disregard's Type: INFP

[disregard]

What I meant was that I do not arbitrarily adhere to certain values.

I consider the context, the intent, etc.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yeah but a substantial portion of INFPs fall into this category, and it's something I've noticed in the vast majority of INFPs on the forum, thus the argument.

And aside from being emotionally invested in arguments yadda yadda, I still think that Fi in the dominant is a lot more willing to disclose personal information than Fi in the tertiary, especially when it's explicitly requested and the Fi-dom in question has no reason to not trust the audience. So I had some other basis, outside of the INFP generalization that i made.

Really? In real life, I've found INFPs are protective of their personal values and feelings and tend to be over-sensitive to others ... they'd much rather have the other person talk about them, than them talk about themselves.

Even here online, in personal e-mails, it's been that way too. Maybe the group forum setting is slightly different, I've seen more openness with some topics then.

This whole thing is ironic to me, in regards to the discussion we had the other night where we both said we hated to deconstruct our type reads in order to explain them to others, since it was a more intuitive process for each of us.

 

[disregard]

I didn't fit in at INFP.gc either, but does anyone ever fit in anywhere? I think it's an illusion.

(Unless they do )

 

[disregard]

Oh, and teslashock:

In regard to not being "open" with you, I actually am pretty open (right?), but I don't like having to prove myself. I think that facts should speak for themselves, and am loath to defend a mere perspective.

 

[teslashock]

Really? In real life, I've found INFPs are protective of their personal values and feelings and tend to be over-sensitive to others ... they'd much rather have the other person talk about them, than them talk about themselves.

Even here online, in personal e-mails, it's been that way too. Maybe the group forum setting is slightly different, I've seen more openness with some topics then.

Yes, I think it might have something to do with the fact that this is an internet forum, so communication around here is vastly different than communication irl. Perhaps it's easier for introverts to share themselves through a more anonymous medium than it is for them to disclose that kind of information in person.

I know two INFPs fairly well irl, and one is very private about her emotions, opinions, values, and beliefs (my mother) while the other often rambles on about them (my roommate and good friend). The former I believe is an enneagram 9w1, while the latter I believe is 5w4, so that probably has a lot to do with it.

BlackCat often points out that a lot of the generalizations about INFPs are really just traits of INFP 4s (a common enneagram for INFPs), so the non-4s typically don't fall in with the kinds of generalizations we make. If disregard truly is an INFP, I somehow doubt she's a 4.

This whole thing is ironic to me, in regards to the discussion we had the other night where we both said we hated to deconstruct our type reads in order to explain them to others, since it was a more intuitive process for each of us.

Yeah, I don't like to get into serious arguments about type. If this turns into an argument where it's more about me or others trying to prove themselves right, then I'll quickly lose interest.

Disregard seems to have a genuine inquiry, though, so for her sake, I wanted to offer up something more substantial than an intuitive hunch.

 

[teslashock]

Could you perhaps give me an example of what knowing your values would be?

Do you mean knowing through and through that "I value honesty." ?

By personal values, I mean personal criteria by which you assign merit to things. In the case of Ji, these values do not typically change based on external context. The criteria is less subject to being molded by the beliefs/opinions of others or objective facts that you extrapolate from your environment (that would be more Fe or Te than Ji). The values come from within; you validate them yourself, rather than relying on external factors to validate them.

So, for example, you may value honesty, sincerity, and tolerance of others above all else. You don't gauge the situation and determine if honesty, sincerity, and tolerance will result in the most social harmony (Fe) or objective productivity (Te); you adhere to these values because they are yours and apart of you, and no external factors can change that.

What I meant was that I do not arbitrarily adhere to certain values.

I consider the context, the intent, etc.

I don't think that Ji means having "arbitrary" values. The values are usually justified; the justification just comes from within, rather than relying on external information.

The fact that you consider the context/intent to determine what belief you adhere to is not very standard of Ji. That sounds a lot more like Ni coupled with some extroverted judging function.

Ji-ers are a lot less likely to yield their internally-derived values to context. That's a form of not being true to oneself, which is definitively not a characteristic of introverted judgment.

 

[disregard]

By personal values, I mean personal criteria by which you assign merit to things. In the case of Ji, these values do not typically change based on external context. The criteria is less subject to being molded by the beliefs/opinions of others or objective facts that you extrapolate from your environment (that would be more Fe or Te than Ji). The values come from within; you validate them yourself, rather than relying on external factors to validate them.

So, for example, you may value honesty, sincerity, and tolerance of others above all else. You don't gauge the situation and determine if honesty, sincerity, and tolerance will result in the most social harmony (Fe) or objective productivity (Te); you adhere to these values because they are yours and apart of you, and no external factors can change that.

I don't think that Ji means having arbitrary values. The values are usually justified; the justification just comes from within, rather than relying on external information.

The fact that you consider the context/intent to determine what belief you adhere to is not very standard of Ji. That sounds a lot more like Ni coupled with some extroverted judging function.

Ji-ers are a lot less likely to yield their internally-derived values to context. That's a form of not being true to oneself, which definitively not introverted judgment.

Well, I can honestly say that I would have to think if someone were to ask me what my values are.

I don't like two-facedness, but that doesn't mean I won't like the person with two faces. I can still enjoy them.

 

[teslashock]

Oh, and teslashock:

In regard to not being "open" with you, I actually am pretty open (right?), but I don't like having to prove myself. I think that facts should speak for themselves, and am loath to defend a mere perspective.

Well no, I don't think you are very open actually. You seem pretty honest and open-minded, but that's not necessarily open. When I say you aren't "open", I mean that you don't seem very willing to share or interested in sharing information about yourself. You seem to be honest in what little you do share, but you share very little.

And as to your VM to me, you didn't offend me. I don't really understand where there was any room for me to take offense. I'm just a bit impersonal most of the time, and many people, here and irl, associate my impersonal style with hostility, but there really is none, I assure you. It would take blatant and substantial personal attacks to my ideas/values to truly offend me.

 

[disregard]

Well no, I don't think you are very open actually. You seem pretty honest and open-minded, but that's not necessarily open. When I say you aren't "open", I mean that you don't seem very willing to share or interested in sharing information about yourself. You seem to be honest in what little you do share, but you share very little.

And as to your VM to me, you didn't offend me. I don't really understand where there was any room for me to take offense. I'm just a bit impersonal much of the time, and many people associate my impersonal style with hostility, but there really is none, I assure you. It would take blatant and substantial personal attacks to my ideas/values to truly offend me.

When you said this:

"Hm, ok then.

(resists further discussion --> argument on the matter)"

I thought you were scoffing at my response of having case-by-case values.

Nevermind then.

---

Okay, I can see how I am not very open. I'm just afraid. People on the internet haven't been extremely kind when I was younger and more open on the internet.

 

[teslashock]

When you said this:

"Hm, ok then.

(resists further discussion --> argument on the matter)"

I thought you were scoffing at my response of having case-by-case values.

Nevermind then.

Oh, no not scoffing. I just foresaw this turning into an argument, and I wasn't very interested in arguing with you/others about it.

The fact that you have "case-by-case values" isn't really something I'd scoff at, not to worry.

Okay, I can see how I am not very open. I'm just afraid. People on the internet haven't been extremely kind when I was younger and more open on the internet.

Hm, well the fact that you aren't open for this reason specifically kind of invalidates the evidence I originally stated for you being INTJ. I thought you were withholding because you were cautious/paranoid about people using personal information against you in some way.

I think NPs in general can be pretty sensitive to criticism of their values. Ji doesn't mesh so well with much of society's standards, and the Ne adds a really quirky twist into the mix, so we face harsh criticism throughout a lot of our lives, particularly as we are growing up, and that can start to get a little painful for us some times.

 

[disregard]

Well I thoroughly appreciate all of your input, teslashock.

Nothing like those superior Ne-dom skills of observation.

 

[Thalassa]

From what I've seen of your posts, you seem like an hard-edged INFP. I think XNTJ seems a bit too forced on you... it doesn't come off natural to me. Your vibe is kind of like a combination of orangeappled and marmalade.sunrise.

Yeah, and I'm an ENFP.

When I talk sometimes I can sound super bulldozer and bossy like an ENTJ - I've made jokes about it in vent.

You seem to have quite a bit of Te, whatever your type is. I'd definitely say you also have Fi as opposed to Fe.

 

[disregard]

How does one become more open?

I would like to.

Stating your opinions?
Talking about your personal life?

 

[JivinJeffJones]

The fact that you consider the context/intent to determine what belief you adhere to is not very standard of Ji. That sounds a lot more like Ni coupled with some extroverted judging function.

Ji-ers are a lot less likely to yield their internally-derived values to context.

I'm not sure about that. I don't want to lead the witness, but I will always consider context/intent in an action. It seems to me from my time on this board that Fe users are more often concerned with consequences over intent. How it has actually affected others as opposed to how the person intended it. That isn't always the case, but it does seem to be a recurring pattern.

Considering context/intent is what I do when attempting to identify which personal values have jurisdiction and precedence in any given situation. You aren't yielding your values to fit the situation. You're deconstructing the situation into its core components so you can apply the relevant values. Context and intent are usually a big part of that. It's not compromise -- it's precision.

 

[digesthisickness]

Not at all!

Relief cannot be found in such a thing.

none? how not? i'd think that'd be like a "well, that's at least one thing i can cross off of my list of irritating ponderings."

and, also, that you'd be able to focus on your type instead of focusing on which type.

I didn't fit in at INFP.gc either, but does anyone ever fit in anywhere? I think it's an illusion.

(Unless they do )

oh, god. i've heard that from SO MANY infps. and, you know which ones don't fit in there? the cool ones.

Oh, and teslashock:

In regard to not being "open" with you, I actually am pretty open (right?), but I don't like having to prove myself. I think that facts should speak for themselves, and am loath to defend a mere perspective.

holy shit. you're entp. salute, sister!

How does one become more open?

I would like to.

Stating your opinions?
Talking about your personal life?

why? what's wrong with being just the way you are? is this something that bugs you about yourself?

 

[Totenkindly]

oh, god. i've heard that from SO MANY infps. and, you know which ones don't fit in there? the cool ones.

heh... sad but sorta true...

why? what's wrong with being just the way you are? is this something that bugs you about yourself?

I've always had trouble myself discerning between self-acceptance and self-improvement. It's kind of hard to know how to walk that line.

I can feel good about changes I make and yet then feel I'm not being true to me.
But if I just sit and enjoy being me, then sometimes I fear I'm just sitting on my laurels and being less than I could be. It's weird.

Does that sound familiar at all, D?

 

[teslashock]

I'm not sure about that. I don't want to lead the witness, but I will always consider context/intent in an action. It seems to me from my time on this board that Fe users are more often concerned with consequences over intent. How it has actually affected others as opposed to how the person intended it. That isn't always the case, but it does seem to be a recurring pattern.

Considering context/intent is what I do when attempting to identify which personal values have jurisdiction and precedence in any given situation. You aren't yielding your values to fit the situation. You're deconstructing the situation into its core components so you can apply the relevant values. Context and intent are usually a big part of that. It's not compromise -- it's precision.

There's a difference in considering context/intent when determining how to act and using context as a criteria for defining your values.

Considering context when determining how to act is just a component of being psychologically healthy enough to respond to your environment. Not every single value we have is applicable to every single situation, so it's only natural to sift through them and figure out which ones to utilize in a response to the situation at hand.

However, using criteria that's derived externally (based on context) to define and validate your values is a totally different story. This is what Je-ers do, as opposed to Ji-ers whose values have a justification that's derived from within.

The question is one of "where did the values that I'm applying to this situation come from and how do I justify them", not whether we apply different subsets of values, from our broader set of values, to different situations (again, we all do this).

And btw, Je-ers aren't necessarily yielding their values to context. I just see it that way because I'm a Ji-er, and I really shouldn't have phrased it that way. Really their values are derived from external criteria, so the fact that their values appear to "yield" to external criteria is a bit of an illusion. There's no sacrifices being made on the Je-er's part.

 

[Tallulah]

From what I've seen of your posts, you seem like an hard-edged INFP. I think XNTJ seems a bit too forced on you... it doesn't come off natural to me. Your vibe is kind of like a combination of orangeappled and marmalade.sunrise.

Late to the party, but I agree with the above. Maybe a little heart (the member, not the organ) thrown in, too. The vibes I get from you are more NF than NT, but not cuddly NFiness.

I've always had trouble myself discerning between self-acceptance and self-improvement. It's kind of hard to know how to walk that line.

I can feel good about changes I make and yet then feel I'm not being true to me.
But if I just sit and enjoy being me, then sometimes I fear I'm just sitting on my laurels and being less than I could be. It's weird.

Does that sound familiar at all, D?

It does to me! I'm relentlessly driven to self-improvement, but then sometimes feel like I'm not myself if I try to change actual personality-based behaviors and traits. (I know this thread is not about me, but I'm just amazed sometimes at Jennifer's ability to put my life into words. )

 

[disregard]

none? how not? i'd think that'd be like a "well, that's at least one thing i can cross off of my list of irritating ponderings."

and, also, that you'd be able to focus on your type instead of focusing on which type.

Because it's all theory, so it's never really solved. It's a vain endeavor to begin with! But, that is an opinion. I am of the opinion that people are way too complex to actually fit into a type, but apparently I give enough credence to the system to even bother. I suppose it all boils down to my curiosity of what I seem like to other people. That is what makes this forum exciting. They have an opinion, whereas mine remains suspended by doubt (to my chagrin!).

why? what's wrong with being just the way you are? is this something that bugs you about yourself?

No, but I think it would be a good exercise to be more open. It would be uncomfortable, therefore beneficial. I am also genuinely curious as to why some are considered open and others are not. I am curious as to what I do not do and others do, the things that separate us.

 

[digesthisickness]

Because it's all theory, so it's never really solved. It's a vain endeavor to begin with! But, that is an opinion. I am of the opinion that people are way too complex to actually fit into a type, but apparently I give enough credence to the system to even bother. I suppose it all boils down to my curiosity of what I seem like to other people. That is what makes this forum exciting. They have an opinion, whereas mine remains suspended by doubt (to my chagrin!).

ah, i see. yes, and i get what you're saying. i agree that they're too complex, AND i also think that the tests leave far too much room for mistyping. this is why i know little about functions. because i don't believe the system is foolproof enough to begin with to study it further. meaning that by knowing more, i think i'd actually know less by getting bogged down with too many opinionated details and perspectives.

it does, however, have just the right amount of merit to 'use' it. and, that's why i like it so much. i never had your problem though. i got entp the very first time before having ever heard of it before, and i've never typed as anything else.

i have gone a bit insane though trying to type another person.

, but I think it would be a good exercise to be more open. It would be uncomfortable, therefore beneficial. I am also genuinely curious as to why some are considered open and others are not. I am curious as to what I do not do and others do, the things that separate us.

interesting.

i had to learn how to be LESS open. that's the direction i had to go in in order to grow. so, i can tell you by this experience that i found the middle ground by being selective about who i opened up to, and until i knew enough to be sure, i would open up about everything except what i wouldn't want spread around. in other words, if i didn't want someone else (other than the person i was talking to) to know it, then i'd keep it to myself. otherwise, i let it fly. anything. opinions, thoughts, feelings, tastes, hobbies, everything. but, i keep that 'line' in mind.

i was burned far too many times and learned the hard way.

sometimes, i still screw up though. *sigh*

i certainly wish you all the best.