There's plenty of INFPs that mistype here as well. I can't blame them, the INFP descriptions are painting them as peace loving flower smelling hippies. INFPs are a diverse group of people, and what makes them diverse is the one thing that they all have in common. Fierce individuality.
Another thing is that a lot of INTP descriptions speak of a love of sciences that are more Te based than Ti. Physics, chemistry, all of those hard sciences
where the foundation is in objective proof. Not that an INTP can't enjoy these, but they shouldn't be left out of the INFP descriptions because, hell, I've SEEN many INFPs embrace quantum physics with love and wonder!
The INFP I know, he gets all happy talking about this to me. He was telling me about planlenghts or something, (see, I can't even remember the right term) and I stopped him to say that it didn't make sense. After a LONG debate where I was trying to explain to him why what he wasn't saying didn't add up, and him pretty much repeating the same explanation and not really hitting the mark on what I was saying, I finally got him to see that his explanation was illogical. He was telling me planklenghts are a unit of measurement, and that the universe is made up of these. But a unit of measurement is only a means by which we measure something, it isn't a 'thing'! A room isn't made up of feet. The measurement of an actual foot may be the basis for which 1ft is established, but the unit and the measurement of the object that gives it it's name are two separate things.
So, basically, he screwed up is explanation, and didn't see the logical contradiction
because he doesn't use Ti.
Then, he got mad at me because I was picking apart his explanation for reasons he thought where aside the point. According to him, I should have said "WOW what a neat concept. We live in such a wonderful universe, thinking about it makes me feel
great!" and instead all I wanted to do was focus on whether or not it made sense.
My conclusion is that NP types understand abstract concepts and theory very well. But Ti judges according to logical principles, Fi judges according to feelings, and uses Te to determine what's correct (this person is an established scientist, they know more than me).
I think a key difference in our different views on what defines logic comes out when I tell him I'm logical, and he'll say "you need a job and sit around all day instead of looking for one, how LOGICAL is that???" But that's logical course of action
, not quite the same thing.
Ti logic is less at home in the logical efficiency of the order of events. It thrives in the domain of Informal Logic
, and Inductive reasoning
. Te, though not primarily concerned with the logical structure of arguments and critical thinking, prefers the methods Inductive reasoning and formal logic. I would say that Ti is satisfied with either method of logic or reasoning, but finds fault with inductive reasoning and easily understands informal logic, for reasons Te does not.
A criticism of Inductive reasoning, highlighting it's crutch on Te methods.
Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The problem calls into question all empirical claims made in everyday life or through the scientific method and for that reason the philosopher C. D. Broad said that "induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy".
And a criticisms of Informal logic, from an obvious Te point of view.
Informal logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some hold the view that informal logic is not a branch or subdiscipline of logic, or even the view that there cannot be such a thing as informal logic. Massey criticizes informal logic on the grounds that it has no theory underpinning it. Informal logic, he says, requires detailed classification schemes to organize it, which in other disciplines is provided by the underlying theory. He maintains that there is no method of establishing the invalidity of an argument aside from the formal method, and that the study of fallacies may be of more interest to other disciplines, like psychology, than to philosophy and logic.
Thing is, Informal Logic isn't based on the argument structure, it's based on the content and meaning. You can't pin it down to rules as Te would prefer, but if you use Ti, it doesn't matter, you just understand
And with Inductive reasoning, the conclusion must be based on what's observable, but who's to say there aren't underlying factors that aren't at play which may not be readily apparent? Correlation does not equal causation!
I could go on and on, and this post is getting to long, so I'll wind it down.
In summary, what I would do, to the INFPs that think they are INTPs, is have them dissect a fallacious argument. Or, just ask if they enjoy pointing out the fallacies in their opponents argument during discussion or debate.
I'll enter a discussion just to point out a fallacy, regardless of whether I agree with the persons stance or not. (and doing so often results in me getting hit with argument after argument on an issue I don't give a crap about, because that flags me as an opponent, I guess, at least to people who think people only use their feelings/values to determine their views.)