INFJ myths

Yes, I do, and I was specifically talking about self-acceptance in INFJs and INFPs. Out of all the MBTI types, they struggle with this the most because they are particularly invested in becoming harmonious with the rest of society (INFJs more so than INFPs). However, being out-of-step with society isn't just an INFP and INFJ problem. It's an issue shared by all of the intuitive introverts and anyone with alternative interests or brain patterning.

Yeah that's a good way to put it 'brain patterning'

Sorry if i got the wrong handle on what you were saying and thanks for clarifying

It might be an interesting area of study to look at to what extent MBTI is hardwired. Also obviously there are different wiring systems. there is the physical make up of the brain, but there is also the emotional wiring formed from our experiences (which won't show up in a brain scan but could have light shone on it with questioning)

I don't won't to string you a 'woe is me' line especially in a world of war and poverty but i do think that some prejudices are based on things that are readily discearnable to the eye, but because of the widespread ignorance of MBTI (hardly anyone here in the UK sems to talk about it...in my experience anyway) there is little understanding of things that are invisible such as brain patterning yet how much conflict arises out of this?

How many personality clashes happen out there each day because of a lack of understanding over personality types?

Should it be seen as a form of prejudice on an equal footing with say gender, age or race bias if it is an equally innate condition?

But really, at the end of the day, we all have the same choices: we adapt, we change or we accept the things we can't adapt to or change. Once we accept ourselves and understand the way we think and feel, we're in a better position to be able to live the life that is best suited to our desires and abilities instead of beating ourselves up over the things we can't control.

Yeah life will be smoother for some than others, but there are often compensations for oddities


And I would agree with you.
 
Yeah that's a good way to put it 'brain patterning'

Sorry if i got the wrong handle on what you were saying and thanks for clarifying

No problem. This seems to be the theme this week :)

It might be an interesting area of study to look at to what extent MBTI is hardwired. Also obviously there are different wiring systems. there is the physical make up of the brain, but there is also the emotional wiring formed from our experiences (which won't show up in a brain scan but could have light shone on it with questioning)

I don't won't to string you a 'woe is me' line especially in a world of war and poverty but i do think that some prejudices are based on things that are readily discearnable to the eye, but because of the widespread ignorance of MBTI (hardly anyone here in the UK sems to talk about it...in my experience anyway) there is little understanding of things that are invisible such as brain patterning yet how much conflict arises out of this?

How many personality clashes happen out there each day because of a lack of understanding over personality types?

Should it be seen as a form of prejudice on an equal footing with say gender, age or race bias if it is an equally innate condition?

Well, I don't know how much stock you can really put on MBTI as a reliable measure of brain patterning and even then, I can already see the potential pitfalls of introducing 'brain types' into the mainstream...particularly those pertaining to the flavour of rankism we see prevalent on typology forums.

Overall, I don't think slotting people into boxes just to emphasize equality between types is the answer because anyone who falls outside of those boxes is going to get shunned. I have the same issue with the break down of gender identity. In my experience, I find that the more boundaries you draw, the more you're going to emphasize the people that straddle one or more or that otherwise fall outside of them all.

Personally, I think that the road to acceptance would be better paved by zooming on the similarities between people instead of the differences. Instead of being quick to label something or someone as 'weird,' 'rare' or 'unusual,' why not look for the ways in which you can relate to them instead? That's the attitude that I'd like to see taught in schools.
 
Last edited:
No problem. This seems to be the theme this week :)

Evolution will give us telepathy one day and there'll be no more missunderstandings; we'll all just walk around grinning at each other.....actually that sounds a bit weird...

Well, I don't know how much stock you can really put on MBTI as a reliable measure of brain patterning and even then, I can already see the potential pitfalls of introducing 'brain types' into the mainstream...particularly those pertaining to the flavour of rankism we see prevalent on typology forums.

What i'm getting at is how much is fixed and to what extent is it fixed and how much is plastic. We can definately change as people.....but do we have like our own internal processor that dictates how we process information

Overall, I don't think slotting people into boxes just to emphasize equality between types is the answer because anyone who falls outside of those boxes is going to get shunned. I have the same issue with the break down of gender identity. In my experience, I find that the more boundaries you draw, the more you're going to emphasize the people that hover outside of them or straddle one or more.

Personally, I think that the road to acceptance would be better paved by zooming on the similarities between people instead of the differences. Instead of being quick to label something or someone as 'weird,' 'rare' or 'unusual,' why not look for the ways in which you can relate to them instead? That's the attitude that I'd like to see taught in schools.

Yeah you won't get that though until we have a shift in who's running things!

The guys in charge are all about creating new categorisations and divisions....its part of their design

The biblical 'fall from grace' is the process of becoming aware of our own existence...the formation of an ego. These guys seem to want to reinforce the ego

so yeah... i agree about focussing on the similarities, but i also think that in the case of MBTI greater awareness would help because at the moment there is confusion and hurt resulting from people expecting other people to be just like them!

Once we know we are all different and we appreciate that all different types have positives to contribute then i think it overcomes the jarring clashes of confusion that occur when a persons behaviour does not match anothers expectations
 
Evolution will give us telepathy one day and there'll be no more missunderstandings; we'll all just walk around grinning at each other.....actually that sounds a bit weird...



What i'm getting at is how much is fixed and to what extent is it fixed and how much is plastic. We can definately change as people.....but do we have like our own internal processor that dictates how we process information

I see what you mean, I'm just not sure how this would be implemented or if MBTI would be the best system for what you're suggesting.

Yeah you won't get that though until we have a shift in who's running things!

The guys in charge are all about creating new categorisations and divisions....its part of their design

The biblical 'fall from grace' is the process of becoming aware of our own existence...the formation of an ego. These guys seem to want to reinforce the ego

so yeah... i agree about focussing on the similarities, but i also think that in the case of MBTI greater awareness would help because at the moment there is confusion and hurt resulting from people expecting other people to be just like them!

Once we know we are all different and we appreciate that all different types have positives to contribute then i think it overcomes the jarring clashes of confusion that occur when a persons behaviour does not match anothers expectations

I guess I see what you mean. However, in general, I have a problem with that kind of labeling in society. On one hand, I understand that when you put a label on ignoble behaviour (such as sexism or racism) it's harder to get away with it and it keeps people in check as a general equalizer. On the other, however, I see it as yet another social mechanism to keep people in boxes and streamline the way we behave and interact with one another that yet again creates another 'normal.' I'm not sure I feel entirely comfortable with that. I think embracing similarities despite differences would eradicate this focus on social rules and allow us to accept a variety of perspectives. Any time we judge something as right or dismiss something as wrong, we're ignoring the shades of grey and potentially, another view of the truth. As such, with you in that I would welcome a world of diversity that accepts all perspectives, regardless of how extreme or mundane.
 
I see what you mean, I'm just not sure how this would be implemented or if MBTI would be the best system for what you're suggesting.



I guess I see what you mean. However, in general, I have a problem with that kind of labeling in society. On one hand, I understand that when you put a label on ignoble behaviour (such as sexism or racism) it's harder to get away with it and it keeps people in check as a general equalizer. On the other, however, I see it as yet another social mechanism to keep people in boxes and streamline the way we behave and interact with one another that yet again creates another 'normal.' I'm not sure I feel entirely comfortable with that. I think embracing similarities despite differences would eradicate this focus on social rules and allow us to accept a variety of perspectives. Any time we judge something as right or dismiss something as wrong, we're ignoring the shades of grey and potentially, another view of the truth. As such, with you in that I would welcome a world of diversity that accepts all perspectives, regardless of how extreme or mundane.

Yeah i'm not advocating that schools make a big deal out of it

An example of what i mean would be for an understanding that some people are energised by being around others whilst others need to recharge after being around others

I kind of see this as being a basic part understanding the human animal, yet how often do we hear it?

what we might hear is someone being called a 'geek' for having their head in a book or someone being called an 'airhead' because they like chattering non stop to their pals

Its like people are already making a surface distinction but without understanding the underlying dynamic and as a reasult that vacuum of understanding ends up being filled with derision

I'm not even sure it's an issue of school education as i take your point about labelling.....i think its really a wider cultural shift that needs to happen away from a pressure to conform to certain preordained norms

The way society has been structured ie away from manufacturing towards services is going to have an impact on people. Changes will suit some MBTI types more than others

It seems though that certain homogenised norms of how a person should be are being programmed into us through the media which is leaving less and less room for diversity and that the mould for these norms are built to fit the most common types

Anyway its a moot point as i say until we see a drastic shift in our society!
 
I would be suprised if most INFJ's don't acknowledge their fears to themselves

Fear isn't all bad though...it can sharpen your senses

They aknowledge it, but indirectly, subtle and not very efficient actually. Anyway, I am talking about one kind of INFJ here, not all of them.
 
They aknowledge it, but indirectly, subtle and not very efficient actually. Anyway, I am talking about one kind of INFJ here, not all of them.

Is that a maturity issue though or are you seeing discearnable patterns within the INFJ type.....sub types if you like?
 
Do you know whats worse than being weird to an INFJ?

...being normal

lol

INFJ's won't wear their weird like a badge though. It isn't a contrived outwardly visible weirdness. They just process information differently to the majority of people

Humanity is a broad church. Its success is in its diversity. If everyone thought the same we wouldn't innovate

The problem comes when a group of people (i don't know if there is an MBTI element to this group) decide that they want to control everyone else. When they do that they then decide how they want others to behave and then they categorise that as 'normal'. Anyone who does not conform to that will then be persecuted

The INFJ is not interested in being shoehorned into someone elses box

They are more ''inner directed''. Many people are ''outer directed'' and as a result they look around them for their social cues and are anxious to fit in with the herd. Outer directed people are easier to manipulate because whatever the defined ''norm'' is of the day, they will bend over backwards to fit in with that norm

For example just look at how fashions change each decade to see how people follow norms of behaviour. The outer directed are deseperate to run with the herd and they will assess their own success by how well they feel they are integrating with the herd

INFJ's assess their success by their own personal criteria

This means they are less easy to manipulate, more likely to think for themselves and more likely to walk off in another direction (metaphorically speaking). This sense of direction is what makes them intriguing to some people in the herd. it also makes them the target for hate from some conformists who are jelous of the INFJ's seeming freedom from the constraints which bind them

If the direction the herd is going in becomes uncomfortable for the herd they may then begin to follow the INFJ's down different routes and that is when INFJ's get seen as charismatic leaders

But people will only try different things when they are very uncomfortable. the rest of the time, the majority of people will slavishly follow the established norms and will suspect and even persecute non conformists like INFJ's

Its when the shit hits the fan that INFJ's as potential pathfinders will gain greater currency

''Normal'' to an INFJ is seen as the death of creativity, the death of freedom and the slavery of bondage. Besides innovators are never 'normal' or they wouldn't be innovating
Is that a maturity issue though or are you seeing discearnable patterns within the INFJ type.....sub types if you like?
Yes...

I tend to see three kinds of attidudes INFJ have tword life, three types of INFJs.

The first ones, are the ones that are leaving pretty much in fear and depression and self-doubt. The have a very low self-esteem, and they see themself as if something is wrong with them, all the time. I don't know if this is happening all their life. Perhaps, after many years of suffering, they become more confident in who they are and became happier with themselfs. With regard to their values, the presure of society has made them to conform in almost everything. They don't think for themselfs, which is a natural INFJ strenght, rather they conform to society and its expectations in every area. They are the "subdued INFJ" to institutional and society apparatus.

The second one are actually quite tricky. They are the "fit in INFJs". I know this is applying to every INFJ to some extend, but those kind of INFJ are making a purpose to fit in which is an end in itself for them. They think if they will fit in, then they will be happy. Like the first ones, they try to fit to society and its standards, but only because they want to, not because they are forced to, like the first ones. The "fit in INFJs" develop with time a very high self-esteem. Some of them get pretty high in the social hierarchy, even to the top, and are very influential people, and also very attractive. With regard to values, they still think for themself, but on the expense of society values. They became the perfect leader in a society/political/institutional apparatus. They are the "tamed INFJ".

The third ones are what you called "iner directed" INFJs. They don't have any boss or superiors. They think outside the system and its rules. Their boss is their own value system. The are seen by the leaders of society as dangerous, because they can't be manipulated. With regard to society, those INFJ decided somehow that it's not worth the "fit in" philosophy for their freedom and creativity. As so, they restrain their social circle to people who interest them and are interested in them. And in doing so, they discover that actually people will like them as they are, and won't find them weird. So they go for their purpose, which will always be the inner drive of their actions.
It's an interesting thing with those INFJs. If in meeting their goal they need to "fit in" to acomplish something, they will do it. They will "fit in" but this "fitting in" will not be an end in itself - like it is for the "tamed INFJs - it will be something they have assumed along the way in meeting that main goal. Like you said, this "INFJ is not interested in being shoehorned into someone elses box".
Those third INFJs are very the rarest. I like to call them the "wild INFJs".
 
Yes...

I tend to see three kinds of attidudes INFJ have tword life, three types of INFJs.

The first ones, are the ones that are leaving pretty much in fear and depression and self-doubt. The have a very low self-esteem, and they see themself as if something is wrong with them, all the time. I don't know if this is happening all their life. Perhaps, after many years of suffering, they become more confident in who they are and became happier with themselfs. With regard to their values, the presure of society has made them to conform in almost everything. They don't think for themselfs, which is a natural INFJ strenght, rather they conform to society and its expectations in every area. They are the "subdued INFJ" to institutional and society apparatus.

The second one are actually quite tricky. They are the "fit in INFJs". I know this is applying to every INFJ to some extend, but those kind of INFJ are making a purpose to fit in which is an end in itself for them. They think if they will fit in, then they will be happy. Like the first ones, they try to fit to society and its standards, but only because they want to, not because they are forced to, like the first ones. The "fit in INFJs" develop with time a very high self-esteem. Some of them get pretty high in the social hierarchy, even to the top, and are very influential people, and also very attractive. With regard to values, they still think for themself, but on the expense of society values. They became the perfect leader in a society/political/institutional apparatus. They are the "tamed INFJ".

The third ones are what you called "iner directed" INFJs. They don't have any boss or superiors. They think outside the system and its rules. Their boss is their own value system. The are seen by the leaders of society as dangerous, because they can't be manipulated. With regard to society, those INFJ decided somehow that it's not worth the "fit in" philosophy for their freedom and creativity. As so, they restrain their social circle to people who interest them and are interested in them. And in doing so, they discover that actually people will like them as they are, and won't find them weird. So they go for their purpose, which will always be the inner drive of their actions.
It's an interesting thing with those INFJs. If in meeting their goal they need to "fit in" to acomplish something, they will do it. They will "fit in" but this "fitting in" will not be an end in itself - like it is for the "tamed INFJs - it will be something they have assumed along the way in meeting that main goal. Like you said, this "INFJ is not interested in being shoehorned into someone elses box".
Those third INFJs are very the rarest. I like to call them the "wild INFJs".

Interesting

:)
 
Here's some info about the extra dimension/layer of inner v's outer directed taken from the following site: http://www.context.org/iclib/ic03/srivals/

SRI’s Values and Lifestyle Program

VALS -- a look at the culture through people's diverse
attitudes, needs, wants, beliefs, and demographics


One of the articles in Rediscovering The North American Vision (IC#3)
Originally published in Summer 1983 on page 12
Copyright (c)1983, 1996 by Context Institute

History is not the only way to try to probe the roots of our culture’s vision. The following excerpt (reprinted with permission) from a recent report by the VALS Group at SRI International (Menlo Park, CA 94025) suggests some of the current diversity within our culture. A more extensive discussion of the VALS research is in The Nine American Lifestyles, by Arnold Mitchell, published by Macmillian.

VALS – short for values and lifestyles – is a way of viewing people on the basis of their attitudes, needs, wants, beliefs, and demographics. The VALS program was created by SRI International in 1978 in an attempt to "put people" into the thinking of those of us trying to understand the trends of our times – in the marketplace, economically, politically, sociologically, and humanly. The approach is holistic, drawing on insight and many sources of data to develop a comprehensive framework for characterizing the ways of life of Americans. Conceptually, VALS owes a major debt to the findings of developmental psychology. Our initial speculations have now been extensively confirmed, honed, and extended in field research. The system is currently being applied in many areas of business and is evoking interest in circles as diverse as sociology, politics, law, education, and medicine.


A basic tool of the VALS program is the VALS typology. This typology is divided into four major categories, with a total of nine lifestyles. These are:



  • Need-Driven
    • -Survivor lifestyle
    • -Sustainer lifestyle

  • Outer-Directed
    • -Belonger lifestyle
    • -Emulator lifestyle
    • -Achiever lifestyle

  • Inner-Directed
    • -I-Am-Me lifestyle
    • -Experiential lifestyle
    • -Societally Conscious lifestyle

  • Combined Outer- and Inner-Directed
    • -Integrated lifestyle



It should be understood from the start that these lifestyle categories are not fixed and immutable. Many people grow from one level to another as children, as adolescents, and as adults. Some very few may start at the bottom and reach the top within a lifetime, but far more common is movement of a level or two.

The VALS typology is hierarchical. The prime development thrust is from Need-Driven through Outer- Directed and Inner-Directed phases to a joining of Outer- and Inner-Direction. These major transitions are seen as crucial way-posts in the movement of an individual (or a society) from immaturity to full maturity. Three of the four major developmental categories are subdivided into lifestyle phases representing stages of advancement within the main category.

By "maturity," we specifically mean psychological maturity. Very generally, psychological maturation is marked by a progression from partial toward full realization of one’s potential. It involves a steady widening of perspectives and concerns and a steady deepening of the inner reference points consulted in making important decisions. Thus, the role of habit and "stock answers" abates as a person matures, and the person becomes increasingly more complex and self-expressive in a values sense.

This hierarchy should be thought of as a nested model, with each stage "burying," as it were, previous stages. This means that an individual’s totality – like the layers of an onion – consists of inner "spheres" of values relating to stages of development that often date back to childhood or adolescence. Hence, the more developed a person is, the more complex his or her value structure and the more diverse the range of value-based reactions. This is why highly developed people often identify with many – even all – of the VALS levels: They are all of them!

In the paragraphs that follow, we have tried to describe the psychological essence of each segment of the typology and, in so doing, to provide a feeling for the widening concerns and multiplying values of people as they move through the typology.

THE NEED-DRIVENS

The Need-Drivens are people so limited in resources (especially financial resources) that their lives are driven more by need than by choice. Much evidence shows that they are the furthest removed from the cultural mainstream, are the least aware of the events of our times, and are most inclined to be depressed and withdrawn. Values of the Need-Driven center around survival, safety, and security. Such people tend to be distrustful, dependent, unplanning. Many live unhappy lives focused on the immediate specifics of today, with little sensitivity to the wants of others and little vision of what could be. We divide the Need-Driven category into two lifestyles: Survivor and Sustainer.

Survivors
(4% of the population aged 18 and over in 1981) are the most disadvantaged in American society by reason of their extreme poverty, low education, old age, and limited access to the channels of upward mobility. They are people oriented to tradition but marked by despair and unhappiness. Many, now infirm, once lived lifestyles associated with higher levels of the VALS hierarchy. Other generation-after-generation Survivors are ensnared in the so-called "culture of poverty."


Sustainers
(7% of population) are a group struggling at the edge of poverty. They are better off and younger than Survivors, and many have not given up hope. Their values are very different from those of Survivors in that Sustainers have advanced from the depression and hopelessness typical of Survivors to express anger at the system they see as repressing them, and they have developed a street-wise determination to get ahead. Many operate in the underground economy.

THE OUTER-DIRECTEDS

This large and diverse category is named to reflect the central characteristic of the people within it: The Outer-Directeds conduct their lives in response to signals – real or fancied – from others. "Out there" is what is most important. Consumption, activities, attitudes – all are guided by what the outer-directed individual thinks others will think. Psychologically, Outer-Direction is a major step forward from the Need-Driven state in that the perspective on life has broadened to include other people, a host of institutions, shared goals, and an array of personal values and options far more complex and diverse than those available to the Need-Driven. In general, the Outer-Directeds are the happiest of Americans, being well attuned to the cultural mainstream – indeed, creating much of it. The VALS typology defines three principal types of outer-directed people: Belongers, Emulators, and Achievers.

Belongers
(39% of population) constitute the large, solid, comfortable, middle-class group of Americans who are the main stabilizers of society and the preservers and defenders of the moral status quo. Belongers tend to be conservative, conventional, nostalgic, sentimental, puritanical, conforming. The key drive is to fit in – to belong – and not to stand out. Their world is well posted and well lit, and the road is straight and narrow. Family, church, and tradition loom large. Belongers are people who know what is right, and they adhere to the rules. They are not much interested in sophistication or intellectual affairs. All the evidence suggests that Belongers lead contented, happy lives and are relatively little vexed by the stresses and mercurial events that swirl around them.

In terms of psychological maturity, Belongers are ahead of the Need-Drivens in having a much wider range of associations (both personal and institutional), a longer term focus for planning their lives, and a less opportunistic pattern of behavior. These are people well integrated with their surroundings.

Emulators
(8% of population) live in a wholly different world from that of Belongers. Emulators are trying to burst into the upper levels of the system – to make it big. The object of their emulation is the Achiever lifestyle. They are ambitious, upwardly mobile, status-conscious, macho, competitive. Many see themselves as coming from the other side of the tracks and hence are intensely distrustful, are angry with the way things are, and have little faith that "the system" will give them a fair shake. Emulators tend not to be open in their feelings for fear of alienating those in authority, on whom they depend to get ahead. The Emulator group contains a higher fraction of minorities (24%) than any VALS group other than the Need- Drivens.


Psychologically, Emulators are a step ahead of Belongers in that they ask more of themselves and the system and have assumed greater personal responsibility for getting ahead instead of drifting with events in the style of many Belongers. On the other hand, Emulators seem often to have unrealistic goals. In truth, many are not on the track to make them Achievers, but they appear not to realize this.


Achievers
(20% of population) include the leaders in business, the professions, and government. Competent, self-reliant, efficient, Achievers tend to be materialistic, hard-working, oriented to fame and success, and comfort loving. These are the affluent people who have created the economic system in response to the American dream. As such, they are the defenders of the economic status quo. Achievers are among the best adjusted of Americans, being well satisfied with their place in the system. Only 5% of Achievers come from minority backgrounds.


Achievers are psychologically more advanced than Emulators in having a wider spectrum of values, in being more open and trusting, and in clearly having brought their ambitions into better alignment with reality. Achievers are supporters of technology and are open to progress, but they resist radical change. After all, they are on top and too radical a change might shake them off!

THE INNER-DIRECTEDS

People we call the Inner-Directeds contrast with the Outer-Directed in that they conduct their lives primarily in accord with inner values – the needs and desires private to the individual – rather than in accord with values oriented to externals. What is most important to such people is what is "in here" rather than what is "out there." Concern with inner growth thus is a cardinal characteristic. Inner-directed people tend to be self-expressive, individualistic, person-centered, impassioned, diverse, complex.

It is important to recognize that, in American society today, one can hardly be profoundly Inner-Directed without having internalized Outer-Directedness through extensive and deep exposure as a child, adolescent, or adult. One implication is that inner- directed people tend not to come from need-driven or inner-directed families. Some measure of satiation with the pleasures of external things seems to be required before a person can believe in or enjoy the less visible, incorporeal pleasures of Inner-Direction. This means not that the pleasures of the outer world disappear (for the VALS typology is a nested model), but that inner needs become more imperative than outer needs. From the psychological standpoint, then, Inner-Direction in today’s Western culture represents an advance over Outer-Direction in that it adds new values to old, thus increasing the range of potential responses and the number of channels available for self-expression. For children raised in strongly inner-directed families, however, the psychological advance would involve the shift from Inner-Direction to Outer-Direction. This would be true, for example, of people raised according to the tenets of the great inner-directed Eastern cultures.


VALS has identified three stages of Inner-Directedness: I-Am-Me. Experiential, and Societally Conscious.

I-Am-Me (3% of population) is a short lived stage of transition from Outer- to Inner-Direction. Values from both stages are much in evidence. Typically, the I-Am-Me person is young and fiercely individualistic to the point of being narcissistic and exhibitionistic. People at this stage are full of confusions and emotions they do not understand; hence, they often define themselves better by their actions than by their statements. I-Am-Mes tend to be dramatic and impulsive. Like cats, they have whims of iron. Much of their Inner-Direction shows up in great inventiveness, a willingness to try anything once, and an often secret inner exploration that will later crystallize into lifelong pursuits.

As the I-Am-Mes mature psychologically, they become the Experientials (6% of population). At this stage of Inner-Direction, the focus has widened from the intense egocentrism of the I-Am-Me to include other people and many social and human issues. Experientials are people who most want direct experience and vigorous involvement. Life is a light show at one moment and an intense, often mystic, inner experience the next. They are attracted to the exotic (such as Oriental religions), to the strange (such as parapsychology), and to the natural (such as "organic" gardening and home baking). The most inner-directed of any VALS group, these people also are probably the most artistic and the most passionately involved with others. Although intense, this is a thoroughly enjoyable stage of life, full of vigorous activity (although less so than at the I- Am-Me stage), and marked by a growing concern with intellectual and spiritual matters.


The Societally Conscious
(11% of population) have extended their Inner-Direction beyond the self and others to the society as a whole – in fact, sometimes to the globe or even, philosophically, to the cosmos. A profound sense of societal responsibility leads these people to support such causes as conservation, environmentalism, and consumerism. They tend to be activistic, impassioned, and knowledgeable about the world around them. Many are attracted to simple living and the natural; some have taken up lives of voluntary simplicity. Many do volunteer work. The Societally Conscious seek to live frugal lives that conserve, protect, and heal. Inner growth remains a crucial part of life. Consequently, many Societally Conscious people assume a high degree of self-reliance, which extends to holistic health and a sense that they are in touch with inner forces that guide them.

COMBINED OUTER- AND INNER-DIRECTEDS: THE INTEGRATEDS

At the pinnacle of the VALS typology is a small group we call the Integrateds (2% of population). These rare people have put it all together. They meld the power of Outer-Direction with the sensitivity of Inner-Direction. They are fully mature in a psychological sense – able to see many sides of an issue, able to lead if necessary, and willing to take a secondary role if that is appropriate. They usually possess a deep sense of the fittingness of things. They tend to be self-assured, self-actualizing, self-expressive, keenly aware of issues and sentiments, and often possessed of a world perspective. These highly unusual people are the Lincolns and Jeffersons and Einsteins and Schweitzers and Huxleys and Hammarskjolds of society.
LIFESTYLE TRENDS IN HARD TIMES

Recent history has raised the question: What happens to the lifestyle groups in hard times? This subject is addressed in depth in a VALS report entitled Hard Times by Marie Spengler and Peter Teige. The report was published in November 1980. The conclusions of the report have proved prescient, as shown by lifestyle trends revealed in VALS surveys conducted in April 1980 and October 1981.
Four main things happen in hard times:


  • First, the transitional lifestyle stages (especially Emulator and I-Am-Me) tend to be much less prominent. Apparently, in hard times people will not tolerate show- off, flibbertigibbet lifestyles.
  • Second, the number of people adopting the deep and solid traditional lifestyle of the Belonger tends to increase. We have evidence of recent growth in the number of Belongers, reversing a long-term downtrend. When the going gets rough, the safety, familiarity, and supportiveness of the Belonger way appear to be profoundly appealing.
  • Third, the ranks of the Societally Conscious expand. We impute this to the fact that this lifestyle is already attuned to frugal living. It has the further appeal of supporting many of the issues brought into prominence in periods of economic uncertainty.
  • Fourth, although an increase in the number of people living in poverty might be expected, rather to our surprise we have not found a major change in the number of Need-Drivens. Apparently, times are still not bad enough to have appreciably increased the number of Americans who fit the Survivor and Sustainer categories, although the number of Sustainers reporting being unemployed has skyrocketed. We suspect that the natural resilience of people has something to do with this. Over a period of a year or two, hope for better times remains. If hard times persist, the resilience may vanish and many who now see themselves as Belongers (plus other groups) would begin to take on the psychic attributes of the Need-Drivens.

A LOOK AHEAD: WHITHER THE KIDS OF THE INNER-DIRECTEDS?

One of the most interesting and potentially significant questions raised by the VALS typology regards the lifestyles that the children of Experiential and Societally Conscious parents will adopt. This discussion is necessarily speculative because these two VALS types are still so young (median age of Experientials is 26 and that of the Societally Conscious is 38) that we are only beginning to see how their children react on reaching age 18.
We think that the children of the Inner-Directeds will tend to become a new, subtle, and effective kind of Achiever. This "new convert" Achiever group, which will begin to develop in the coming decade, will be fleeing the Inner- Direction of their parents just as current l-Am-Mes are abandoning outer-directed family values. The notion is that if you were raised without dolls, you’ll collect them as an adult; if you have not visited the pasture on the other side of the road, you must journey there.

We think this potential addition to the VALS typology could be of crucial importance for several reasons. First, this new kind of Achiever will, we believe, bring an introspective entrepreneurial spirit to the driving outer-directed segments of society. We expect this will have a profoundly rejuvenating effect on the American system because the person who represents a blending of Inner-Direction and Outer-Direction may be particularly effective in getting things done.

This new class of Achievers will surely be creative and different, just as the I-Am-Mes of the 1960′s and 1970′s were. The new Achievers will insist on seeing things and doing things in their own way – and they are not likely to be slavishly imitative of any model.

Further, we speculate that they will prove to be the nation’s most important source of leadership by the year 2000, for by then some will have matured into the Integrated stage. These will be people long out of Inner-Direction and recently out of Outer-Direction. This history, we surmise, will equip them to be particularly effective leaders, because they will be able to combine the executive strength of the Outer-Direction with the human insight of Inner-Direction. With luck, they will be able to devise higher order solutions to national problems that combine the best in both ways of life.
 
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]
Very interesting... I have to think how this is related to MBTI types, then I'll maybe give a kind of opinion. What do you think of all this?
 
@muir
Very interesting... I have to think how this is related to MBTI types, then I'll maybe give a kind of opinion. What do you think of all this?

I'm just feeling my way through it which is why i was interested in your insights

As i said there might be two ways in which we are wired up (or more). Our brains might be physically wired a certain way or our personalities might be wired a certain way by our experiences. the whole nature and nurture thing

We are all subjected to different experiences and even to other shaping things such as chemicals, heavy metals and so on

An INFJ that has been traumatised might have more issues to work through than one that hasn't. It might make them more cynical....that's if they are even an INFJ at that point in a hard wired sense

What creates an INFJ or any other type? To what extent is it innate and to what extent is it formed?

Then there are the stages we go through in life as we mature

So an imature INFJ might be more outer directed but may become over time more inner directed

My perspective on all this is that environment is very important. Even if nature is a big factor, environment is undoubtably one as well. People perform differently under different conditions and are happier or sadder under different conditions....so environment is clearly important

As a society we should be working to improve the environment for as many people as possible

So the different INFJ's you outlined might just be working their way up the VAL's process
 
What creates an INFJ or any other type? To what extent is it innate and to what extent is it formed?
Yes, this question is on my mind for a very long time. I have a complex theory, which I think makes sense.
On MBTI and other intruments like that, socionics etc, I think the biggest mistake is that they make it all relative.They very carefully don't make any observation with regard to morallity and absolutism in any sense. The basis of their theories are based on relativism, tolerance and a subtle form of agnosticism. They fear by objectivity, by decribing types in any objective sense. I think all of these views are self-refutable, but the truth is not popular in these days !
Enneagram I think it's much better, since it gives the theory a moral base in a objective sense. Of course, it has its bugs too.
So an imature INFJ might be more outer directed but may become over time more inner directed
Interesting you said that. I think INFJ are naturally very inner directed, the trick is to learn them to be more outer directed, to not be so stuborn ( I am talking about the "wild" ones )
The first two types I was describing are naturally inner directed too, but they somehow think it's wrong, because the pressure of society, so they very hard try to dismiss this "inner drive" that they feel. It's a form of fear, if you want.
The "wild INFJ" is the ones who resist in the face of society, but may fall into the trap of dismiss "outer directive"-ness, which is bad also.
My perspective on all this is that environment is very important. Even if nature is a big factor, environment is undoubtably one as well. People perform differently under different conditions and are happier or sadder under different conditions....so environment is clearly important
Coincidentally or not, today I was reading "Crime and Punishment" by Dostoievski. This idea, that "environment is clearly important" is refuted in the book harshly. I don't think this idea is completly false. I think it's true to some extent, though.
 
Yes, this question is on my mind for a very long time. I have a complex theory, which I think makes sense.
On MBTI and other intruments like that, socionics etc, I think the biggest mistake is that they make it all relative.They very carefully don't make any observation with regard to morallity and absolutism in any sense. The basis of their theories are based on relativism, tolerance and a subtle form of agnosticism. They fear by objectivity, by decribing types in any objective sense. I think all of these views are self-refutable, but the truth is not popular in these days !
Enneagram I think it's much better, since it gives the theory a moral base in a objective sense. Of course, it has its bugs too.

Interesting you said that. I think INFJ are naturally very inner directed, the trick is to learn them to be more outer directed, to not be so stuborn ( I am talking about the "wild" ones )
The first two types I was describing are naturally inner directed too, but they somehow think it's wrong, because the pressure of society, so they very hard try to dismiss this "inner drive" that they feel. It's a form of fear, if you want.
The "wild INFJ" is the ones who resist in the face of society, but may fall into the trap of dismiss "outer directive"-ness, which is bad also.

Coincidentally or not, today I was reading "Crime and Punishment" by Dostoievski. This idea, that "environment is clearly important" is refuted in the book harshly. I don't think this idea is completly false. I think it's true to some extent, though.

I think that the people behind some of the events that were on Dostoievskis mind such as the french revolution were carried out by people who believed that the ends justify the means. This group were formed in Bavaria and called themselves the ''illuminati''

An INFJ is capable of zooming into a human level and empathising with the people who might suffer from certain actions. Therefore INFJ's are not likely culprits for the source or guardians of the ''the ends justify the means'' doctrine

When i said immature INFJ's might be more outer directed i meant that they may be more concerned through the adolescent phase about fitting in, but their natural inclinations for ploughing their own furrow will reassert itself. Its worth baring in mind the outside pressures that are exerted on youngsters to conform as well.....there are rules young folk must play by if they are to get ahead ie go to school, get your grades, jump through the hoops, do as you are told and then you can ''progress'' to the next stage

My view on Jungs influence on MBTI is that he was an incredibly intelligent, intuitive guy who fed his mind a good and varied diet of information; alongside these good ingredients he also interviewed thousands of people over a career spanning decades. These interviews delved deep into the recesses of peoples minds.

So Jung as a naturally intuitive and pattern discearning person began to perceive certain recurring themse running through the section of humanity that he was studying.

He made some generalisations which carry observable truths within them. So one pattern he perceived was that some people are energised by being around others whilst others needed to recharge after being around other people.

As experiencers of this discearnable pattern we can all testify to its truthfullness

So although nothings an exact sciene when it comes to people, it nevertheless carrys a lot of validity
 
I think that the people behind some of the events that were on Dostoievskis mind such as the french revolution were carried out by people who believed that the ends justify the means. This group were formed in Bavaria and called themselves the ''illuminati''

An INFJ is capable of zooming into a human level and empathising with the people who might suffer from certain actions. Therefore INFJ's are not likely culprits for the source or guardians of the ''the ends justify the means'' doctrine
You're right about Dostoievski. I didn't know about the "illuminati" group, though.
But ''the ends justify the means'' doctrine is very real today in many forms. One might say that some people, some MBTI types, are more prone to take ''the ends justify the means'' approach. If they are prone to this, then it's ok for them. It's a "trait". This relativity and simplification to absurd is what bothers me so much.
When i said immature INFJ's might be more outer directed i meant that they may be more concerned through the adolescent phase about fitting in, but their natural inclinations for ploughing their own furrow will reassert itself. Its worth baring in mind the outside pressures that are exerted on youngsters to conform as well.....there are rules young folk must play by if they are to get ahead ie go to school, get your grades, jump through the hoops, do as you are told and then you can ''progress'' to the next stage
I am a big advocate of obedience too. I think is good for the any person to have an authority :)
He made some generalisations which carry observable truths within them. So one pattern he perceived was that some people are energised by being around others whilst others needed to recharge after being around other people.

As experiencers of this discearnable pattern we can all testify to its truthfullness

So although nothings an exact sciene when it comes to people, it nevertheless carrys a lot of validity
Of course that Jung observations are valid, and are a salvation to many peoples. His dicoveries are valid, because they describe "what is".
But some people don't make the distinction between "what is" and "what sould be", or they pretend/lie themselfs that "what should be" don't exist.
With regard to sciente, you don't have "what should be" there. The stones don't "remember" that they "should" obbey to the law of gravity and fall on the ground. But when it comes to people, there is other element in: "what sould be" over "what is".
And yes, I am aware here that Jung did not try to prescribe "what should be" whithin his discoveries. But the problem is that many peoples do exactly that, on the very expense of Jung discoveries.
 
You're right about Dostoievski. I didn't know about the "illuminati" group, though.

It didn't really begin with the jesuit Adam Weishaupt...he was merely a conduit

A dispatch rider carrying illuminati papers incredibly was hit by lightning whilst riding on his horse. The Bavarian authorities got hold of the papers and they found out that this secretive group were aiming to bring down all monarchies and create a world government. They were in the process of formenting discord in France and provided a lot of funds to bring about the french revolution which of course was followed by the bloodletting of 'the terror'. The Bavarian authorities outlawed them but they went underground. That is to say they infiltrated freemasonic lodges and reading groups across the continent and then into the newly formed US. President washington talks about them in his letters

The murdering character in ''crime and punishment'' perhaps mirrors the mindset of the illuminati who call themselves 'the illuminated ones' (note the inherent tone of superiority in that name) and who are carrying out a 'big idea' (as president george bush called it as a member of the illuminati lodge 322, the 'skull and bones')

[video=youtube;byxeOG_pZ1o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxeOG_pZ1o[/video]

These guys fundamentally believe that the ends justify the means. they are happy to wage overt and covert war to acheive their ends, regardless of how many are killed and maimed in the process

But ''the ends justify the means'' doctrine is very real today in many forms. One might say that some people, some MBTI types, are more prone to take ''the ends justify the means'' approach. If they are prone to this, then it's ok for them. It's a "trait". This relativity and simplification to absurd is what bothers me so much.

I think the trait could be called 'psychopathy'....which transcends MBTI as a person exhibiting psycopathic behaviours is no longer definable as a personality type

This group will say that the ends justify the means. They are likely to talk about such things as 'final solutions' or 'culling the useless eaters' and so on

I am a big advocate of obedience too. I think is good for the any person to have an authority :)

I'm not with you there!

I don't believe that coercive hierarchies are conducive to good mental wellbeing

A person should be able to think and feel for themself. If they are busy obeying then they are not busy thinking and feeling...just doing....like a concentration camp guard

Of course that Jung observations are valid, and are a salvation to many peoples. His dicoveries are valid, because they describe "what is".
But some people don't make the distinction between "what is" and "what sould be", or they pretend/lie themselfs that "what should be" don't exist.
With regard to sciente, you don't have "what should be" there. The stones don't "remember" that they "should" obbey to the law of gravity and fall on the ground. But when it comes to people, there is other element in: "what sould be" over "what is".

Unless you are a zen master in which case everything is just as it should be!

But yes that tension between our perception of how things are and how they should be causes a polarity...a tension within us

That reminds me of a good quote:

Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps; for he is the only animal that is struck with the difference between what things are, and what they ought to be.
[On Wit and Humour - Lectures on the English Comic Writers (1819)]
William Hazlitt

And yes, I am aware here that Jung did not try to prescribe "what should be" whithin his discoveries. But the problem is that many peoples do exactly that, on the very expense of Jung discoveries.

Its a tool, that's all. The usefullness of the tool is dependent on the skill of the user
 
Last edited:
I'm not with you there!

I don't believe that coercive hierarchies are conducive to good mental wellbeing

A person should be able to think and feel for themself. If they are busy obeying then they are not busy thinking and feeling...just doing....like a concentration camp guard
By authority I don't mean coercion. It's a very big difference. In fact, when there is no authority, coercion will take its place.
 
By authority I don't mean coercion. It's a very big difference. In fact, when there is no authority, coercion will take its place.

There's a difference bewteen listening to someone because you resepct their knowledge or their skills and listening to someone because they have some sort of power over you

I would use the word 'authority' to describe the latter of the two. I don't recognise anyones authority, but i will listen to and respond to people i respect or to ideas i think make sense

I will even listen to the idea of someone i don't like and i'll go along with that idea, if i think it's the best one. a lot of people won't do that. A lot of people will only go along with the idea of someone they feel bound to in some way even if that idea is a terrible one

So if we were living in an anarchist communist society there would be people that would be listended to becuase they were understood to have experience and/or know how

Lets say that today you decided that you wanted to help the community with the farming. Yet get your work clothes on and head down to the permacultre areas and ask the workers council there what you can do to help. One of the people there is an experienced farmer and he/she then talks you through what you are going to be doing that day (if you decide that is what you want to do).

You are likely to listen to that person because you recognise their knowledge and respect it and you are glad to benefit from it as by doing so you yourself expand your own knowledge and skills.

The reward of the person sharing their knowledge is that they get to use their knowledge to produce something and to benefit themselves and their community and are a respected member of the community

Another day you might decide to help the community in another way. You might brush the dirt off your hands and then go and visit the techs and be engaged in working with cutting edge technology. the techs will have their own experts as people with an aptitude for such things will have gravitated there and you can then benefit from their knowledge and expertise

There wouldn't be any pressure over deadlines as there aren't any profits being pursued as money doesn't exist. Everyone contributes something into the community store and out of that everyone gets what they need. You can also have a say in the decision making process in the regular workers councils

There might be a harvest to get in before the winter, but if the farming council needed extra hands they might appeal to the rest of the community to maybe do some more shifts in the fields....but in reality everything is becoming more mechanised so people will need to do less and less hard graft...unless they wanted to

In contrast in a capitalist society....you would need to choose probably one career direction and although it would be possible to change it might be difficult especially when you have bills, taxes, rents/mortgage and interest to pay on loans and credit cards and so on

if you went into farming you would be told what you were going to be doing, whether you liked it or not and you would have to work fast to meet profit driven deadlines. You would have no say in how things were done as this would come from an authority figure above you. If you tried to take it easy to save energy you would lsoe your job and then you wouldn't be able to pay all your rents, bills, taxes, debts and so on.

If your boss was a dick because he himself was being pressured by his own taxes, bills and so on then you would just need to suck it up and carry on or you would fall out with him/her and then lose your job.....no one will care about your health.....if you become sick a doctor will give you antibiotics and send you back to work....if you become anxious your doctor will give you some meds to suppress the mental processes which process emotion and then send you back to work

Authority is coercive, respect is not
 
Last edited:
There's a difference bewteen listening to someone because you resepct their knowledge or their skills and listening to someone because they have some sort of power over you

I would use the word 'authority' to describe the latter of the two. I don't recognise anyones authority, but i will listen to and respond to people i respect or to ideas i think make sense

Authority is coercive, respect is not
Yes... somehow. I was talking about the kind of authority that protects someone. Think of the law of one state, with its own organs of protecting that law, the police and other such organs. If a bad guy steal something, this authority will make use of its power to catch the bad boy and give his part. The guy didn't respected the law, did not obbey to it, and so the law use power - which is not a coercive power, it would be corrective power - to imprison that guy. So, in my mind, a good authority is always protective, because it defends some fundamental rights of the man, like the right for freedom, for example. Of course, there are other kinds of authority, which are negative nevertheless.
 
Yes... somehow. I was talking about the kind of authority that protects someone. Think of the law of one state, with its own organs of protecting that law, the police and other such organs. If a bad guy steal something, this authority will make use of its power to catch the bad boy and give his part. The guy didn't respected the law, did not obbey to it, and so the law use power - which is not a coercive power, it would be corrective power - to imprison that guy. So, in my mind, a good authority is always protective, because it defends some fundamental rights of the man, like the right for freedom, for example. Of course, there are other kinds of authority, which are negative nevertheless.

When power is centralised it will always lead to corruption and exploitation

Lets look at our own society as an example

There has been a spate of banking crimes/scandals that have been in the news. Out of all the bankers involved in those frauds which have indebted millions only one has been jailed: Bernie Madhoff and the only reason he was jailed was because he didn't just steal from the poor he stole from the rich as well

The number of police detectives has fallen. these are the guys who investigate crime. less crime is being investigated. More attention and money is now being invested into spying on the public itself who are increasingly being treated as criminals whether it is being searched in airports or stop and searched on the streets or having all your phone messages, texts, emails and online activity monitored and stored, or police road blocks or police brutality, changes to law such as the NDAA, we are seeing that increasingly the state views the general public as the enemy

Do you know where i see most cops? Doing speed traps....trying to catch taxpaying commuters as they go to work for going a little over the speed limits.

The police are not there to protect you...they are there to protect the bankers....thats why they form barriers whenever the public protest.

In portugal recently a police cheif resigned because the police themselves protested in their thousands against cuts to their pay and pensions. There was the biazrre scene of police chanting and waving banners in front of police barricades

In another european country recently the fire brigade protested and they drove right upto the police barriers and sprayed them down with fire fighting foam until the police were standing upto their waists in it!

Prevention is better than cure

Its better to create a stable and balanced society where people won't feel the need to steel then to create an unequal, status driven society full of poverty and the resultant thefts which must be aggressively crushed by the state

But if the bankers want to feel special by lording it over everyone else then they will have to continue hiring the services of thugs to protect them against the people they are trying to dominate causing constant tension and conflict

Instead of creating a brutal and oppressive police state it is better to alleviate poverty
 
Back
Top