INFP Profile - Michael Pierce

[highlander]

• Michael Pierce's profile description of the INFP

 

[Seymour]

• Michael Pierce's profile description of the INFP

Here's the textual version (for those like me prefer to read). More on the tone (and comparison with the INFJ description) later.

 

[highlander]

Here's the textual version (for those like me prefer to read). More on the tone (and comparison with the INFJ description) later.

I think his profiles are really good.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I like this comment:

You could say that they are more receptive towards the outside world and more aggressive towards their inner experience.

Introverted "judging" isnt really like judging at all. Jung's term "rational" is much better. It is not about decision making so much as a way of arranging or ordering things.

As usual though, Fi is described as the common results of its thinking, as opposed to describing its process.

. Introverted feeling is individualistic: it has deep, personal passions and convictions that it holds to despite outside opposition, and it greatly values the right to individual freedom of expression and being true to oneself.

This is wrong also, as sentiment and desire is closer to emotion than rational valuation.

Fi is sentiment or desire

But bravo to the author for even hinting INFJs arent perfect.

First, the INFJ is problematically unaware that their intuitions are entirely subjective.

The following, though, is condescending to INFPs, and I find this statement that is supposed to resonate with INFPs to be barf inducing. INFPs are regulalry described as life-long truth seekers, so it doesnt really add up either.

The INFP is more likely to resonate with the statement “It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you put all of your heart and soul into believing it.”

The second difference between the two types is that the INFJ’s Fe gives up their own personal desires in favor of a common good or greater cause.

LOL. Riiiiight. Try "they may put on an appearance of giving up themselves in order to manipulate others to act in service of their own ego, aka, some Ni vision they mistake as an objective truth."

The description of the way Si manifests in INFPs is good though, as too many take it to an extreme and make INFPs sound like Si-dom.

The whole cavern thing was super cheesy. I think the author just liked to, uh, hear himself write that.

 

[Southern Kross]

I watched this a while ago. I quite like his descriptions in general because they go beyond the usual, trite observations, even if they are a little flawed (but let's face it, which ones aren't). He has some good insights and puts certain attributes in interesting lights.

The whole cavern thing was super cheesy. I think the author just liked to, uh, hear himself write that.

I didn't mind the analogy so much. I was more bothered by the fact that he only related that idea to self-examination. He missed the additional level (which is kinda the crux of the whole thing too) where the fruits of introspection are used as for insight into the behaviour of others. A INFP doesn't look inward just to 'find themselves' - it's also to reveal truths about the human condition, in order to understand and make sense of the people around them.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I didn't mind the analogy so much. I was more bothered by the fact that he only related that idea only to self-examination. He missed the additional level (which is kinda the crux of the whole thing too) where the fruits of introspection are used as for insight into the behaviour of others. A INFP doesn't look inward just to 'find themselves' - it's also to reveal truths about the human condition, in order to understand and make sense of the people around them.

YES. After reading the INFJ description (since the trend now is to tack on INFJ comparisons to ensure INFPs dont go confusing themselves with the demi-gods), this absence was really glaring.

As usual, it has the implication that Fi is literally about the self, instead of the self as a prototype for human, and that truths about the human condition are derived from exploring the self and determining what is fundamental human experience vs individual, and even more importantly, how the individual experience almost always connects to the fundamental human experience. This is the main reason why an INFP even makes a case that individual feelings have merit, because they recognize the fundamental value they stem from which pretty much all people experience in some form. Resistance from outside influence is in order to determine what is timeless and truly fundamental and not just a product of a specific culture or environment.

So INFJs get described as empathetic, sacrificing the self for an ideal (what happened to the INFP's notorious "causes"?), having insight into others' experience and being able to give uncannily accurate advice without having experienced anything like it themselves, and being good at teaching. All of this applies to many an INFP, but they make INFP sound like people who just laze about dreaming of "how to be true to themselves" (oh how such phrases make me gag).

I still dont like the cave thing because I feel like there is some attempt to try and appeal to a perception that INFPs want to be seen as super speshial magical unicorns or something (although we are magical lovers (TM) ). I know that is heavy reading between the lines, but it is just eye-roll inducing for me.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I really liked this profile. It strayed a little farther from the typical portrayal of the INFP as the stereotypical introverted hippie crybaby.

However, I would like to find an article on the type that doesn't mention INFJ. Lately it seems like almost every article, video and description about the type has to have at least one comparison of the two.

Agree that the cavern analogy is super cheesy. If anything, it is the unseen, unexplored world beyond my 5 senses that I want to explore, not some imaginary cavern within my mind. Of course, to some extent, I view reality as an extension of the mind, so I suppose that works.

I disagreed with this part:

The INFP wouldn’t have it any other way; they want to explore their own passions, not somebody else’s, or some collective passion or truth out in the dreary world of mobs and cruelty.

That hasn't always been true for me. Some of my greatest "passions" or interests have been assimilated from others.

Also not sure about this:

The INFP is more likely to resonate with the statement “It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you put all of your heart and soul into believing it.”

I don't identify with that statement. That makes INFPs sound like unquestioning people of faith (not necessarily in the religious sense of the word)

This one, however, did resonate:

their identity is a valuable possession, and they have no interest in being melted down until they are unrecognizable from others.

If anything, I think tacking on the bits about INFJ differences might serve to further confuse some people, particularly those new to Jungian typology.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Michael Pierce self-identifies as an INFJ, so from that vantage point, considering the bias contained within his own subjective framework, and that this particular bias can be troublesome in seeing the purpose of Fi (since I've learned over time that what I call Fi space is not perceived by Ni-Fe) -- the description does do better than others trying to come at it from the perspective of another framework.

Some comments:

This means that they base their judgment criteria on subjective, inner information, while simply observing and drinking in objective information and experiences.

I've come to realize that leading with Ji is a fully evaluative process, meaning to me that I am judging everything, every thought I have is a valuation, a placing of information within a rational, contextual framework. I mean, I think in judgements. I don't look at the tree outside my window and just drink it in as a singular piece of objective data (tree) - in a split second, I've evaluated an entire web of value that surrounds and defines the tree - species, native or non-native, place on the aesthetic spectrum, place on the health spectrum, how it makes me "feel" spectrum, emotional information if any, potential symbolism, potential meaning, potential purpose, contribution to the elements surrounding it, how the house it stands beside is impacted by this tree, what kind of people might plant a tree like this etc etc ... it all branches out like a web of value, significance, quality, relevance, worth. Everything that I see and feel is appraised in this evaluative way, with the awareness that this information is both objective and subjective in nature.

The only times I can remember gazing at the world without automatic evaluation were when I was very young or when I've been ill, in hospital or during moments of convalescence.

The bias of a Pi lead is where one sees the inflow of information as "simply observing, drinking in".

Introverted feeling is individualistic: it has deep, personal passions and convictions that it holds to despite outside opposition, and it greatly values the right to individual freedom of expression and being true to oneself.

We hold to convictions because they represent universal human truths to us at any given point in time of our understanding, not a singular self-absorbed perspective.

I am continually striving to refine this universal definition of humanity as well, am seeking the framework that we all are contained within, to feel the very edges and see how we are all connected together (because we are, now matter how disparate we appear.) Only through a certain freedom of expression can this place be found and explored. This is why we value freedom, because that value permits the existence of a system that by definition allows the reality of each one of us to exist and is a place that can be plumbed to the depths.

First, the INFJ is problematically unaware that their intuitions are entirely subjective.

I love that this sentence is only on the INFP page, you don't see mention of it on the INFJ description, would cause more uproar. "What, our deep intuitions that feel so TRUE are SUBJECTIVE?" hehehe!

This is not so for the INFP, who is fully aware that they are exploring their own cave, and not reality.

Well, I am exploring all of our caves, mine isn't nearly so interesting, because this collective inner realm is the place that potentially has the answer to amassing the shape framework of "human". The more I put myself out in the world, the more people I connect with, the more people I "feel", the richer and closer I get, even though sometimes it helps me become aware and in awe of how much more there is to know.

So, more accurate to say I am exploring all of our subjective realities, in the idealistic vision that I could create something objective from it, yet I remain acutely aware that subjective + subjective + subjective ≠ objective.

I suppose you could say though that the ideal, the dream is that subjective + subjective + subjective + subjective + subjective + subjective + subjective --> objective. The more you add, the closer you get to something that approaches real.

(The real, the answer to this, although appearing complex, is undoubtedly something very, very simple.)


Anyway, I could go on, but I want to get work done here today too.

Overall, the definition fails to make a direct hit because it really doesn't see into us. But I've seen way worse descriptions of INFP.

 

[Ene]

Are there not any INFP descriptions of INFPs? I mean some place where an INFP describes and INFP? Perhaps, only an INFP can more accurately describe the functional interaction of an INFP. I mean it seems like most of the descriptions are put together by INTJs or INFJs. I've found one ENTP-run site, but the majority of typologists that I come across online are Ni dominants. The closest thing I've seen is Mike from NF Geeks who is an ENFP, but still, I don't think this is quite the same thing. I'd really be interested in hearing an INFP describe INFPs and then I'd be interested in hearing what other INFPs thought about it.

Oh, I have just now found this blog. INFP Description | INFP Blog INFP Description | Thoughts on the INFP Personality Type from an INFP

Any thoughts?

 

[PeaceBaby]

Any thoughts?

The issue is more that he's declarative. Being declarative is ok if you get it mostly right. So in this thread, I would say that we use the clarification of information to ascertain whether or not this person, who in publishing descriptions on all of the types and establishing himself as a sort of authority is actually a good resource of unbiased perspective to talk about each type. You could say that having no bias is impossible, and that's true, yet if you look back at my post above you'll find the answer to that there.

subjective + subjective + subjective + subjective + subjective + subjective + subjective --> objective

Not very efficient to take the time to collect enough data, no. Problematic too for any Je person to talk about Ji, and vice versa (naturally).

I've read all of his descriptions in the past, and to me, some are closer than others. I talk about INFP because I believe myself in a position to best evaluate his accuracy. The more INFPs there are that don't feel it representative increases the probable accuracy / inaccuracy of the judgement / "observations".

I have read the INFP blog in the past and skimmed it now and what he writes about being INFP resonates with me to the point where I believe his self-typing since I recognize the evoked feelings and thought patterns contained within it. The INFP blog guy doesn't place himself as an authority to talk about all types, however, therefore probing his self-evaluation serves less purpose.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I mean it seems like most of the descriptions are put together by INTJs or INFJs.

Ah, and in that there's a nugget of insight. Do you see it? Could it be that Ni is the function that most dares to presume that they can see from another lens?

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

LOL, of course he had to mention butterflies at least once in his description.

I kid...it was a good metaphor.

 

[Ene]

Ah, and in that there's a nugget of insight. Do you see it? Could it be that Ni is the function that most dares to presume that they can see from another lens?

I was about to ask you if you knew of anyone who was a good Fi dominant resource to consult, but I just remembered that the author of Was That Really Me? [Naomi Quenk] identifies as an INFP. You also have a copy of that book, I think. Do you feel that her section on INFPs is accurate? I thought it was really good, but since I'm not Fi dominant, I may not be able to spot a description that resonates with an Fi dominant. Is there anyone that you know of, that you feel paints an accurate picture of Fi dominance? If you could recommend to non-Fi-dominants a resource to help them gain a better understanding of the Fi function, who would it be?

 

[Jaguar]

I was about to ask you if you knew of anyone who was a good Fi dominant resource to consult, but I just remembered that the author of Was That Really Me? [Naomi Quenk] identifies as an INFP.

Isabel Myers and Roger Pearman, both self-typed INFPs. ( I prefer Pearman's book since I saw no evidence of "special snowflake syndrome" in his writing.)

I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You: The Real Meaning of the 16 Personality Types: Roger Pearman, Sarah C. Albritton: 9781857885521: Amazon.com: Books

 

[Ene]

Isabel Myers and Roger Pearman, both self-typed INFPs. ( I prefer Pearman's book since I saw no evidence of "special snowflake syndrome" in his writing.)

I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You: The Real Meaning of the 16 Personality Types: Roger Pearman, Sarah C. Albritton: 9781857885521: Amazon.com: Books

Thank you, Jaguar. I will certain check into I'm Not Crazy. I'm Just Not You.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Are there not any INFP descriptions of INFPs? I mean some place where an INFP describes and INFP? Perhaps, only an INFP can more accurately describe the functional interaction of an INFP. I mean it seems like most of the descriptions are put together by INTJs or INFJs. I've found one ENTP-run site, but the majority of typologists that I come across online are Ni dominants. The closest thing I've seen is Mike from NF Geeks who is an ENFP, but still, I don't think this is quite the same thing. I'd really be interested in hearing an INFP describe INFPs and then I'd be interested in hearing what other INFPs thought about it.

Oh, I have just now found this blog. INFP Description | INFP Blog INFP Description | Thoughts on the INFP Personality Type from an INFP

Any thoughts?

This celeb types description was not terrible at all, but it sort of got my hopes up in many places, and then failed to fully deliver. I feel like the author was on the verge of getting it, but then just settled back lazily into stereotypes.

I do feel there is a competitiveness set up between INFPs & INFJs, and I notice it is INFJs who are making many of these comparisons (see Vicky Jo for an example). In doing so, it is almost unavoidable that they will make it appear as though they are superior. It is as if there is a hesitancy to acknowledge shared traits, even though a lot of stuff could apply to NFs or just types with an F preference in general. That's why it is amusing to me how these INFJs like to insist INFPs are the speshial snowflakes, but they take great pains to show how they are, in fact, the truly speshial ones. I guess acknowledging that other types may share strengths associated with your type wouldn't make them so speshial. I frequently see it said that INFPs FEEL misunderstood, but then it is stated that INFJs really ARE not understood well, despite their psychic-like ability to understand others (somehow failing them with INFPs though...hmmm...). It's maddening to me because INFJs are really good at manipulating people's perceptions and creating consensus among people, and it seems like many have been duped. I am sure enough of it that I speak up now, even at risk of being painted as some over-sensitive INFJ-hater who reads between lines.

As for the blog, I think it is coming from a "here is what it is like to be an INFP like me" place than an attempt to create a comprehensive description that really breaks down how the cognitive preferences wind up appearing as a particular personality type. I take it more as a personal portrait used to illustrate being an INFP. We might as well reference Proust then, and get better quality prose.

I was about to ask you if you knew of anyone who was a good Fi dominant resource to consult, but I just remembered that the author of Was That Really Me? [Naomi Quenk] identifies as an INFP. You also have a copy of that book, I think. Do you feel that her section on INFPs is accurate? I thought it was really good, but since I'm not Fi dominant, I may not be able to spot a description that resonates with an Fi dominant. Is there anyone that you know of, that you feel paints an accurate picture of Fi dominance? If you could recommend to non-Fi-dominants a resource to help them gain a better understanding of the Fi function, who would it be?

I don't think there is anyone who can write an accurate description for all types, but some people do a better job than others. I certainly have come across INFP and Fi descriptions which resonate, or else I may not have been able to type myself. I mostly criticize where INFP profiles fall short because I feel qualified to do so...it is more of a criticism of the author's grasp of the theory than a complaint that INFPs are not being presented very well.

I realize Jung's is a pure type, but I think he captures the essence of Fi well, although I find few people but Fi-dom seem to even interpret his description well, often deciding that because they don't really get it, neither did Jung (as a side, many believe Jung is a Ni-dom, so it's not like INFPs knee-jerk reject anything written by other types). It is so strange to me how people, often considering Fi visceral, think it is appropriate to approach it viscerally, that is, with their own visceral reactions in relation to Fi-doms and perhaps their own reactions confused as Fi. I almost do wonder if there is an attempt to place themselves in the shoes of a Fi-dom, and then they mistakenly access their own childish/mysteriously sentimental, rudimentary Fi buried within and out pops your stereotypes. What Jung did was try to approach Fi intellectually, and I think he did so rather successfully.

I think JH Van Der Hoop's Fi type description is still one of the best. I think he self-identified as a Ti-dominant.

Lenore Thompson's is not bad, but it is still clearly from the Ni perspective, and while INTJs may be less condescending when approaching those who have their tertiary as the dominant function, they still tend to over-simplify or over-mystify it (Fi tends to get one or the other - made to sound childish or made out to be unfathomable). At the very least, her description sounds less like an exaggerated fragment of a personality. It attempts to create some dimension.

This is an internet description I find pretty good, and I don't know where it came from (I suspect Helen Penjam did not write it..?): INFP (Myers-Briggs/Keirsey/Jungian)
This is more about common behaviors or appearances of course, only touching on the mentality that is behind them. It just is not too heavily 9 or 4, not too heavily critical nor praising, etc. It doesn't reek of bias (okay, okay, it does say INFPs are the greatest writers ever...probably written by an INFP then).

The problem with some descriptions actually written by INFPs, however, is the difficulty to sort out what is personal and what is typical. I believe this celebrity types guy even noted this as a reason why INxJs are so glorified in their descriptions. The celebrity types tends to take an extreme e4 slant to INFPs, an e4 who is quite unhealthy yet romanticized in creative spheres, so it is not a very accurate picture of your everyday INFP.

So far, I think most INFP descriptions are written by 9s, and the heavy 9 flavor makes it less relatable to other enneagrams. Quenk's description is not terrible, but I relate nearly as much to the other INxx type descriptions, and somewhat to the ENFP, which suggests to me she is not clear enough in distinguishing between the types when it comes to how functions play out (I think she grasps functions well). She is also focusing on how the inferior manifests, and I believe her general type descriptions in the back of the book are just basic MBTI ones (?). I like her book, but it is not without its flaws, like anything.

INFPs can also be excessively self-deprecating, and they may accept some commonly held ideas about their type because they internalize negative feedback more than positive feedback (I grew up with the idea I was cold...because I was told this, even though I never experienced myself that way). This can make them elaborate more on how their type may be flawed than able to give a more balanced portrait. A lot of this is actually inferior Te. For a long time I actually complained how INFP portraits made INFPs sound too nicey-nice; I don't want nor expect an all-flattering description, but I do want something less one-dimensional. There is either this extreme of a simplistic pollyanna type or the brooding, self-absorped creative. They are caricatures.

INFJs have almost the opposite problem (not readily noting their flaws), but instead of people seeing an issue with veiled arrogance and narcissism (because it is not overt like with an NT), they believe the hype.

---

edit:
A pretty good comparison and break down of the INFx types is this page: INFP vs INFJ: 5 Surprising Differences To Tell Them Apart : Personality Hacker
I wrote up lengthy reply in the comments, which was mostly me being pedantic. Even though the author is ENTP, there is less pro INFJ bias than usual.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

This celeb types description was not terrible at all, but it sort of got my hopes up in many places, and then failed to fully deliver. I feel like the author was on the verge of getting it, but then just settled back lazily into stereotypes.

I do feel there is a competitiveness set up between INFPs & INFJs, and I notice it is INFJs who are making many of these comparisons (see Vicky Jo for an example). In doing so, it is almost unavoidable that they will make it appear as though they are superior. It is as if there is a hesitancy to acknowledge shared traits, even though a lot of stuff could apply to NFs or just types with an F preference in general. That's why it is amusing to me how these INFJs like to insist INFPs are the speshial snowflakes, but they take great pains to show how they are, in fact, the truly speshial ones. I guess acknowledging that other types may share strengths associated with your type wouldn't make them so speshial. I frequently see it said that INFPs FEEL misunderstood, but then it is stated that INFJs really ARE not understood well, despite their psychic-like ability to understand others (somehow failing them with INFPs though...hmmm...). It's maddening to me because INFJs are really good at manipulating people's perceptions and creating consensus among people, and it seems like many have been duped. I am sure enough of it that I speak up now, even at risk of being painted as some over-sensitive INFJ-hater who reads between lines.

As for the blog, I think it is coming from a "here is what it is like to be an INFP like me" place than an attempt to create a comprehensive description that really breaks down how the cognitive preferences wind up appearing as a particular personality type. I take it more as a personal portrait used to illustrate being an INFP. We might as well reference Proust then, and get better quality prose.



I don't think there is anyone who can write an accurate description for all types, but some people do a better job than others. I certainly have come across INFP and Fi descriptions which resonate, or else I may not have been able to type myself. I mostly criticize where INFP profiles fall short because I feel qualified to do so...it is more of a criticism of the author's grasp of the theory than a complaint that INFPs are not being presented very well.

I realize Jung's is a pure type, but I think he captures the essence of Fi well, although I find few people but Fi-dom seem to even interpret his description well, often deciding that because they don't really get it, neither did Jung (as a side, many believe Jung is a Ni-dom, so it's not like INFPs knee-jerk reject anything written by other types). It is so strange to me how people, often considering Fi visceral, think it is appropriate to approach it viscerally, that is, with their own visceral reactions in relation to Fi-doms and perhaps their own reactions confused as Fi. I almost do wonder if there is an attempt to place themselves in the shoes of a Fi-dom, and then they mistakenly access their own childish/mysteriously sentimental, rudimentary Fi buried within and out pops your stereotypes. What Jung did was try to approach Fi intellectually, and I think he did so rather successfully.

I think JH Van Der Hoop's Fi type description is still one of the best. I think he self-identified as a Ti-dominant.

Lenore Thompson's is not bad, but it is still clearly from the Ni perspective, and while INTJs may be less condescending when approaching those who have their tertiary as the dominant function, they still tend to over-simplify or over-mystify it (Fi tends to get one or the other - made to sound childish or made out to be unfathomable). At the very least, her description sounds less like an exaggerated fragment of a personality. It attempts to create some dimension.

This is an internet description I find pretty good, and I don't know where it came from (I suspect Helen Penjam did not write it..?): INFP (Myers-Briggs/Keirsey/Jungian)
This is more about common behaviors or appearances of course, only touching on the mentality that is behind them. It just is not too heavily 9 or 4, not too heavily critical nor praising, etc. It doesn't reek of bias (okay, okay, it does say INFPs are the greatest writers ever...probably written by an INFP then).

The problem with some descriptions actually written by INFPs, however, is the difficulty to sort out what is personal and what is typical. I believe this celebrity types guy even noted this as a reason why INxJs are so glorified in their descriptions. The celebrity types tends to take an extreme e4 slant to INFPs, an e4 who is quite unhealthy yet romanticized in creative spheres, so it is not a very accurate picture of your everyday INFP.

So far, I think most INFP descriptions are written by 9s, and the heavy 9 flavor makes it less relatable to other enneagrams. Quenk's description is not terrible, but I relate nearly as much to the other INxx type descriptions, and somewhat to the ENFP, which suggests to me she is not clear enough in distinguishing between the types when it comes to how functions play out (I think she grasps functions well). She is also focusing on how the inferior manifests, and I believe her general type descriptions in the back of the book are just basic MBTI ones (?). I like her book, but it is not without its flaws, like anything.

INFPs can also be excessively self-deprecating, and they may accept some commonly held ideas about their type because they internalize negative feedback more than positive feedback (I grew up with the idea I was cold...because I was told this, even though I never experienced myself that way). This can make them elaborate more on how their type may be flawed than able to give a more balanced portrait. A lot of this is actually inferior Te. For a long time I actually complained how INFP portraits made INFPs sound too nicey-nice; I don't want nor expect an all-flattering description, but I do want something less one-dimensional. There is either this extreme of a simplistic pollyanna type or the brooding, self-absorped creative. They are caricatures.

INFJs have almost the opposite problem (not readily noting their flaws), but instead of people seeing an issue with veiled arrogance and narcissism (because it is not overt like with an NT), they believe the hype.

---

edit:
A pretty good comparison and break down of the INFx types is this page: INFP vs INFJ: 5 Surprising Differences To Tell Them Apart : Personality Hacker
I wrote up lengthy reply in the comments, which was mostly me being pedantic. Even though the author is ENTP, there is less pro INFJ bias than usual.

I don't think you're coming off as an INFJ hater. These are valid points you are making. I especially agree with the bolded sentiment and find it highly irritating when I see this happening over and over and over.

I find it amusing how some people will repeatedly make the claims that INFJs are the least understood type, yet if the majority of type descriptions are any indication, it would appear this may not be the case.

Vicky Jo's site is (potentially) as misleading as it is illuminating.. She is clearly biased, but at least she has admitted this bias.

edit:

I have read that Personality Hacker article before. It's good, but it didn't really help me when I was flitting between INFJ and INFP. I can say with all honesty that I experience myself unwittingly "absorbing" others' emotions, but I'm not sure I am doing so in the same way as the author of that article meant to convey. However, she also admits that mirroring and absorbing can look very similar, so it is more likely that I simply misunderstood the article or can't discern the subtle differences between the two processes.

 

[grey_beard]

Michael Pierce self-identifies as an INFJ, so from that vantage point, considering the bias contained within his own subjective framework, and that this particular bias can be troublesome in seeing the purpose of Fi (since I've learned over time that what I call Fi space is not perceived by Ni-Fe) -- the description does do better than others trying to come at it from the perspective of another framework.

Some comments:



I've come to realize that leading with Ji is a fully evaluative process, meaning to me that I am judging everything, every thought I have is a valuation, a placing of information within a rational, contextual framework. I mean, I think in judgements. I don't look at the tree outside my window and just drink it in as a singular piece of objective data (tree) - in a split second, I've evaluated an entire web of value that surrounds and defines the tree - species, native or non-native, place on the aesthetic spectrum, place on the health spectrum, how it makes me "feel" spectrum, emotional information if any, potential symbolism, potential meaning, potential purpose, contribution to the elements surrounding it, how the house it stands beside is impacted by this tree, what kind of people might plant a tree like this etc etc ... it all branches out like a web of value, significance, quality, relevance, worth. Everything that I see and feel is appraised in this evaluative way, with the awareness that this information is both objective and subjective in nature.

The only times I can remember gazing at the world without automatic evaluation were when I was very young or when I've been ill, in hospital or during moments of convalescence.

Eureka! *This* is the resemblance to the Ni of the INTJ...(yes, I know the video talked about INFJs, who share Ni...but I'm an INTJ so that's the limitation of my portion.)
The Ni of the INTJ looks at resemblances in situations, as it were, looking for congruence, elements and factors in common, from a huge internal database.
IF (gosh, I hope so, as I "mean" to mean well...) I am reading you correctly, the INFP looks externally, and extrapolates from a fact or item to all the possible connections or extrapolations; and from them, forms a map of common *elements* -- that is, the elements themselves, and not just discrete, set-pieces of certain combinations of elements, which is what the INTJ does. That is, the INTJ will look at vehicles, and go "The green car; the blue car; the red motorcycle." The INFP will say "green...red...*colors*."
or "wheels...tires...spokes..."
And extract and internalize the entire palette of colours, and then look at how a particular colour interacts with other factors to make the statement or impression or effect it does.

We hold to convictions because they represent universal human truths to us at any given point in time of our understanding, not a singular self-absorbed perspective.

I am continually striving to refine this universal definition of humanity as well, am seeking the framework that we all are contained within, to feel the very edges and see how we are all connected together (because we are, now matter how disparate we appear.) Only through a certain freedom of expression can this place be found and explored. This is why we value freedom, because that value permits the existence of a system that by definition allows the reality of each one of us to exist and is a place that can be plumbed to the depths.

So you *embody* your perspective, but you can temporarily "own" or "put on" or "look through" another -- once you've identified its ingredients.

I love that this sentence is only on the INFP page, you don't see mention of it on the INFJ description, would cause more uproar. "What, our deep intuitions that feel so TRUE are SUBJECTIVE?" hehehe!

The INFJ (I suspect) can rather closely delineate or describe their own perspective or intuition; but (I suspect) cannot embody others'.

Well, I am exploring all of our caves, mine isn't nearly so interesting, because this collective inner realm is the place that potentially has the answer to amassing the shape framework of "human". The more I put myself out in the world, the more people I connect with, the more people I "feel", the richer and closer I get, even though sometimes it helps me become aware and in awe of how much more there is to know.

So, more accurate to say I am exploring all of our subjective realities, in the idealistic vision that I could create something objective from it, yet I remain acutely aware that subjective + subjective + subjective ≠ objective.

I suppose you could say though that the ideal, the dream is that subjective + subjective + subjective + subjective + subjective + subjective + subjective --> objective. The more you add, the closer you get to something that approaches real.

(The real, the answer to this, although appearing complex, is undoubtedly something very, very simple.)

Simple. You're expanding a function in a complete basis set. The more terms you use, the closer you come to the correct, 'true' answer.

Anyway, I could go on, but I want to get work done here today too.

Overall, the definition fails to make a direct hit because it really doesn't see into us. But I've seen way worse descriptions of INFP.

I love watching the INFP mind at work.

 

[Southern Kross]

I was about to ask you if you knew of anyone who was a good Fi dominant resource to consult, but I just remembered that the author of Was That Really Me? [Naomi Quenk] identifies as an INFP. You also have a copy of that book, I think. Do you feel that her section on INFPs is accurate? I thought it was really good, but since I'm not Fi dominant, I may not be able to spot a description that resonates with an Fi dominant. Is there anyone that you know of, that you feel paints an accurate picture of Fi dominance? If you could recommend to non-Fi-dominants a resource to help them gain a better understanding of the Fi function, who would it be?

I've read sections of that book and really want to read the rest. I thought it quite interesting and insightful, but I'm not sure about how flawed it might be as yet. The INFP descriptions (which I read in more abbreviated form) were strange to take in. I think the difference for INFPs when reading a description by a Fi-dom is that you actually have to search your brain to see if what they say is true. It's like, "wow, do I really do that?!" and/or "how do you know that?!" - and that's not something that happens often. There isn't a instant resonance, rather a creeping, uncanny feeling like someone crawled inside your head and figured out even your unconscious behaviours. Jung does it for me too, even though he's not a Fi-dom. I think if you're not a Fi-dom MBTI expert, you have to be very observant, patient, scrupulous, and have a total blank slate in how you see the function, otherwise you'll miss crucial aspects of it.

That's my take on it anyway. Other INFPs may disagree

Isabel Myers and Roger Pearman, both self-typed INFPs. ( I prefer Pearman's book since I saw no evidence of "special snowflake syndrome" in his writing.)

I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You: The Real Meaning of the 16 Personality Types: Roger Pearman, Sarah C. Albritton: 9781857885521: Amazon.com: Books

That was the first one I read about MBTI, actually. From memory it was decent but I would have to read again (knowing what I do now) to say if it particularly good.

Eureka! *This* is the resemblance to the Ni of the INTJ...(yes, I know the video talked about INFJs, who share Ni...but I'm an INTJ so that's the limitation of my portion.)
The Ni of the INTJ looks at resemblances in situations, as it were, looking for congruence, elements and factors in common, from a huge internal database.
IF (gosh, I hope so, as I "mean" to mean well...) I am reading you correctly, the INFP looks externally, and extrapolates from a fact or item to all the possible connections or extrapolations; and from them, forms a map of common *elements* -- that is, the elements themselves, and not just discrete, set-pieces of certain combinations of elements, which is what the INTJ does. That is, the INTJ will look at vehicles, and go "The green car; the blue car; the red motorcycle." The INFP will say "green...red...*colors*."
or "wheels...tires...spokes..."
And extract and internalize the entire palette of colours, and then look at how a particular colour interacts with other factors to make the statement or impression or effect it does.

I think you're still looking at it from a Perceiving point of view. It's not driven by matter-of-fact observations - it's driven by impressions. We start with what's new or different or surprising or meaningful etc. I would say INFPs look at most things as the 'norm' or -run-of-the-mill, and pay little attention to all that - our ears only prick up for things that stand out. It's the difference (as PB said) between just drinking in information then deciding what to do with it, and looking for interesting stuff then seeing where comes of it. It's a bit like that method of approaching neurology where scientists look at the anomalies and extremes and use that understand the universal. For example scientists might look at someone who has a photographic memory or someone that can retain no memories and study the brain patterns to see what parts of the brain and/or what processes are involved - what parts are lit up on the scans and how they work can then be applied to understanding of neurotypical use of memory. Same thing applies to the idiosyncrasies of people or difficult moral questions; for INFPs these help to reveal more about universal concepts.

We're also not so much interested in cataloguing things for the sake of it. I only would really pay attention to the colours of the cars going past, say if, I notices there were a lot of green cars suddenly. I'm tuned into when things stand out; when unusual patterns emerge. The strangeness of it then prompts an investigation. I would think for Pi doms like INTJs, they come up with an area they want to investigate and then conduct some analysis of that. INFPs wait until there's something interesting happening and then pursue the leads that arise.

 

[Southern Kross]

A pretty good comparison and break down of the INFx types is this page: INFP vs INFJ: 5 Surprising Differences To Tell Them Apart : Personality Hacker
I wrote up lengthy reply in the comments, which was mostly me being pedantic. Even though the author is ENTP, there is less pro INFJ bias than usual.

Oooh, this is a good description. I feel thoroughly validated by it!