I mean, this reads to me as pure falsity: "Until a value is violated, nothing brings out their effort or energy to be involved." Nothing brings out my effort? I have to have my sense of values violated before I get out of my head and off my butt?" Thankfully that's not true. My values can be a huge motivator, yes, but in a positive way, not just this negative "You have violated my values, now suffer my wrath" perspective.
I agree....I had a similar thought in mind, as far as not simply "sitting on my butt", waiting for some violation to spur me into action.
INFJs often try to make INFPs seem like they're lazy & unmotivated & only react in a pouty, bratty manner when they don't get their way; in a word, they see the INFP as
childish, and that's how this description reads to me. I don't think Fi is all nicey-nice, but it's significantly deeper than Fe, and here it's made to sound rather immature & shallow even. As it says in
Psychological Types concerning Fi: "because it usually does nothing visible, and an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces." Fi is a lot more conceptual or "invisible"; it's more about creating internal models of the ideal than seeking to affect people, and so there is more time spent in reflection than action concerning Feeling. However, this means action on the part of the Fi-dom can be more profound in meaning.
I'm fine with both guides. I like this description of Fi. The usual, traditional descriptions of Fi are too fluffy for me, or too much about how we are noble, crusading Joans of Arc.
Personally, I consider Fi to be a considerably "chillier" and more inert function than Fe. I envision Fi to be somewhere midway between Fe and Ti in terms of warmth/chilliness.
I actually prefer the non-sugary descriptions of Fi, as I'm a "chillier" Fi-dom myself. The original description from Jung is not the prettiest picture, but it's hands down my favorite. I don't find it so one-dimensional & linear; maybe I fancy myself more complex than this, or maybe it's that Fi-doms appear much more simple on the surface. I still hold that, in comparison to the other descriptions, this one fails to actually describe the
process of Fi - it mainly discusses the attitude observable from the outside. There's one side or aspect of Fi being discussed.
Since I am looking at the other functions from the outside, that may be why they seem more acceptable to me though.
If I was not familiar with MBTI & other function descriptions, I don't know if I'd be typing myself Fi-dom from this.