Log in

No account? Create an account
thoughts and feels and thoughts and feels
: :::::::..:. ..:::. .: ..:.:..:.

September 2009
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30

thoughts and feels and thoughts and feels [userpic]

With reading up on INFP, I begin to think that the twitches and twinkles and complete paradigm shifts of late have been due more to an upswing in N rather than a gravitation towards F.

From personalitypage.com:

Their primary goal is to find out their meaning in life. What is their purpose? How can they best serve humanity in their lives?
INFPs are highly intuitive about people. They rely heavily on their intuitions to guide them, and use their discoveries to constantly search for value in life. They are on a continuous mission to find the truth and meaning underlying things. Every encounter and every piece of knowledge gained gets sifted through the INFP's value system, and is evaluated to see if it has any potential to help the INFP define or refine their own path in life.
Although they may be reserved in expressing emotion, they have a very deep well of caring and are genuinely interested in understanding people.
(Well, except on my misanthropic days.)

They focus on the way that the conflict makes them feel, and indeed don't really care whether or not they're right... This trait sometimes makes them appear irrational and illogical in conflict situations.
INFPs do not like to deal with hard facts and logic. Their focus on their feelings and the Human Condition makes it difficult for them to deal with impersonal judgment. They don't understand or believe in the validity of impersonal judgment, which makes them naturally rather ineffective at using it.

I wish there was some lenience for other functional preference hierarchy. INTP is Ti Ne Si Fe, and INFP is Fi Ne Si Te. But I think I Fe more than I Si. If that makes any sense.


In case you're interested, there was some discussion a couple months ago in the INFP community about people (like me) who seemed to be INFPs but with a lot of INTP thrown in, and people who were INFPs except for some times when they acted more like INTPs, and people who seemed to be exactly split on the border. What you've written here seems very similar and/or symmetrical to the results of some of the discussions. For instance, lots of INFPs didn't like the second point you have under "False" (except perhaps in what would naturally appear to me as a rather different form), and there was a lot of consideration of whether N was appearing as T, or whether people used Te more than Si. That first statement under "False" isn't necessarily quite right, either. And there's a bunch of other related stuff, too, if you're interested, including discussions of various preference orders.

Am interested! ::makes note to self to search out INFP comm, but is going to refrain from doing so right now, as has only an hour till the library closes::

The points I have as "false" are not only things that I don't like but that are simply innaccurate for me - I am *all* about being 'right' (by whatever rules I am operating under,) and tend to assume that any emotional difficulty I may have with this situation is my comeuppance for being foolish enough to take wrong information to heart to begin with.

It should probably also be pointed out that whoever wrote the profile I sourced could perhaps have put it more clearly.

It's _infp_. Atypical preference orders.

There's more, but it's been scattered in comments across months of entries, I think, so it's hard to find. (And my memory may be inflating the number of people involved in the discussions, but there are a number of INXPs of various kinds in _infp_.) I did find a bit here

I've also got a rambling discussion on introspective perception of the various Jungian functions, in case you're interested (and I'd be especially interested if your perceptions are different).

You might also be interested in Elizabeth Buie's page about INFPs with, among other things, an INFP profile developed by an INFP list, in case you haven't come across it. The (very large!) INFP vs INFJ page may be interesting as well (even though it's the wrong contrast for you, it's still got some good observations about INFPs and even just in general).

Somewhere I have something else relevant, about NF search for meaning/understanding vs NT search for knowledge/understanding and how the criterion was which one you couldn't live without, even if you look for both, but I can't seem to find it, even in email.

Ah. I should point out that when I said "didn't like" there, it basically meant the same thing as "felt was inaccurate for them" (or "didn't like as a description for INFPs"). I found it very interesting in reading about INFPs etc that I've always tended to say "I don't like X" or whatever just as a default when I'm talking about judging something, which seems to go along perfectly with the theory. I haven't really tried seeing whether that holds true with other people.

In this case I guess I'd say that not "really car[ing] whether or not they're right" is really not the right statement at all (especially not for things like rightness relative to values!), though it may appear that way from the outside for some INFPs. I think it's more that the way conflict makes them/us/me/whatever feel is very much more significant than it may be for other people.

I think the second "false" paragraph approaches being completely wrong for a good number of INFPs (a number of whom are scientists, which this description is close to ludicrous for). It's possible that this description might seem right even for them to an outsider who delivers critical impersonal judgements with no real softening, for instance, though.

None of this is meant to argue that you're an INFP, of course! I'm just interested in seeing perspectives from the other side of the mirror here, and figured I'd give my perspective.

Ere I delve too far into the preferences post you made - should I post remarks there or here?

Am thoroughly fascinated. (Still.)

Remarks to the one in my journal should probably go there so everything stays more or less together in case anyone else ever comes along.

I'd hoped so (I shudder to think what kind of a time I'd have cataloguing 20 comments worth of replies) :D

Oh... in the INFJ vs INFP page, replace "ftp" with "http". I don't know how that happened. Both work, more or less (ftp is the older one), but I thought I was on the http one...

Er, ... I get raw-HTML email comments, and it says you did send me the HTTP one (I haven't clicked the link from your comment yet).

Ok, then color me puzzled, because both it and the new link I sent are showing up as ftp in my browser, even though, as you say, they're http in the comment email. I was wondering if privoxy was doing something (very) strange here, but then I saw your next comment. Which means something even more odd is going on. (?!)

::rolls a d10 (smarts)+d6 for 'exorcise HTML demons', aces both::

::rolls a d4+d6 for charisma, gets snake eyes::


Sorry, I relapse to formulaic humor when at a loss for explanations :p

This is odd - it's linking me to your 'replace' link as FTP too.

::prods LJ::

I just tried a few tests in a private entry, and it looks like lj is applying this transformation to links to any "members.aol.com" page. How bizarre.

Oh, also, you can read Chapter 10 of Jung's Psychological Types online.