Personality Cafe banner
41 - 60 of 83 Posts
I have a close INFP friend who almost broke off contact with me a month ago. From hearing her issues, the underlying thread seemed to be that she wasn't feeling very cared-for anymore. I do care about her a great deal, and I thought that was obvious. Maybe not. What kinds of things would help you know you mattered?
For an INFP, feeling cared for, like validating our feelings and caring about our feelings, is the utmost important thing we need from any close friendship or relationship. it's not easy to explain how you must care about our feelings, you kinda have to just know how to. We're not good at explaining our feelings in a logical way, we can sound far out and illogical and mumbo jumbo.

I would say if you really care about your INFP friend and want to show you care, take it on a step by step basis. We live more in the here and now, i would say ask for feedback everytime you see her or talk to her again, ask her if there was any misunderstandings from the last encounter, tell her you really want to make sure you didn't offend or hurt her in anyway because you care about her and value your friendship and don't want to lose friendship with her. Do this every single time you say Hi when you meet or talk again. Then you should start understanding her more as you do this and she opens up more to you, in time you will understand her a whole lot more, it may sound tiring to do, but if you really care about her and keeping her friendship, it's worth the time and feeling to invest to keep making sure you haven't offended or hurt her in anyway. Be gentle and tell her you really care, and be sincere and genuine, you can't fool an INFP, we are like born with a built in lie detector like what one of the other posters said, and we don't have to prove it, if we feel like ur lying to us or not being genuine or sincere, as long as we feel that, then that's the only proof we need, is our feelings. So it has to be sincere or it won't work with an INFP. Hypocrisy will not work with an INFP. Good Luck, INFP's will open up to you if they know you genuinely want to hear what they have to say and that you care.
 
An NF Common Strand

Thank you for your posts, Psilo (and other posters). I liked your post in answer, NephilimAzrael.

Personally, I believe the common strands among the NFs are empathy (the ability for one to see another person's perspective so that one can with oneself creatively recreate the feelings of another) and caring (the compulsion/motivation to act on internal feelings to meet the needs of others). One is a feeling, and one is a call to action. Empathy is distinct from sympathy (the inclination for one to side with another person whose situation-specific feelings one has previously experienced oneself).


While each NF group shares the ability to empathize and feels called to action (to care for others), each NF group seems to express/act on this common strand in different ways, including the INFJ whose depth of caring and gentleness guide him/her to engage in selfless political activism; the INFP who generates ideas to enrich the lives of others and to make the world a better place; the ENFJ whose radiant warmth brings out the best in others; and the ENFP who motivates others to make the most of life. The members of each NF group, while all playing a vital role in the health of humanity, direct their empathy and caring in different directions, the INFJ to society; the INFP to the world; the ENFJ to the community; and the ENFP to the individual. None seem to adequately care for themselves. That includes me. How about you? Anyway, that is precisely why NFs need to spend some time existing in proximity. There is even a chance to achieve synergy (where the positive energy created by the pair or group exceeds the energy-generating potential of all individuals combined).


I feel a connection with all NFs because all NFs seem to love (have empathy for and take care of) the world. Supporting an NF is "paid forward" to supporting all of humanity.


As to the author's conclusion, I raise two objections. First, I don't think that it's accurate to say that NFs cannot think logically; rather, it's that part of our logical process is to include in our "calculations" such inconstant variables as feelings and people (and, by the way, there is no such thing as a truly constant variable). Logic is an inherently amoral system. Logical argument is built upon human-defined propositions and assumptions. Without conscience, logic can be used to further any pursuit. NFs act as society's conscience when they ask, "At what human cost?" In The Highly Sensitive Person, the author describes this function as one of priestly adviser to warrior king.

Second, while logic within a scientific system may be the most effective way to build a joint understanding of external phenomena, it does not by default perform the same function in regard to our internal beings or our human relationships. The scientific method relies wholly on input from the five senses. Using this method, we may be able to quantify external characteristics (though I note even this is subject to the fact that other people consistently reach the same result, and that measurement must be agreed upon, and so forth). For instance, science may be able to predictably describe the characteristics of a rose, such that all people within a culture generally accept that something with such characteristics is a rose, but science cannot measure with certainty how each individual will respond to that rose ("Beautiful!"; "Sappy!"; "Sentimental!"; "Smelly!"; "Lovely!"; "Somebody get my inhaler!") or how each individual will fold the experience (sensual and emotional) of interacting with the rose into their being. Science can partially "own the truth" of the rose. For instance, this rose has thorns. From that perspective, one can be objectively "right" (and even that has a great many limitations). Science cannot "own the truth" of the experience of the human-rose interaction. I believe the best way to form a joint understanding of internal phenomena is through reflective listening and compromise. In this way, we negotiate a mutual understanding of subjective realities while simultaneously validating the truth of each person's unique feelings/being/internal existence. It is the difference between denotation and connotation, between trial and mediation. It is the difference between smelling a rose and loving a rose.
 
Thank you for your posts, Psilo (and other posters). I liked your post in answer, NephilimAzrael.

Personally, I believe the common strands among the NFs are empathy (the ability for one to see another person's perspective so that one can with oneself creatively recreate the feelings of another) and caring (the compulsion/motivation to act on internal feelings to meet the needs of others). One is a feeling, and one is a call to action. Empathy is distinct from sympathy (the inclination for one to side with another person whose situation-specific feelings one has previously experienced oneself).


While each NF group shares the ability to empathize and feels called to action (to care for others), each NF group seems to express/act on this common strand in different ways, including the INFJ whose depth of caring and gentleness guide him/her to engage in selfless political activism; the INFP who generates ideas to enrich the lives of others and to make the world a better place; the ENFJ whose radiant warmth brings out the best in others; and the ENFP who motivates others to make the most of life. The members of each NF group, while all playing a vital role in the health of humanity, direct their empathy and caring in different directions, the INFJ to society; the INFP to the world; the ENFJ to the community; and the ENFP to the individual. None seem to adequately care for themselves. That includes me. How about you? Anyway, that is precisely why NFs need to spend some time existing in proximity. There is even a chance to achieve synergy (where the positive energy created by the pair or group exceeds the energy-generating potential of all individuals combined).


I feel a connection with all NFs because all NFs seem to love (have empathy for and take care of) the world. Supporting an NF is "paid forward" to supporting all of humanity.


As to the author's conclusion, I raise two objections. First, I don't think that it's accurate to say that NFs cannot think logically; rather, it's that part of our logical process is to include in our "calculations" such inconstant variables as feelings and people (and, by the way, there is no such thing as a truly constant variable). Logic is an inherently amoral system. Logical argument is built upon human-defined propositions and assumptions. Without conscience, logic can be used to further any pursuit. NFs act as society's conscience when they ask, "At what human cost?" In The Highly Sensitive Person, the author describes this function as one of priestly adviser to warrior king.

Second, while logic within a scientific system may be the most effective way to build a joint understanding of external phenomena, it does not by default perform the same function in regard to our internal beings or our human relationships. The scientific method relies wholly on input from the five senses. Using this method, we may be able to quantify external characteristics (though I note even this is subject to the fact that other people consistently reach the same result, and that measurement must be agreed upon, and so forth). For instance, science may be able to predictably describe the characteristics of a rose, such that all people within a culture generally accept that something with such characteristics is a rose, but science cannot measure with certainty how each individual will respond to that rose ("Beautiful!"; "Sappy!"; "Sentimental!"; "Smelly!"; "Lovely!"; "Somebody get my inhaler!") or how each individual will fold the experience (sensual and emotional) of interacting with the rose into their being. Science can partially "own the truth" of the rose. For instance, this rose has thorns. From that perspective, one can be objectively "right" (and even that has a great many limitations). Science cannot "own the truth" of the experience of the human-rose interaction. I believe the best way to form a joint understanding of internal phenomena is through reflective listening and compromise. In this way, we negotiate a mutual understanding of subjective realities while simultaneously validating the truth of each person's unique feelings/being/internal existence. It is the difference between denotation and connotation, between trial and mediation. It is the difference between smelling a rose and loving a rose.
Wow- an amazing post. thank you.
 
Science cannot "own the truth" of the experience of the human-rose interaction.
Yes, it can. In fact, it does. Emotions are observable, measurable, predictable (though we're still working on that part) phenomena.

Science is the master of everything. Emotions are but a tiny, if complex and important, part of science's dominion.

Fi is great and all, but it doesn't give you an excuse to belittle science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kasatka
Yes, it can. In fact, it does. Emotions are observable, measurable, predictable (though we're still working on that part) phenomena.
Fi isn't emotions first and foremost. Also emotions can be observed but they certainly can't be measured or predicted. You can't measure grief. You can't measure love. You can't measure rage. You can't measure depression. You can record it. You can observe it. But you can't quantify it and appropriate it. You can't even predict it. You can't measure emotional capacity. I would also say that Fi itself can't be measured. Fi is more or less simply a judging function based on the subjective person, you could know the person to an extent but you would never be able to know the true subjective person because ultimately you are not that person and you do not know that persons internal process. Even if you desire to.
 
You can't measure grief. You can't measure love. You can't measure rage. You can't measure depression. You can record it. You can observe it. But you can't quantify it and appropriate it. You can't even predict it. You can't measure emotional capacity.
Are you asserting that emotions are somehow metaphysical?
 
I'm saying that there is no way in which you can quantifiably measure feelings. You can try, but it will never work. You can observe them. Record them. But you can't measure it and even if you try to what are those measurements? Subjective records that some people may or may not agree on. Science can do a lot but trying to push people into these boxes will never work. All you can hope to do is record and observe emotions. You can't truly measure them. What would you attempt to measure? Behavior? Impossible as that ranges across all humans differently.
 
...that ranges across all humans differently.
Every keyboard is also different--even those of the same model, subtly. However, you would not claim a keyboard is immeasurable, in any sense.

It's not worth arguing, though. One who was not reasoned into a belief cannot be reasoned out of it.
 
Every keyboard is also different--even those of the same model, subtly. However, you would not claim a keyboard is immeasurable, in any sense.

It's not worth arguing, though. One who was not reasoned into a belief cannot be reasoned out of it.
Yeah I am sorry, you will never get me to believe that people are keyboards.
 
Now here's an interesting question/bit of food-for-thought/personal hypothesis for the PerC community. (In advance: this is not a "help me decipher my type" post. I am very confident in my INFJ-ness.) I'm an INFJ who has always felt much more identity with Fi than with my supposedly-secondary Fe. In cognitive functions tests, Fi frequently outranks my supposedly dominant Ni. I definitely have the strictly (and rabidly) held personal values characteristic of strong Fi, and I make moral decisions with a combination of Fi-ish gut reaction and Ti-logic (more in keeping with my own tertiary Ti).

Here's the thing about all those strictly held Fi-ish opinions, though: they're all egalitarian. Every last one. For those who don't know the definition of the word, egalitarianism is the belief that everybody is entitled to equal opportunities, and the belief that each person is worth exactly the same as each and every other person. The fact that I adhere so strongly to ideals that emphasize equal opportunity seems a bit sneaky-Fe.

That's my hypothesis, then: my extreme social introversion and general unwillingness to interact with other people appears to cognitive-functions tests as low social empathy, which fools them into ranking my Fe as underdeveloped, while my rigidly held opinions and values seem to the tests like high Fi, when actually, my most rabidly held opinions all pertain to the ways in which people ought to treat each other... meaning that the Fi the test sees is actually Fe in an exceedingly clever disguise.

Thoughts?
 
"Instinctual feelings are subordinated to the ideal. At the same time, there may be a too forcible suppression of the instinctual life, in which case it will lead not so much to a split in the emotional life as to a certain joylessness, and to the feeling that life is passing without bringing any true fulfilment. There is too often a need to associate all pleasures and joys with some moral value, and to condemn them if this higher satisfaction is not obviously found in them. "

For some reason this rang a bell with me.
 
Now here's an interesting question/bit of food-for-thought/personal hypothesis for the PerC community. (In advance: this is not a "help me decipher my type" post. I am very confident in my INFJ-ness.) I'm an INFJ who has always felt much more identity with Fi than with my supposedly-secondary Fe. In cognitive functions tests, Fi frequently outranks my supposedly dominant Ni. I definitely have the strictly (and rabidly) held personal values characteristic of strong Fi, and I make moral decisions with a combination of Fi-ish gut reaction and Ti-logic (more in keeping with my own tertiary Ti).

Here's the thing about all those strictly held Fi-ish opinions, though: they're all egalitarian. Every last one. For those who don't know the definition of the word, egalitarianism is the belief that everybody is entitled to equal opportunities, and the belief that each person is worth exactly the same as each and every other person. The fact that I adhere so strongly to ideals that emphasize equal opportunity seems a bit sneaky-Fe.

That's my hypothesis, then: my extreme social introversion and general unwillingness to interact with other people appears to cognitive-functions tests as low social empathy, which fools them into ranking my Fe as underdeveloped, while my rigidly held opinions and values seem to the tests like high Fi, when actually, my most rabidly held opinions all pertain to the ways in which people ought to treat each other... meaning that the Fi the test sees is actually Fe in an exceedingly clever disguise.

Thoughts?

For those who don't know the definition of the word, egalitarianism is the belief that everybody is entitled to equal opportunities, and the belief that each person is worth exactly the same as each and every other person. The fact that I adhere so strongly to ideals that emphasize equal opportunity seems a bit sneaky-Fe.
Well, i think both INFJ's and INFP's feel the same way, so in the sense of NF's, probably ENFJ's and ENFP's also, all the 4 idealists types, this explanation of feeling comes out the same in both the Fi's and the Fe's. So if like you are questioning if like per say are you an INTJ rather than an INFJ? then probably yes you sound more of the idealist branch of the NF's. Is that what you're questioning? And if it is, then it would be good to hear what an INTJ says about your quote above?
 
This is the best description of Fi that I've read. I could relate to everything.
:proud: I agree. But for me this is the best description of Fi that I've ever read because I can't really relate to it. I thought for a while that I was an INFP because I could relate to many of the profiles online and even the function descriptions, but reading this feels like I've taken a peek into a foreign universe. A beautiful universe, but not a familiar one.

That's my hypothesis, then: my extreme social introversion and general unwillingness to interact with other people appears to cognitive-functions tests as low social empathy, which fools them into ranking my Fe as underdeveloped, while my rigidly held opinions and values seem to the tests like high Fi, when actually, my most rabidly held opinions all pertain to the ways in which people ought to treat each other... meaning that the Fi the test sees is actually Fe in an exceedingly clever disguise.

Thoughts?
I appear quite extroverted but I still score higher on Fi. I personally think it's because of questions that ask "Do you think it's important to be true to your ideals? ...which are meant to measure Fi, but unless you know it's supposed to do that I think any NF would answer "yes". :)
 
In ordinary life their mask conceals what they really are. But there is, nevertheless, something very individual about them, sometimes remarkably so, which will come to expression particularly in certain moments, in relation to certain people. This happens more especially in two situations: when they achieve real contact with another person; and when, in a state of high emotional excitement, they stand up for a threatened ideal.

In the first case, a very profound relationship of mutual understanding may suddenly come into being, all the wealth of their minds being unlocked to the confidant; sometimes this contact will later be broken off just as suddenly and unexpectedly, in defence of their own vulnerability. And where his feelings are aroused, the person who appeared to be so impersonal, remote and somewhat insignificant may suddenly burst out with a personal point of view, expressed with such conviction and such force of feeling that it compels respect.

This passage is creepily accurate. I started relatively regularly chatting online with this guy in my class about 2 years ago. He was/is rather alienated from the world (INTJ, if it matters at all), and somehow we connected. He drew me out of myself, and something about him made me tell him things I hold all too close- that I had promised myself I would never tell anyone because it was too private, and however insignificant each little bit of information he drew out of me was, it was the principle that he was opening me against my will and "good" judgement that I was afraid of and could not stand.

So I went into this backlash reaction for a while. Ignoring him when he chatted me, pretending I never noticed him because I was busy or went offline right then by unlucky coincidence. If I did gather the courage and guilt to respond to him, everything was as dry as I could make it, careful to answer his implorances of divulgance with curt, logical, succinct answers, careful and fearful to keep all the Fi far from him as I could possibly keep it.

Gradually, I came back to him. I had freaked out and told him I couldn't handle telling him about me, but I agreed, because I still found him interesting, that we would keep sharing "ideas," and ideas only. He was hurt and disappointed, but he gave me my space and respect and distance and agreed that just idea-sharing was better than nothing at all, and slowly, slowly, as he does to me (I still can't fathom how or why - maybe because he is so true and direct and alienated as I am), I gave him more and more of me.

A few days ago, I opened that last barrier. The barrier between the hard, cynical Ti which I have constructed and overdeveloped to show the world, and the Fi which hides so deep inside. One side effect of that is that my heart has finally started to accept him, too. I just hope I'll have the strength not to backlash again this time. He's the first and only one who's ever come this close to knowing me.



I always find it so fascinating when these broad, general type descriptions perfectly define some exact situation/scenario in my life. This is why I love PC and personality typing in general. :) Thanks for your post, Psilo!
 
so my mom would say that I wasn't a particularly cuddly as a child. I wouldn't let her do my hair, I would go out an play in the trees and other various things of that nature. I didn't care at ALL what other people wanted and I did what I wanted.
I was not rude though, I did not think of that as very kind or very thoughtful of others feelings.

I remember my mom telling me that I would fight other children for toys if they took them from me and I didn't care if they would cry, I would fight so I could get my stolen toy back.
I was a terror to the preschool and I made many lady's taking care of me cry because of how destructive I was and because I wouldn't listen to them. lol

What functions do you think entails this?
 
41 - 60 of 83 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top