Why is everyone an INFJ nowadays?

[cascadeco]

I can easily see how there could be confusion going just by dichotomies -- which is pretty much the only more objective way to test people and type people.

Cognitive functions still really aren't super defined in any measurable objective sense. It's all a bunch of voodoo for most people -- especially people who are just discovering mbti and are really only familiar with the original mbti test / dichotomies.

 

[highlander]

I can easily see how there could be confusion going just by dichotomies -- which is pretty much the only more objective way to test people and type people.

Cognitive functions still really aren't super defined in any measurable objective sense. It's all a bunch of voodoo for most people -- especially people who are just discovering mbti and are really only familiar with the original mbti test / dichotomies.

Why do you think dichotomies are the only objective way of testing people?

 

[cascadeco]

Why do you think dichotomies are the only objective way of testing people?

I have yet to see solid, measurable ways of defining the 8 functions, that everyone agrees on --- and to my knowledge, there hasn't been any testing around validity. Nardi attempted to do so in his brain scans but imo there was so much wrong with the methodology of it, and such a small sample size, that I think there's an incredibly long way to go for cognitive functions to actually move beyond just theory. My understanding is Ne is essentially trying to describe the NP temperament; Se the SP temperament, Ni the NJ temperament, and so on. [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] is more familiar with the actual data out there.

 

[Riva]

We typically do not fully understand the individuals who hurt us or we could prevent it. I stand by my comment that people tend to type those they do not understand as INFJs. Jung says it is only 1% of the population is INFJ. The book "The Sociopath Next Door" says that there are 20% sociopathic individuals in society. If that is all correct, then it is far more likely to be traumatized by a sociopath of any type than an INFJ. The sociopath can disguise their identity and could be especially difficult to type. A lot of people have been traumatized by various types, although the INFJs I know usually only talk about it in private, or only talk about the real trauma in private, so you don't ever get to hear their side of it.

I thought INFJs are naturals at this. It seems I was wrong atleast according to you.

I disagree with the rest. Poeple wouldn't see a person lacking in empathy and type that person as an INFJ. They would most likely type that type of a person as T type.

A person who is new to MBTI would most likely do the mistake of consistent hasty mistyping and that same person would read the description on INFJs and would think and start typing people with extreme display of empathy and kindness as INFJs, not the neighbourhood sociopath.

 

[Jaguar]

Why is everyone an INFJ? Because they got tired of being ESTPs.

 

[Dreamer]

I can easily see how there could be confusion going just by dichotomies -- which is pretty much the only more objective way to test people and type people.

Cognitive functions still really aren't super defined in any measurable objective sense. It's all a bunch of voodoo for most people -- especially people who are just discovering mbti and are really only familiar with the original mbti test / dichotomies.

True. Mistypings happen all the time. And why? Simply because what we're all trying to do, is associate particular functions with our own internal thought process. That singular step in itself, has the flaw of how deeply we know ourselves to begin with, our perception of ourselves, and our ideal selves. All those elements blending together to create some output result, that takes on one image and understanding of the self, and then applies that to a function stack. To further complicate that, you essentially throw in another person, going through the exact same algorithm internally, AND externally, and what you have, is a very loose system of objectivity and more a hodge podge of subjective understandings and biases. This isn't a slam against personality science at all, but in my perspective, is just the nature of the beast and the reality of it all.

 

[cascadeco]

True. Mistypings happen all the time. And why? Simply because what we're all trying to do, is associate particular functions with our own internal thought process. That singular step in itself, has the flaw of how deeply we know ourselves to begin with, our perception of ourselves, and our ideal selves. All those elements blending together to create some output result, that takes on one image and understanding of the self, and then applies that to a function stack. To further complicate that, you essentially throw in another person, going through the exact same algorithm internally, AND externally, and what you have, is a very loose system of objectivity and more a hodge podge of subjective understandings and biases. This isn't a slam against personality science at all, but in my perspective, is just the nature of the beast and the reality of it all.

Yes , those are great thoughts and you describe many of the issues and challenges inherent in the whole thing. It's just part of the beast, I agree.

 

[1487610420]

True. Mistypings happen all the time. And why? Simply because what we're all trying to do, is associate particular functions with our own internal thought process. That singular step in itself, has the flaw of how deeply we know ourselves to begin with, our perception of ourselves, and our ideal selves. All those elements blending together to create some output result, that takes on one image and understanding of the self, and then applies that to a function stack. To further complicate that, you essentially throw in another person, going through the exact same algorithm internally, AND externally, and what you have, is a very loose system of objectivity and more a hodge podge of subjective understandings and biases. This isn't a slam against personality science at all, but in my perspective, is just the nature of the beast and the reality of it all.

 

[Dreamer]

No

 

[Fidelia]

I think another thing responsible for mistypes is that many people do not know much about the functions. If you just go by Keirsey descriptions, or a little quiz, often you can end up with the wrong type because the huge differences are less apparent in a half a page description of what that type acts like. Understanding the lens that someone sees through in their decision making helps differentiate much more easily. Often people may see a certain behaviour from me and assume it means one thing, when really it is motivated by completely different factors than they may have considered.

 

[Cowardly]

OP dropped a fuckload of assumptions about a group of people he/she doesn't know. I don't believe most people are typed INFJ here. Of course I don't have enough data, but several people don't even reveal their type. I could just give a quick and dirty answer, and say that introverts are more likely to join online forums and that INFJs are more likely to join online forums about psychology.

I especially like mammals.

 

[Norrsken]

Somebody probably already pointed this out, but it could also be lack of realistic representation in the media and other popular venues of entertainment as to what an INFJ should look like or act like in a real world setting. I think the only fictional INFJ I can think of at the top of my head is David from the movie 'A.I. Artificial Intelligence', and he was an awkward mess throughout the entire movie, so now people who think "I'm so awkward and quirky, maybe I'm David." might adopt the INFJ label. And then there are others who genuinely feel that this is the type that they are born in; the lines get blurry between the two groups due to my first reasoning.

 

[1487610420]

OP was accurate circa 2014, think trend has faded since

 

[Fidelia]

Yeah I guess there's less of us around now than at one time.

 

[entropie]

Yeah I guess there's less of us around now than at one time.

I am still more into ISFJ

 

[fetus]

Even just based on stereotypes, I don't see how the two could get confused. This duo has always perplexed me among other common mistypings. Someone thinks they're an introvert, and feels their emotions deeply, that's the only comparison I can see. What would cause the tendency to believe they were the other type?

If you're going purely by dichotomies, a Fi-dom might think, "Oh I'm pretty organized and nit-picky about stuff, I'm an INFJ." When in reality, I think Fi itself can be pretty nit-picky, and Fi doms are capable of being organized. Vice versa for the INFJ and Ni.

 

[Forever]

Problem is Ni and Ti are an internal world of treasure.

Ni seriously feels like everyday I'm pulling a rabbit out of a hat. My mind is its own universe.

It's really cool to synthesize on the fly.

I just don't know why people tend to ignore the statistics and think tah dah!

I'm nice and empathetic and I'm smart so I must be an INFJ. Any type can be all 3 of those adjectives if they want to be.

 

[Bush]

It's the Fe hivemind turning everyone into Fe users

Run away while you still have a chance

 

[ceecee]

'I feel Traumatized'

^ That's how people who've associated INFJs keep describing them as. Lolz.

However, it is possible that the INFJs described by these traumatized individuals to be mistyped INFJs.

In my personal interractions with INFJs I find them to be great people. However, it's hard not to notice that they ride high horses.

Traumatized? I wouldn't go that far but I have felt like....

 

[Masokissed]

It's only until they find cooler types. Like INTJ.