chart misses is value set. It may not do much for SPs and NTs; but for SJs and NFs, we've gone to war about these things. Take a look at how even us INFPs will clash with each other about as much as we agree, if not more so for some of us. The incidence of this increases as balance decreases.

I'm confused. Are you saying NFs are divided when it comes to whether or not they like SJs? Because naturally, I would imagine they wouldn't and the chart even shows that.

I suppose their can be security in SJs, but I think you might find that the SJs that NFs go for might have a more balanced J. I think a mostly SJ person would drive an NF crazy. But if some disagree, why would a mostly SJ person make a good relationship then?

 

[runvardh]

I'm confused. Are you saying NFs are divided when it comes to whether or not they like SJs? Because naturally, I would imagine they wouldn't and the chart even shows that.

I suppose their can be security in SJs, but I think you might find that the SJs that NFs go for might have a more balanced J. I think a mostly SJ person would drive an NF crazy. But if some disagree, why would a mostly SJ person make a good relationship then?

More along the lines that NFs will fight NFs over difference of values; the more different they are, the more the two NFs will be against each other. Whether they put a pretty face on the outside or not is a different story. Hell, I find that on this forum I anger others of my type more often than I do any other type.

 

[Bubbles]

Socionics says INFp and ESTp are duals.
Your chart says NFs go with INFPs.
Keirsey says NTs and NFs are ideal.
Ennegram says 4 and 5 matches are electric (and many NTs are 5 and many INFPs are 4 ime.)
Opposites attract suggests ESTJs and INFPs.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. It's what you yourself want to work towards committing yourself to.

Data means nothing. Doing means something.

 

[Scott N Denver]

Woo hoo! The NF's once again outnumber in votes the NTJ's!

 

[sonata]

I'm starting to believe that the INFP/INTJ thing could be quite good.

I'm glad that at least a few of you agree.

 

[Hendo Barbarosa]

Take it from someone who knows...it is REALLY good.

(addendum: that someone is me)

 

[Little_Sticks]

Socionics says INFp and ESTp are duals.
Your chart says NFs go with INFPs.
Keirsey says NTs and NFs are ideal.
Ennegram says 4 and 5 matches are electric (and many NTs are 5 and many INFPs are 4 ime.)
Opposites attract suggests ESTJs and INFPs.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. It's what you yourself want to work towards committing yourself to.

Data means nothing. Doing means something.

*puts on Unhealthy intj hat*
Come here bubbles, I have candy and hugs
*holds needle between legs as a metaphor*
it's okay, I won't burst your bubble.

Bubbles, you misunderstand my chart. It's about development. If you put an NT with An NF where each hasn't developed their the opposing feeling or thinkin the relationship will be problematic. But if you've developed your opposing thinking or feeling then the matchup will be good.

But I'm going to theorize that E and I and T and F hold special properties compared to S,N and P,J. I'll be back later with since I'm on my phone in class and it's going to die lol.

Edit: Nevermind, I'm not going to state my theory. I don't want to get attacked for having an idea. I don't think you all really care for that. I'll just bring it to the NTs...sigh

 

[runvardh]

I'm starting to believe that the INFP/INTJ thing could be quite good.

I'm glad that at least a few of you agree.

And with some of us you don't have to compromize that much on rationality as long as you're cuddle friendly.

 

[Bubbles]

*puts on Unhealthy intj hat*
Come here bubbles, I have candy and hugs
*holds needle between legs as a metaphor*
it's okay, I won't burst your bubble.

Bubbles, you misunderstand my chart. It's about development. If you put an NT with An NF where each hasn't developed their the opposing feeling or thinkin the relationship will be problematic. But if you've developed your opposing thinking or feeling then the matchup will be good.

But I'm going to theorize that E and I and T and F hold special properties compared to S,N and P,J. I'll be back later with since I'm on my phone in class and it's going to die lol.

Edit: Nevermind, I'm not going to state my theory. I don't want to get attacked for having an idea. I don't think you all really care for that. I'll just bring it to the NTs...sigh

Theorize what you want, I made my own theory. And my theory is in the realm of relationships, it's what you put into it, not what you've got (personality-wise) initially. And yes, that includes developing sides of yourself that you're weaker in. But shouldn't everyone do that anyway? And don't we all, to some extent, grow up by doing that? I know I'd be screwed-up if I hadn't developed my extroversion or judging functions, for example.

Btw, if you remember, I didn't attack you alone. I also mentioned socionics, Keirsey, etc. It's not my intention to say "ZOMG LITTLE STICKS SUX IMA ATTACK HIM NAO." If anything you say offends me, I have the tact to do that personally, not on a forum.

Also I think if you haven't developed yourself at all, it doesn't matter who you're with, it's going to be an iffy gamble.

So I will accept the hugs, but if you get that needle going, boy, it will not be pretty. And if you're going to hold in your theory just because I chose to present mine, that's your choice.

 

[BlueinGreen]

Well I'm biased towards enfj because I'm with one...

On the other hand, were I not I could see myself with a fellow infp, an enfp, possibly an intp because most of the female intp's I'm friends with are super chill, remote chance of infj assuming lack of neuroticism, but probably no j's that aren't nf's, and s is also unlikey. But realistically they're all unlikely because I'm taken.

 

[Hazle Weatherfield]

Take it from someone who knows...it is REALLY good.

(addendum: that someone is me)

LOL

 

[raindancing]

I'm married to an INTP (11 yrs), we have an excellent relationship. It's pretty much a perfect fit.

I also voted for ENTP, their energy is very attractive

Not sure about other NFs... haven't ever known any.