Are INFJs useful to society?

[detectivepope]

I don't think INFJs are so useful as constitutive of society.

I don't mean that the only contribution INFJs make to society, is by being a member - rather, INFJs probably disproportionately influence the direction/identity of society. That is to say, INFJs probably significantly influence a society's notion of what it is to be a society per se. The more practical types are probably disproportionately more useful.



I use the word 'probably' liberally, because such contributions are very difficult to gauge - and arguing that abstract contributions are made, while consistent with the operation of the INFJ type, would require a very taxing historical study, which would be shady at best.

There is currently an ongoing study on the INFJ phenomena based in Staffordshire, Uk. Also reducing people to 'use' is terrible, we're not cogs for a machine. If you don't go outside/physically interact you are destined to never have any influence otherwise its just ridiculous and self derogatory to think you have none.

 

[Orion]

I dont see why INFJs cant make just as much a difference as anyone else.

Thats true I guess. INFJs are better than everyone else. /sarcasm

I knew this would come up, let me explain and douse the fire of "type superiority" before it starts:

Let's assume society is made up of certain percentages of type. It is a reasonable assumption to assume that the more concentrated the amount of certain types there are in a given space, the more that space will be occupied by that types belief system and preferences.

I'm not talking about type statistics because there is a far better gauge of type distribution: analysing trends in society. Education, politics, culture, society, at least in the western world is dominated by EXSJ sensibilities. Dominant Je with a sensation flavour. Children who grow up in an ESJ society are more likely to grow up with a better sense of self, better self-esteem, fit into society, find their happiness and just all round have a better life.

The next dominating life style is the EXSP lifestyle. But where does this leave the INFJ? Ni is the least favoured cognitive function in the world, I'm sure of it. Dominant Ni is not something that is a strong part of society, whether you analyse through politics, cultural or the media, art, mythology, storytelling etc.

Basically, INFJs grow up in a world that does not favour their natural preference. They are far more likely (but not necessarily) to grow up with more neurotic issues then other types. All the things that are consistently considered bad about INFJs is further exacerbated by that fact that our perspective, our view point and our values are never really vindicated in society. INFJs could be more powerful, productive, confident, game changing type if they grew up in a world that understood and nurtured their intrinsic preferences and skills. But life isn't like that for INFJs.

Every child needs to experience acceptance and understanding, for them to grow- in education, in the home and from parents. But we are at a distinct disadvantage in that INFJs psychologically have to "fend for themselves". I'm sure you'd agree that the most important thing for children is to supplant them with a strong self-esteem and confidence- that is the basis for a healthy, functioning human being. INFJs just get the short straw right from the beginning.

I'm not crying about this, just answering your question as to why INFJs will find it harder to make a difference in the world.

This also relates to you [MENTION=2800]detectivepope[/MENTION]; Consider your position, that INFJs aren't suited to help the world because of how they deal with their problems. We would have healthier, more productive INFJs capable of changing things if they grew in a world that actually appreciated them.

 

[Nixie]

I think that Ni makes one a bit different. I think the function itself makes one more apt to be less action orientated in a way since it a way it is bound up in observation. I also think that Ni development comes from a place where individuals determine that understanding the world and perhaps determining the inherit dangers of the world is of primary importance. I almost suspect that some type of perceived or acutal childhood event(s) cause this desire to develop Ni in an attempt to make sense of the world and predict other's behavior. Sometimes I think Ni is like overdeveloped paranoia in a way--it seems concerned with ordering random information into useful patterns and assumptions/predictions about events and people. I don't mean that in a bad way either..cause um, yea, I have Ni too.

The Fe would make an INFJ strive to effect positive changes for the whole by bringing people together over some issue or ideal. I would say that the struggle would be to overcome the introversion which is difficult because the sensitivity of overly strong Fe makes the type more prone to "emotional sunburn" and more inclined to social withdrawl.

 

[Orion]

A world full of INFJs would make little/slow progress.

False prediction, because you are judging how effective INFJs would be, based on the current standard of the world and you can't judge an INFJ dominated world by ESTJ dominated standards. Things wouldn't be the same, doesn't mean they wouldn't work.

It's like saying there is only one way for world to work- the ESTJ way.

But who is to say, that the world as we know it, would even exist if it was just an INFJ world?

 

[Wyote]

[MENTION=1378]Orion[/MENTION]

lol yea yea, technically I can't say that with certainty but if you think about it logically less action orientation is going to be slower. But who knows, maybe a different way toward progress would be discovered which would be equal in speed or faster. Who knows.

 

[VH]

Could you divulge a little more on that point and maybe give a few examples?

If we're gonna discuss solutions to human extinction, it should probably be its own thread =3.

I meant there are too many NFs to be helpful to society in general. I wasn't going in the direction of human extinction. My apologies for not being clear. I believe that with too many NFs, we get comfortable and form societies unto ourselves, at which point we start to have something that resembles a tribe comprised of NFs (and the NT cousins who are welcome in our tents) that trades with the other tribes rather than performs the roles that they need. However, this is essentially true of the advantage of modern civilization. Like minded people can surround themselves with their own kind. While this is comfortable, it's not advantageous for society as a whole.

INFJs are catalysts so their "usefulness" is not generally directly observable. It is more natural and practical to have a world of Doers, with a handful of catalysts to tip things in one direction or another when needed. A world full of INFJs would make little/slow progress.

This ^ exactly.

A world full of doers will do themselves in without the guidance of the catalysts. A world full of catalysts will do nothing.

 

[VH]

False prediction, because you are judging how effective INFJs would be, based on the current standard of the world and you can't judge an INFJ dominated world by ESTJ dominated standards. Things wouldn't be the same, doesn't mean they wouldn't work.

It's like saying there is only one way for world to work- the ESTJ way.

But who is to say, that the world as we know it, would even exist if it was just an INFJ world?

NFs never would have made it out of living in huts. INFJs have a drive to do what is needed, then contemplate the universe. So long as everyone was taken care of and safe, the INFJs would never seek to develop advances in technology that would allow for increases in population. The only advances would be to further those ends. Better herbalism, medicine, huts able to resist the elements, more comfortable furnishings, a focus on labor saving tools, and the ability to write and record all the stories and theories. Heh, actually, that sounds kinda utopian.

It's a symbiotic relationship. Problem is, now that we don't directly see the need for each other, we're losing sight of each others' value.

 

[Bird]

Can you explain to me how everyone with a certain personality type can be classified as useless?


There is a degree of variance to everything, everyone.

 

[VH]

Can you explain to me how everyone with a certain personality type can be classified as useless?

Each type is useful to society. I suppose there are areas in which each type is not useful to society, but the other types instinctively pick up the slack. The only time a given type is problematic for society is when they're impeding the other type's ability to perform their roles (as opposed to providing pressure to refine their roles).

 

[Gerard91]

The problem is that there are too many of us. It has allowed us to form unspoken coalitions with each other against the people we're supposed to be helping.



They can make more of a difference than most. See Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Hayao Miyazaki, Morihei Ueshiba.

True, BUT on the other hand we have people like Hitler (presumable INTJ) or Osama bin Laden (INFJ) who gave an example of how NOT to act. Being against common thoughts can go in two directions...

 

[VH]

True, BUT on the other hand we have people like Hitler (presumable INTJ) or Osama bin Laden (INFJ) who gave an example of how NOT to act. Being against common thoughts can go in two directions...

Obviously. Though, I'm trying to focus on the good things and be encouraging. Heh. I suppose my ENFJ is hanging out. Hold on a sec. <turns around> *zzip* K.

 

[~jet]

False prediction, because you are judging how effective INFJs would be, based on the current standard of the world and you can't judge an INFJ dominated world by ESTJ dominated standards. Things wouldn't be the same, doesn't mean they wouldn't work.

I'm forced to argue that the 'world' DOESN'T work now... not with all of its support mechanisms crashing and burning currently

 

[Jana]

It's a symbiotic relationship.

That is essence. We need every type...

 

[Candice_XX]

That is essence. We need every type...

Yes, we need every type to be educated and cultivated and able to transcend its MBTI boundaries: development - evolution- getting better.
I agree on no discrimination on types as everyone is born free and equal and the potential of development is not measured solely by the raw material the soul is made.
But we have to take it into account for planning the optimal solution for co-existence in the world and a theoretical discussion on alternatives is more than interesting and I enjoyed all the answers.

[MENTION=1378]Orion[/MENTION] has raised a beneficial discussion.
First I want to address the issue of the proportion of the INFJs in our world.
Taking into account [MENTION=2300]Siamese cat[/MENTION]'s "darkeness" reference and the @VH's analysis of physical selection as well, I can tell the following: Evolution and "darkness" come together. The reason we are INFJs is because we are raised in an ESJ world, and I doubt if we can raise our children becoming INFJs.
There is a necessity in leaving people deprived of beneficial abilities (in our society rarity is evolved as NF), in the same way as there is a necessity in leaving people deprived of knowledge. I mean, for example, if we all knew everything there would be no people to exploit our ignorance, but then some people would have interest in creating new hidden knowledge. Similarly, if we all were one type of persons and notably the most rare one there would emerge a rarest one as a reaction to the situation.
We are rare as a necessity of the current evolution.

But why INFJ's are the rarest in our society? Is this a general necessity? We are rare because of the structure of our current society, as it is evolved through history, and no, this is not a general necessity. There is conceptually possible another society full of INFJ's equally or even better from the one we live now. I doubt if the proportion in the population in Incas, Persians, tribes in Africa was the same as it is now in America.

Would an INFJ increase in polulation be good? [MENTION=3019]~jet[/MENTION] has a good point in stating that there are needed lot of people for a change in ideals, towards a more "NF world". I disagree with @VH's who implies natural selection makes us rare because INFJs are useful mainly to advise. That usefulness comes in the context of our society and natural selection in the current evolution.
I disagree with [MENTION=2300]Siamese cat[/MENTION] on that "having too many people with different ideas is a situation where they'll butt heads about whose idea is the best for implementation and in the end nothing or very little will be done. So what we really need is a limited number of truly exceptional people with strength and charisma to motivate people to work on implementing their idea" on the grounds that too many exceptional people would be able to find a solution and don't disagree, the most numerous minds the better the thinking they do (I agree with @Peace Seeker). I agree with you Siamese Cat on the grounds that we need charismatic leaders (and you remind me of what Plato was advocating, which is very sweet) but that's again on the context of our society. Imagine a society full of imagination and solution-oriented behaviour, I see no problem with over population with those people.


Would an INFJ society be good? [MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION] is of the opinion that "INFJs probably significantly influence a society's notion of what it is to be a society per se. The more practical types are probably disproportionately more useful." [MENTION=251]Wyote[/MENTION] said the doers make more progress than thinkers. As I understand it people say that we need more craftsmen than poets.
Well, guys, I am pretty sure that an inspired INFJ is very very able to be a mechanic engineering, an IT specialist and a buttom pusher in a factory. Giving attention to detail and trivial issues is something you learn. As other types can learn to be able to see the big picture and get in touch with their feelings.
What would be different is ideals of our society, the dominant culture, the structure of the system.
It is probable that doers would be catalysts in such a society, making INFJ's think "oh my god I must be more practical" but I do not doubt at all about the pace of progress, it would be faster as thinkers would accept the catalyst change faster.

The problem is that there are too many of us. It has allowed us to form unspoken coalitions with each other against the people we're supposed to be helping.

I disagree with that on the grounds that ESJs are too many of them and that has allowed them to form unspoken coalitions with each other against the people they were supposed to be helped by.
Being with similar-minded people is not bad, even if your fate is to "help" (but is it? Maybe it is such a fate because we are few and we want to make other people see our perspective, if we were a lot we would have to get help to see other people's perspective), you can charge your batteries. No INFJ lives in solitude.

Lastly, I call [MENTION=2800]detectivepope[/MENTION] to set aside his pleasure of being eccentric to the painful duty and honor to duplicate or multiply himself for the sake of our doomed world.

In other words, for an INFJ to make a difference or to have any impact on the world around them... they have to be pretty badass.

That's not true, you just have to be yourself.


Thank you for reading a long post.

 

[Wyote]

Wyote said the doers make more progress than thinkers. As I understand it people say that we need more craftsmen than poets.
Well, guys, I am pretty sure that an inspired INFJ is very very able to be a mechanic engineering, an IT specialist and a buttom pusher in a factory. Giving attention to detail and trivial issues is something you learn. As other types can learn to be able to see the big picture and get in touch with their feelings.

What I said was, INFJs are catalysts. What you are talking about is doers and thinkers which is entirely different. Being a poet or a craftsman (all people can and are to a certain degree, both) is not the same as being a catalyst, having a catalyst nature.

People are capable of anything, regardless of type. People have natural tendencies because of their type. If they no longer have those natural tendancies, they are no longer that type. Which from what I understand, does not happen.

What would be different is ideals of our society, the dominant culture, the structure of the system.
It is probable that doers would be catalysts in such a society, making INFJ's think "oh my god I must be more practical" but I do not doubt at all about the pace of progress, it would be faster as thinkers would accept the catalyst change faster.

Doers cannot be catalysts. The way we measure things is relative. Perhaps we could move to a society that is comparatively more dominated by an INFJ mindset, but in that framework doers do not become catalysts they simply become less like the doers of current society.

 

[Candice_XX]

[MENTION=251]Wyote[/MENTION] Maybe, I don't want to argue on that point because I am not so well informed about MBTI theory.
To my perception (the principle behind my writing), being catalyst might be also due to the rarity of the way of perception of the world and not so much due to natural characteristics.
I also have the impression that INFJs are more prone to go under change (use other as catalysts) than other types because they pursue consistency in their value system.

 

[detectivepope]

Lastly, I call [MENTION=2800]detectivepope[/MENTION] to set aside his pleasure of being eccentric to the painful duty and honor to duplicate or multiply himself for the sake of our doomed world.

I agree on your other points on rarity but not everyone has a counter productive negative view of existence. What does it matter if it's doomed? If nothing matters why should I be negative or boring? Theres more to life than worrying about what will come for others. I'll have children for me not others, I live my life for me and those who I care for, not 'society'. People whom live for society or supposed 'purpose' should evaluate their lives.

The types that are rarest are that because they all work together. If this weren't the case we wouldn't have even got to a point in history where we know what these types are, especially on a none academic level such as this forum. Jungian was INFJ, so no INFJ no types. I love the phenomena of INFJ and I find it really detriment to state it as one big flaw or 'unuseful'.

I also believe the 'practical' ones think just as much if not more than the 'thinkers' as they have more experience and primary reference than a person whom doesn't engage. INFJ's are naturally internal so even when complex tasks are been performed, internal thought still prevails. Me and my other INFJ friend can do activities together and still think about complex structures and systems. I have laboured, created, studied and been athletic all whilst retaining an internal line.This is by no means a boast as it is clear it could be taken as so.
The only thing I found with me and my friend is that he stays in a lot more, which I then noticed he gained little reference, skewing theories and pushing him to have circular thought patterns. On physically taking him away from his reclusion he started to form newer ideas faster, with better reference to reality.

There is a rise in INFJ's as societies allow the personality to bloom rather than quash it through hardship.

sorry for the rant, i'm bored.

 

[Lerxst]

I always thought INFJ's would make good policy-makers, behind the scenes. The problem is, the journey involved to that kind of a position. God forbid I should ever find myself in a room surrounded by more like me though!!!

I'd be too paranoid to function, always wondering why "he" never says anything or why "he" talks like that or why "he" looks at me like that. I've gotten used to being surrounded by Extroverts. Kind of like a person gets used to being surrounded by the noise of a city and feels uncomfortable in a peaceful country setting.

 

[Gerard91]

I'm forced to argue that the 'world' DOESN'T work now... not with all of its support mechanisms crashing and burning currently

I must disagree with you since world was, is and will be - always about crisis', cultural failures and alike. This is normal rhythm of world, whatever we may think about it. I will always remember books saying about Poland 100 years ago, people were just saying it collapses. Did it collapse? No, but there must be some time so that good and bad things are filtered.

 

[~jet]

I 'quoted' world in my context to imply the HUMAN world as well as the biospheres were adapted to rely upon. Civilization/human survival is ~currently~ built up upon a scaffolding of [bio|aero|hydro|litho]spheric conditions... availability of fuel, water, biomass, metals, AIR, et cetera. While our collective gravity/weight atop this structure wildly balloons in size, we're simultaneously removing the supports we rely upon beneath us at an increasing rate... it's already 5 billion people BEYOND sustainable right now and the only reason we're still here is that we haven't yet finished off the food in this particular petri dish. As it is, we'll obliterate our necessary reserves far before we can 'kindly' pull back on our numbers and advance both our technique and wisdom in how to use what resources we can renew indefinitely.

Again, this ought to be its own thread... but again, also, the point is... it'll take an extraordinary amount of idealism, in charge (for that matter) to turn this boat around, and it's probably already far too late.

100 years ago, human population was still at sustainable levels (that changed around 1930 even by today's more advanced standards), and we had yet to have a particularly good inventory of what resources were going to be valuable, and how much of them there really were out there. In the face of dying out, I'm not immediately concerned with culture, as you put it.

Yes, technological advances can help... flipping entirely to renewable energy, for example, CAN satisfy modern energy needs AND we can meet it halfway by becoming smarter about how we use energy. We could abandon the use of paper and pull back dramatically on the use of wood. We could stop putting acid into the oceans such that the algae responsible for 40% of our air may not be killed off. Maybe. But after all that, we all have to EAT. In order to do that, we've replaced over 80% of the world's arable landscapes to more convenient but far less ecologically supportive means, have changed the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, and act surprised when climate shifts and crops stop growing where they used to, O2 levels go down, CO2, H20, and CH4 levels go up (the latter of which oxidizes at the expense of O2 and produces more H2O and CO2), ocean currents weaken, etc etc etc. Our agricultural system is already failing to keep up with worldwide dietary needs, and yet is changing the climate to such a degree that the climate change will dramatically curtail productivity even as we continue to add ever more mouths to feed? How does anyone think this is not disaster?