Mirror emotions sounds like just an expression for empathy, (empathy developing(at least partly) through mirroring movements, expressions etc and the mind reading it as it was one's own) almost all people have empathy, though it can be a bit different. Perhaps mirror emotions is more emotional empathy than cognitive empathy though, and I think it is possible Fs rely more on emotional empathy than Ts, but I don't know why infps would be particularly so, I don't think we are really.
This was a bit interesting:
"Another recent study provides evidence of separate neural pathways activating reciprocal suppression in different regions of the brain associated with the performance of "social" and "mechanical" tasks. These findings suggest that the cognition associated with reasoning about the "state of another person's mind" and "causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects" are neurally suppressed from occurring at the same time.[SUP][94][/SUP][SUP][95][/SUP]"
-from the wikipedia article on empathy. I am not sure I have understood it right, but if I have, I wonder if that can extend beyond the moment one thinks about one of those things? If it gets weaker by constantly getting sent these suppressing signals if one rely heavily on one or the other of social or mechanical tasks? That could explain some of the functionstackings then actually(which I have been generally sceptical about). I also wonder if thinking about the "state of another person's mind", if it is the same/similar when thinking about one's own mind? if part of introspection works like empathy with oneself?

I actually wish I had less emotional empathy, and more cognitive, because it would help with understanding better while not making me feel like I just want to avoid feeling bad and remove myself from the situation. I think some emotional empathy is good, but I don't know if there is much point in it being very high, it might hurt more than it helps the person you empathise with.

About the mirroring or absorbing emotions (Fe/Fi I assume?), I wonder if there is that much of a difference in reality. Perhaps absorbing has more to do with beeing keen on noticing expressions? (perhaps if they themselves are emotionally expressive, they have stronger connections between the emotion and the expression) Perhaps mirroring can then pic up on more subtle cues, and circumstantial stuff, but is also somewhat limited to what one can relate to(though for example fiction can provide a lot of emotional resorces) and prone to projection?

 

I think 'mirroring' and 'absorbing' as definitions for types, are so fraught with problems that they cannot really be used. Or I refuse to use them the way I've heard them applied.

INFPs tend to feel things deeply, so you would imagine that 'absorbing' would resonate more than 'mirroring' when it comes to their feelings. They tend to focus on authenticity as well, so 'mirroring' sounds kind of alien (at least to me). INFJs tend to lose sight of their own feelings and instead sort of reflect the feelings of another person--which sounds like mirroring.

So these terms really don't make sense to me--I'm sure INFP and INFJ both 'absorb' and 'mirror.'

I don't feel like I 'mirror' other people, and I don't think I do a good job at it. I feel like I strive to understand what the other is going through or has experienced, and I can often carry that with me and focus on it, and I also can experience pain and distress on a personal level and for them.

But I tend to think that intent towards someone is more important than whatever mechanisms of empathy are at one's employment. So like, if you care--you will hurt on multiple levels. Seeking to understand how someone feels is also important in helping one care about another, as their feelings are important. I think any amount of 'superpower' which I might have for understanding how someone feels is because I tend to care about people/things that don't always have to affect me directly.

That's not to say someone can't care and also be unempathetic in the technical sense, or that someone can't be empathetic in the technical sense and not actually care. But I tend to associate empathy with caring, and I consider that to be true empathy, despite the person's capabilities and skills. And it's a total can of worms to define it in such a way.

But maybe that's just more important to me--what a person intends and how much value they find in something, and whether it's the same way that thing values itself or wants to be valued. It's about a kind of harmony, perhaps, and a lot of understanding, and recognizing the potential and intrinsic value of things around us (and people) and respecting that.

These can help empathizing, maybe:
Focusing on the other person and listening to them. Trying to understand what they feel, as well as how you would feel, or do feel, or have felt. Taking note of what makes them happy or sad, or what they have strong emotional reactions to, and trying to understand why. I'm convinced listening to people and understanding them can help build empathy, as can finding common ground and values.

 

Whenever you find a source that says that different types use completely different mental processes, you have ventured into the realm of extreme pseudo science. If you find an article that uses phrases along the lines of "this type tends to do more of this and less of that" you're usually at the mercy of someone at least trying to stay in reality.

In the case of mirroring vs. absorbing emotions there may be no way to tell the difference. If a husband had just lost his wife in a traffic accident, the mirror-person would think of how it would be if he himself had lost his wife and the grief it would prompt, which would cause him to feel empathy. The absorption-person would see the tears or microexpressions of the grieving husband and he himself start to feel a grief that, if done correctly, would be as if a loved one is lost, and this would again end in empathy.
If both processes lead to grief and then empathy, how would you know which one was used? Maybe both were or neither of them but something completely different. Maybe the mirror-person first "absorbed" some emotions and hence began thinking of how it would be if he himself were in that situation. Maybe the collective archetype of "someone losing a loved one" naturally instigates empathy. The point is that it's hard to know, and it's all pure conjecture and clearly not the work of true neurologists.

Even more problematic to the mirror vs. absorption theory of Fi/Fe is that there should be irrefutable examples of Fe types that are clearly capable of putting themselves into somebody else's shoes, and Fi types that, say, smile when others smile.

 

I sure hope I don't mirror. Can you imagine absorbing negative emotions from another? I promise you this, I want NO parts. I once had someone tell me "don't fall into the hole with the other person" -- nuh uh.. ain't gonna do it.

 

Mirroring is an action word and has to do with aping the behavior of another person. While it does often manifest itself as a mirroring of that other person, I can intuitively and accurately feel what the other person is describing. I like to describe it as a form of high emotional intelligence.

If emotional intelligence involves tact, then I can't say I'm always tactful and that would mean I'm not as emotionally intelligent as I would like.

 

I've heard them called Shadow Types.
Pretty sure you mean the same thing.

Under very high stress I tend to go full out ESTJ and I bloom into a very logical, controlling, time-managing, getting-things-done, monster. It's beautiful and scary because most people can't handle the change. I go from fully flexible no-rush to "I don't care about your feelings they bring nothing to help solve this situation, all-hands-on-deck problem solving NOW"

Emotion is very much thrown out of the window. There's a time and place for everything. My ESTJ gets things done.