Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Has anyone else noticed this effect that INFJ's and INFP's attract somehow each other? I don't know should I worry but I already have 3 close INFP friends. The other close ones are ENFP's. Am I limiting myself? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
It's weird, I've met more people who identify as INFJs than INFPs, and I'm an INFJ myself :p. Of course, not everyone I know is into MBTI, and I don't like fitting people into a type myself, so who knows? Maybe I know more INFPs than I think XD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
My partner is an INFP (the most extraordinarily amazing relationship I've ever had).

Also someone else I know is an INFP - I am extremely drawn to him, but he put up some shield a while back and it pretty much broke me as I was so looking forward to being able to call him a very dear close friend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
I like 'em a lot. I've one good INFP friend, and a few INFP acquaintences. People with INFP preferences don't seem to like labels as much as those who prefer INFJ, so perhaps that's why there are more self-identified INFJ's on the forum? @Arcayne, does this seem like it could be to you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
I like 'em a lot. I've one good INFP friend, and a few INFP acquaintences. People with INFP preferences don't seem to like labels as much as those who prefer INFJ, so perhaps that's why there are more self-identified INFJ's on the forum? @Arcayne, does this seem like it could be to you?
Hmm, could be. My one friend who is a confirmed INFP doesn't seem to like labels like that, so it's possible that they view the MBTI system that way...although two out of 3 confirmed INFJs I know, not including myself, don't like labels either. But either way, it's something to think about :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
710 Posts
Highly likely you/they are all mistyped as INFJ.

Speaking from personality type theory: there is no INFJ+INFP attraction going on, opposing functions don't attract but repel each other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,958 Posts
Speaking from personality type theory: there is no INFJ+INFP attraction going on, opposing functions don't attract but repel each other.
Socionics says that they can understand each other easily and are completely non-threatening to each other. However, the radical difference in thinking often drives them apart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Hmm.. interesting, I need to think about this one. Still I am 99% sure that one of my closest friends is INFP. Others have done the test too, but I aren't so sure about them. What does sosionics say about INFJ vs ENFP? I've also read many times that I and E are a good match in relationships, also N + N, F/T doesn't matter and J + P is also good. Some varieties does exist depending on type. 4 cognitive functions is greater than all them separately. I also am ambivert, dunno does it matter..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Highly likely you/they are all mistyped as INFJ.

Speaking from personality type theory: there is no INFJ+INFP attraction going on, opposing functions don't attract but repel each other.
Could you show some links about the subject etc?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Highly likely you/they are all mistyped as INFJ.

Speaking from personality type theory: there is no INFJ+INFP attraction going on, opposing functions don't attract but repel each other.
Testify, wise MBTI veteran! The similarities between INFJs and INFPs are superficial and the differences are deep — because, when you cross that magic line from J to P, it flips all your functions! And it's all about your functions, people. Anybody who's watched SuperDuperDave's videos understands that.

Well... just for starters, Jung spent far more of Psychological Types discussing the characteristics that he thought all introverts and all extraverts have in common than he did talking about all eight of the functions put together — and, in the Foreword to a late edition of the book, he explained that he'd stuck the function descriptions at the back (in Chapter X) for a reason. So Jung thought an INFJ and an INFP would have quite a lot in common simply because they were both introverts, never mind their shared N and F preferences.

As further discussed in this post, if you focus too exclusively on the eight "cognitive functions" — many of which, in the forms typically discussed on internet forums, are not particularly Jungian — and you lose sight of the things that introverts, N's, F's, NFs, etc. have in common, you're making a mistake that's pretty much only found in forum posts and other dubious internet sources. It's a perspective that's inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and inconsistent with all the respectable MBTI sources, including authors — like Berens and Thomson — whose work is more function-centric than dichotomy-centric.

Somebody who feels like they're an "x" when it comes to J and P presents quite a conundrum, at least potentially, for a function-centric person. Marie Louise von Franz was one of Jung's most famous pupils, and she said (citing Jung) that people have the most difficulty understanding not the opposite of their dominant function (i.e., Se for an Ni-dom), but rather their dominant function turned in the opposite direction (i.e., Ne for an Ni-dom). As she put it:

von Franz said:
Jung has said that the hardest thing to understand is not your opposite type — if you have an introverted feeling it is very difficult to understand an extraverted thinking type — but the same functional type with the other attitude! It would be most difficult for an introverted feeling type to understand an extraverted feeling type. There one feels that one does not know how the wheels go round in that person's head.
As you clearly know, if somebody subscribes to the (non-Jungian) cognitive functions model most commonly encountered on MBTI forums, switching a person's J to P (or P to J) purportedly flips each of their "top four" cognitive functions to the opposite attitude — so an Ni-Fe-Ti-Se (INFJ) turns into an Fi-Ne-Si-Te (INFP). Someone whose MBTI analysis revolves more around the four dichotomies (and combinations of the dichotomies) than the eight cognitive functions is likely to expect an INFJ and an INFP to be quite similar, since they'll tend to share all the characteristics that introverts have in common, and N's have in common, and F's have in common, and NFs have in common, and so on. By contrast, if someone's analysis revolves mostly around the cognitive functions, and if they subscribe to von Franz's version of Jung's perspective (combined with the simple INFJ=Ni-Fe-Ti-Se model), it's not hard to see why they'd expect an INFJ and an INFP to be more like opposites than similar types — which seems to be your perspective.

Alas for you, there are some real-world facts that call that perspective into question. First, as I understand it, there's now a fair amount of data (both MBTI data and data with respect to the corresponding Big Five dimension) that suggests that J/P is a continuous personality dimension that exhibits something like a normal distribution, with most people not that far from the middle. Since Jung put so many in the middle on E/I, I suspect that data might not have surprised him — assuming he'd ended up accepting Myers' adjustments to his typological concepts.

But second, I'm here to tell you that "Am I INTJ or INTP?" is the most common dilemma in type-me threads at INTJforum — and by a pretty wide margin. If INTJs and INTPs are as different as your perspective suggests, how do you explain that? Why is there this endless parade of people who've read up on the MBTI (including the functions), read INTJ and INTP profiles, and ended up concluding (1) that they relate better to INTJ and INTP descriptions than any other types, and (2) that they relate pretty much equally well to INTJ and INTP?

Yeah, anecdotal, I know (although it's a steady freaking parade of anecdotal, OK?). So maybe you'd rather I pointed to something more along the lines of data...

 
The official MBTI folks put out Career Reports that show the popularity for each type of "22 broad occupational categories," based on "a sample of more than 92,000 people in 282 jobs who said they were satisfied with their jobs." The sample included 5,683 ENTJs and 6,579 ENTPs.

Here are the "Most Attractive Job Families" for ENTJs (scores above 80) and ENTPs (scores above 70):

ENTJs
Architecture and Engineering [100]
—Architect, surveyor, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer
Life, Physical, and Social Sciences [99]
—Biologist, chemist, economist, psychologist
Business and Finance [98]
—Operations, finance, marketing, human resources
Legal [96]
—Lawyer, arbitrator, paralegal, court reporter
Sales and Advertising [83]
—Sales manager, real estate agent, insurance agent, salesperson
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media [82]
—Artist, coach, musician, reporter
Computers and Mathematics [82]
—Programmer, systems analyst, database administrator, mathematician

ENTPs
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media [100]
— Artist, coach, musician, reporter
Life, Physical and Social Sciences [87]
— Biologist, chemist, economist, psychologist
Business and Finance [86]
— Operations, finance, marketing, human resources
Computers and Mathematics [83]
— Programmer, systems analyst, database administrator, mathematician
Sales and Advertising [81]
— Sales manager, real estate agent, insurance agent, salesperson
Architecture and Engineering [80]
— Architect, surveyor, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer
Legal [80]
— Lawyer, arbitrator, paralegal, court reporter

Isn't it mind-boggling that the top seven job categories (out of 22) for ENTJs and ENTPs are exactly the same (albeit in a different order) — since those two types have completely different functions?

And now let's take a look at the ENTJs' fellow "Te-doms," the ESTJs. That same 92,000-person sample included 12,019 ESTJs, and here are their "Most Attractive Job Families" (= scores above 76):

ESTJs
Protective Services [100]
—Firefighter, correctional officer, security guard, police officer
Production and Manufacturing [99]
—Machinist, cabinetmaker, inspector, power plant operator
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair [95]
—Office machine repair, mechanic, line installer, electronics repair
Construction and Extraction [94]
—Carpenter, plumber, electrician, stonemason
Military Specific [90]
—Air crew officer, command & control, radar operator, infantry member
Business and Finance [84]
—Operations, finance, marketing, human resources
Transportation and Materials Moving [82]
—Pilot, air traffic controller, driver, freight handler
Architecture and Engineering [80]
—Architect, surveyor, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer

Yeah, baby, comparing the ENTJ and ESTJ lists, it's not hard to see why the cognitive functions folks emphasize how similar those two "Te-dom" types are.

Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive functions guys (as you probably know), and his test is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test but, as further discussed in the spoiler in this post, INTJs typically get high Ni scores and high Ne scores (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores and high Ti scores (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test — and INFJs often get Fi scores that are as high or higher than their Fe scores.

If you think INTJs and INTPs are more like opposites than close cousins — thanks to that all-important non-sharing of functions — and you think you understand the differences, how about stepping up to the plate and doing what Nardi apparently couldn't? Can you give me Ni, Ne, Ti and Te descriptions that I can offer all those puzzled INTx's over at INTJforum as a solution to their confusion? If your function-flipping model is correct and your descriptions are halfway decent, it'll be a good bet that the people who relate to your Ni and Te descriptions and don't relate to your Ti and Ne descriptions are INTJs, and vice versa for the INTPs.

As a final note, and as Myers acknowledged, almost all Jung scholars agree — and I'd say it's the only fair reading of Psychological Types as a whole — that Jung's functions model for an Ni-dom with a T-aux was Ni-Ti-Fe-Se, and his model for a Ti-dom with an N-aux was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe (and there's more about that in this long post). So Jung probably wouldn't have been particularly surprised to find somebody who felt torn between those types, because he thought they had the same four functions — not to mention the same pairs of functions as their conscious functions (dom/aux) and unconscious functions (tert/inf). What's more, as explained in the next spoiler, it looks like Jung himself may have felt torn between those two types...

 
Here's a link to Part 3 of a BBC interview done with John Freeman when Jung (born in 1875) was 84. Forward to around 8:40 and you can watch this exchange:

JF: Have you concluded what psychological type you are yourself?

Jung: (chuckling) Naturally I have devoted a great deal of attention to that painful question, you know.

JF: And reached a conclusion?

Jung: Well, you see, the type is nothing static. It changes in the course of life. But I most certainly was characterized by thinking. I overthought from early childhood on. And I had a great deal of intuition, too. And I had definite difficulty with feeling. And my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now that gives you all the necessary data for the diagnosis.​

Note that Jung both indicates that his thinking and intuition preferences had long been reasonably clear, and that typing himself had been a "painful" process. If you assume that he also considered his introversion reasonably clear — and anyone who's read his autobiography isn't likely to doubt that — then the only issue that seems to be a likely candidate for any kind of "painful" uncertainty is the issue of whether he was a Ti-dom with an N-aux or an Ni-dom with a T-aux. And that conclusion is also consistent with the fact that (1) as described in this Vicky Jo "news flash," Jung reportedly told Stephen Abrams (a Jung scholar) in 1959 that he was an "introverted intuitive"; and (2) as described in this follow-up report, Marie-Louise von Franz (one of Jung's most famous pupils) declared that Jung was an N-dom.

With that as background, and if you assume that the "painful" part of Jung's typing decision was the choice between Ti-dom with an N-aux and Ni-dom with a T-aux, it's worth noting that, if you also assume Jung viewed the auxiliary function as having the opposite attitude to the dominant, Jung's "painful" decision would have involved figuring out whether he was Ti-Ne or Ni-Te — which Jung viewed as substantially different function pairs. By contrast, if you assume Jung viewed the auxiliary as having the same attitude as the dominant, Jung's "painful" choice would have involved figuring out whether he was Ti-Ni or Ni-Ti — which is a considerably more understandable dilemma.

So... I'd say it's more likely than not that Jung himself, at one or more points in his adult life, found himself engaged in precisely the same "Am I INTJ or INTP" agonizing that your post suggests only a functionally-ignorant person would be likely to engage in.

In case you're interested, you can find more from me on the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history — and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability — in this long INTJforum post.

Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for two of the links in that last post:

McCrae & Costa article (click on the pic on the right to access the full article)
Reynierse article
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
710 Posts
Testify, wise MBTI veteran! The similarities between INFJs and INFPs are superficial and the differences are deep — because, when you cross that magic line from J to P, it flips all your functions! And it's all about your functions, people. Anybody who's watched SuperDuperDave's videos understands that.
We agree on SuperDuperDave not knowing what he's talking about, you might consider him to be the perfect example of the common cognition practitioner, but I wouldn't advice anybody watching his videos.

While you make a lot of reasonable points as you always do with those huge wall of texts that almost nobody ever reads (that last part was a joke), I do think that there is an element missing. I was just thinking today about how it would be much easier for me to meet up with you, have one of my ESTJ girls hug and cuddle with you for an entire night and then let you experience how shitty it feels to be in a complete lack of Ni because of the sheer Si pressure.

von Franz said:
Jung has said that the hardest thing to understand is not your opposite type — if you have an introverted feeling it is very difficult to understand an extraverted thinking type — but the same functional type with the other attitude! It would be most difficult for an introverted feeling type to understand an extraverted feeling type. There one feels that one does not know how the wheels go round in that person's head.
When I talk about opposite functions I'm not talking about Ni-Se or Fi-Te but about Ni-Si, Ti-Fi, Te-Fe and Se-Ne. Apparently von Franz quoting Jung agrees with this.

I agree that it is very problametic to give accurate descriptions of each cognitive function in such a way that people can identify themselves with the right function. In a way you could say that the cognitive functions are the glasses through which you see the world, I could describe the glasses that you're wearing but without a reflection to see the glasses on your head there is no way to verify whether or not the description is correct. ('But Dedication, you could just as easily take the glasses off.' Yes, yes you could. Now open your skull and donate your brain to science so we can have a little peak.)

The lack of evidence could be considered a problem, at the very least, it is certainly not in favour of the cognition practicioners. Yet I do not abandon them because what I observe within myself and the real world does indicate that such function exists.

I'd like to continue to discuss this topic, but to do that I'd like to hear your opinion/experience about something. While I ask these questions please note that I don't know you very well so please excuse me if I insult your intelligence by asking something that could be considered stupid. I'm assuming that you understand Socionics, Model A and at least somewhat agree with the intertype relations, do you have close friends / have ever been inside a love relationship with 'a relationship of supervision'? Do you have any experience with a supervisee/supervisor?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
I'd like to continue to discuss this topic, but to do that I'd like to hear your opinion/experience about something. While I ask these questions please note that I don't know you very well so please excuse me if I insult your intelligence by asking something that could be considered stupid. I'm assuming that you understand Socionics, Model A and at least somewhat agree with the intertype relations, do you have close friends / have ever been inside a love relationship with 'a relationship of supervision'? Do you have any experience with a supervisee/supervisor?
I actually don't know that much about socionics. My longest-term SO relationship was with an ENFP, and I'd say it had a somewhat "supervisory" flavor to it, but if MBTI INTJ (which is what I am) is really socionics INTp, then it should be an MBTI INTP (socionics INTj) who's an ENFP's "supervisor," correct?

If I'm understanding that correctly, then I'd supposedly be a "supervisor" to an ESTJ, but my best guess is that if I was in a romantic relationship with an ESTJ woman, it would probably belong in the "relationship of mutually assured destruction" category. :tongue:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
Well they are both stones that the builders rejected. They aren't that different. They face similar obstacles, and have similar strengths. They both like similar environments. I've said before, that if I had to work, or be stuck somewhere with any random person, of any other type, it would an INFP. Because they are one of the few types who can stand silence, aren't abrasive, and most contribute to creating an environment that I can tolerate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
Highly likely you/they are all mistyped as INFJ.

Speaking from personality type theory: there is no INFJ+INFP attraction going on, opposing functions don't attract but repel each other.
thank youuu. I always had INFP friends in high school but they never friended me in the way I wanted friends too. I dont get the wholw infj or infp thing, for me it was always intj vs infj if anything. I think I need someone I dont know.. rougher then me?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
710 Posts
I actually don't know that much about socionics. My longest-term SO relationship was with an ENFP, and I'd say it had a somewhat "supervisory" flavor to it, but if MBTI INTJ (which is what I am) is really socionics INTp, then it should be an MBTI INTP (socionics INTj) who's an ENFP's "supervisor," correct?

If I'm understanding that correctly, then I'd supposedly be a "supervisor" to an ESTJ, but my best guess is that if I was in a romantic relationship with an ESTJ woman, it would probably belong in the "relationship of mutually assured destruction" category.
Disclaimer: this ended up being a whole lot than I would've liked, this is mostly because I don't know what you already know about Socionics and because I like to explain my viewpoint on both MBTI and Socionics. For the most part I'll have to say that it's my opinion and it can be disagreed with, so if you do please let me know.


When I first began to learn personality type theory it started with the dichotomies, and I still value them greatly. My 'switch' from the dichotomies to paying more attention to the cognitive functions began when I learned about Socionics, model A and the intertype relationships. I created a dumbed down version for myself that I consider to be convertible to either MBTI and Socionics. I would be happy to share it because solid criticism is welcome.

Anyway, on to Socioncs. I consider the J/P switch (for introverts only) from MBTI to Socionics to be valid. A part of the reason is that I believe both Socionics and MBTI try to describe the same phenomenon, even if they do so through different methods and claim to have nothing to do with each other. When I look at it on a broad scale I see that they are both personality type theories. Socionics does describe the functions a bit differently and even orders them differently but most of the time still make the same point.

The MBTI INTJ has Ni-Te-Fi-Se || Ne-Ti-Si-Fe, from strong to weak and the same goes for the shadow functions. A Socionics INTp has Ni-Te Si-Fe Se-Fi Ne-Ti, as is seen from first glance over here: Socionics Types: ILI-INTp , in socionics model A the functions are paired inside blocks, as is seen in the previous link the INTp has: Ni-Te (ego block) Si-Fe (super-ego block) Se-Fi (super-id block) Ne-Ti (id block). These blocks are important, this is because Model A describes the Ego and ID block as strong (Ni-Te and Ne-Ti) while saying that the super-id and super-ego block are weak (Si-Fe and Se-Fi) as can be read over here: Socionics Model A

Take note of the following:
The blocks in Model A are all interconnected to each other. Because the Ego block is both strong and valued, it essentially controls the person's information metabolism, direction of thought, etc. The Ego block sets the goals and direction, and then subconsciously relies on the Id block to provide necessary background information and data that the ego block will use in decision-making. Any conflicts between the Ego block and the Super-ego block generally result in the Ego block winning and the Super-ego block being relegated to a support role or sometimes completely ignored. Because the person is weak in the Super-id block but nevertheless values those information elements in the block, he seeks external support and input from others who value those information elements and are strong with them.
In essence, the Socionics INTp has strong Ni-Te weak Se-Fi but values these 4 functions, at the same time has strong Ne-Ti weak Si-Fe and does not value these 4 functions. To me, that correlates heavily with the MBTI INTJ Ni-Te-Fi-Se || Ne-Ti-Fe-Si, only some functions are reversed and I can talk about that, but I'll leave that alone for now because this post is already lengthy as it is.

A side note:
 
As you can imagine, seeing the functions in a different order can cause a lot of confusion for people who just start out with Socionics if they knew about MBTI beforehand, as is seen a lot when people get angry over their type when they try to justify, for example, being an MBTI ENTP and a Socionics INFp, or when they get angry that the Socionics descriptions are just plain insulting compared to the MBTI descriptions. Many INFp's experience this when they read the glorified MBTI INFJ descriptions to the pessimistic INFp description, suddenly they are described as passive (weak Se) dumbos (weak Te and Ti.) who will never achieve anything unless they meet their strong hero in duality, the ESTP, who will spank them while solving all the problems they can't handle themselves.


Why is all this important? To go back to being a 'functionist' you'll have to have a solid grasp if the intertype relationships that are described in Socionics. From the generic descriptions that can be read over here: Relations between Psychological ("personality") Types to lengthy anecdotal stories, especially the INTp and ENFp description from Stratiyevskaya should be of interest: Socionics - the16types.info - Mirage Relations INTp and ENFp by Stratiyevskaya . This is where I see the functions being superior to the dichotomies. Socionics model A combined with the functions do not only describe each type from a stand alone perspective, but also talk extensively about the intertype relationships, as such, it can be tested in real life. Any conflict that arises in real life can be backtracked into the cognition theory and explain why certain needs aren't being met and explain why certain needs simply can not ever be met by certain people.

For example, unlike many posters in this thread Zibziby actually shows traits of being an MBTI INFJ (Socionics INFp), she does so in this very short post:

thank youuu. I always had INFP friends in high school but they never friended me in the way I wanted friends too. I dont get the wholw infj or infp thing, for me it was always intj vs infj if anything. I think I need someone I dont know.. rougher then me?
MBTI INFP's (Socionics INFj's) are indeed soft people duo to Se being their PoLR (in very simple terms: their weakest point). The MBTI INFJ (Socionics INFp) will eventually need somebody with strong Se, and as we can see this is exactly what Zibziby is asking for by needing someone rougher than her. One of the reasons why I consider cognition to be a huge deal is because thanks to Model A, I can read personality types much quicker. When I said 'Highly likely you/they are all mistyped as INFJ.' I ment it from the intertype relationships perspective that Socionionics and Model A provide.

- Sorry Zibziby for using your post as an example without asking, forgive me for my rudeness.

To end this, as you can see I make a lot of assumptions such as the J-P switch being valid, I do so because in my experience it is true. I'm also not answering any of your questions you made in your first post because I simply don't have most answers and probably never will, because of that this post might be a dissapointment but I believe that it is better to first exchange our viewpoints on the matter so that when we clash, it is transparant as to why we do so and in that way learning will be made easier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
I seem to be close friends with a lot of ISTJs..
Doesn't that make sense function-wise actually?
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top