INFP: The Truest NF?

Reverie said:
Oh brother... :m080::m095:
I propose we settle this the old fashioned way...
:m114:
All 4 types of idealists and INTJs meet behind the tool shed at dawn and the one who most adamantly declines to fight, discourages other to fight or denounces the fight as inane wins.
Click to expand...

lol
 
InvisibleJim said:
INTJs are more idealist than you pretenders!!!!!1eleventyone1!!

Ni - Infj idealism
Fi - infp idealism

Te - follow through
Click to expand...

Boooooooooooo

*throws paper balls at*
 
I think what's most important is that fact to be an NF, it is implied that all NF types share at least some basic level of similarity. They're all considered idealists for a reason, even if by some definition somewhere one type seems more NF than another. I can see why Fi + Ne might make for more idealism, but I still still the 4 types as equally NF. It's what makes them themselves.

*shrug*
 
knight in battle said:
So you do agree that some are by definition truer NFs?
Click to expand...

No, since simply because a definition exists, it does not mean that it has any worth. ;) I disagree with the concept of one type being more NF than another, so consequently I do not agree with a definition that would support this.

I could be swayed, though, with more evidence, perhaps. I'm just not sold on the idea at the moment. : )
 
knight in battle said:
What sort of evidence do you require?
Click to expand...

If I knew what, or what sort of evidence I needed then I'd already have it. ;D

I simply keep an open mind that there could be evidence out there contradicting my opinion, and that I might stumble upon it at some point. Until then...

Also, I am not certain what the significance of INFPs being more NF according to one of many definitions would be, but you do write thorough, well thought out posts, so maybe you could help me here. :) You're probably more well-versed in the ways of MBTI than I am.
 
hush said:
I simply keep an open mind that there could be evidence out there contradicting my opinion, and that I might stumble upon it at some point. Until then...

You're probably more well-versed in the ways of MBTI than I am.
Click to expand...
The open mind is why I asked. The problem with becoming well-versed is I have to keep asking and digging for more info. :(

Maybe I'm just obsessed with studying my complement (INFPs). I do think that self-actualization is seen in both of the INFs, but each has his/her own emphasis.
 
knight in battle said:
The open mind is why I asked. The problem with becoming well-versed is I have to keep asking and digging for more info. :(
Click to expand...

For a while, I was strongly into MBTI and kept digging and searching for more info, but somehow the more I probed less substantial MBTI seemed to be, when combined with and compared to all the other factors that forge identity, behavior, and the like. In other words, I haven't been placing as much value in MBTI as I used to. I am still appreciative of the wisdom it offers, but am hesitant to draw any conclusions or judgments based on it. As everything, this could change.

Maybe I'm just obsessed with studying my complement (INFPs). I do think that self-actualization is seen in both of the INFs, but each has his/her own emphasis.
Click to expand...

That could be. You have had a fair amount of INFP posts, threads, entries, etc. as of late. In any case, the discussions are still fun to read. I love reading through everyone's insights, info, and opinions on the matters. :3
 
hush said:
I am still appreciative of the wisdom it offers

That could be. You have had a fair amount of INFP posts, threads, entries, etc. as of late. In any case, the discussions are still fun to read.
Click to expand...
To me, even though nobody likes boxes, I still think it's simpler than SLOAN/FFM. FFM is too disorganized, though it does provide a more detailed analysis, it seems. MB is much quicker snapshot of a person. We all want to augment and improve on it, but obviously we still love it.

It's also better than horoscopes. Enneagram works in tandem with MB. So unless I'm @Sherlock Holmes with a detailed deductive analysis of everyone, MB is good for INFJ obsessively analytical in-the-box thinkers like me. And if we don't have boxes, we will construct them. :D
 
knight in battle said:
To me, even though nobody likes boxes, I still think it's simpler than SLOAN/FFM. FFM is too disorganized, though it does provide a more detailed analysis, it seems. MB is much quicker snapshot of a person. We all want to augment and improve on it, but obviously we still love it.

It's also better than horoscopes. Enneagram works in tandem with MB. So unless I'm @Sherlock Holmes with a detailed deductive analysis of everyone, MB is good for INFJ obsessively analytical in-the-box thinkers like me. And if we don't have boxes, we will construct them. :D
Click to expand...

lol, I think those boxes are what have me conflicted. I feel drawn yet repulsed by them at the same time. When I think box, I think something you have to try to struggle to get into, and that ultimately in order to do so you might have to lose pieces of yourself in order to fit inside. They do have some utility, though. Plus, I got frustrated and gave up on finding my type, so that might have been part of it. :P I thought I knew my enneagram, too. I think I have a clearer picture of both now.

Still, I get conflicted - sometimes MBTI seems to oversimplify, and at other times to delve into greater depths than many would care to consider. At least it makes me wonder. :]

But yeah, for now I'll just stick with all are equally NF. NF is just a component of each, though, and it is the rest of their personality, functions, etc. that make them the types, and ultimately the unique people they are. I kind of see NF as one of the bases of personality, shared by each, and that it exists concurrently with and is not lessened by, say, a set of functions. It may manifest differently from person to person, but it is still NF.

Out of curiosity, how many NFs find that Keirsey's definition summed up here rings true for you (and to what degree, parts of it, etc.)?

Idealists are abstract in speech and cooperative in pursuing their goals. Their greatest strength is diplomatic integration. Their best developed intelligence role is either mentoring (Counselors and Teachers) or advocacy (Healers and Champions).

As the identity-seeking temperament, Idealists long for meaningful communication and relationships. They search for profound truths hidden beneath the surface, often expressing themselves in metaphor. Focused on the future, they are enthusiastic about possibilities, and they continually strive for self-renewal.
Interests: Idealists tend to study the humanities. They seek careers facilitating the personal growth of others, whether through education, counseling, or other pursuits that promote the happiness and fulfillment of individuals and society.
Orientation: The lives of Idealists are guided by their devotion to their personal ethics.[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealist_temperament#cite_note-keirsey-0[/SUP] They are altruistic, taking satisfaction in the well-being of others. They believe in the basic goodness of the world and of the people in it. They take a holistic view toward suffering and misfortune, regarding them as part of a larger, unknowable truth, a mystical cause-and-effect. With an eye toward the future, they view life as a journey toward a deeper spiritual knowledge.

Self-image: The Idealists' self-esteem is rooted in empathetic action; their self-respect in their benevolence; and their self-confidence in their personal authenticity.
Values: The emotions of Idealists "are both easily aroused and quickly discharged."[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealist_temperament#cite_note-understand-1[/SUP] Their general demeanor is enthusiastic. They trust their intuition and yearn for romance. They seek deeper self-knowledge and want to be understood for who they are behind the social roles they are forced to play. They aspire to wisdom that transcends ego and the bounds of the material world.

Social roles: Idealists seek mutuality in their personal relationships. Romantically, they want a soulmate with whom they can share a deep spiritual connection. As parents, they encourage their children to form harmonious relationships and engage in imaginative play. In their professional and social lives, Idealists strive to be catalysts of positive change.
Click to expand...

Apparently Keirsey NFs tended to share certain similarities with SJs and NTs:


[h=3]Traits in common with other temperaments[/h] Keirsey identified the following traits of the Idealist temperament:[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealist_temperament#cite_note-keirsey-0[/SUP]


  • Abstract in communicating (like Rationals)
Idealists focus not on what is, but on what could be or what ought to be. They see the world as rich with possibilities for deeper understanding.

  • Cooperative in pursuing their goals (like Guardians)
Idealists believe that conflict raises barriers between people, preventing society from reaching its full potential. Idealists seek harmony in personal and professional relationships, working toward solutions that respect the needs of all parties involved.
Click to expand...
 
Ame said:
well, the OP never said they had to follow through . . . n'stuff. :m067:
Click to expand...

mochi said:
Boooooooooooo

*throws paper balls at*
Click to expand...

Oh yeah? Well... Pew pew to you too! :m105:

bush-matrix.gif
 
knight in battle said:
What sort of evidence do you require?
Click to expand...
Well it would be helpful to have
1) A good thorough definition of idealism
2) A description on how it manifests in each type of NF
3.) A compelling argument why based on 1) and 2) as to why INFP is the truest idealist
....
4.) TRUEST idealist... define the word true in this context too

These would all be helpful if we were to actually try and assess this in any seemingly rational way (...i hope there are no Ts here... ;D )

knight in battle said:
The open mind is why I asked. The problem with becoming well-versed is I have to keep asking and digging for more info. :(

Maybe I'm just obsessed with studying my complement (INFPs). I do think that self-actualization is seen in both of the INFs, but each has his/her own emphasis.
Click to expand...
And really... self-actualization... define again.
You have to be a little more precise with the terms. These claim a lot and say...not so much.
Wikipedia says...
-man's tendency to actualize himself, to become his potentialities...to express and activate all the capacities of the organism.
-the motive to realize one's full potential.
-"the tendency to actualize, as much as possible, [the organism's] individual capacities" in the world.
-Self Actualization is predicated on the individual having their lower deficiency needs met. Once a person has moved through feeling and believing that they are deficient, they naturally seek to grow into who they are, that is self-actualize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization
How on earth is this is any way type related?????? Here is where you really have to throw MBTI out of the window unless you only use it to find clues as to how you'd best become self-actualized.
:mpff:
 
[MENTION=4982]Reverie[/MENTION]
I find it interesting that the highest part of his "hierarchy" is: morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts.

I suppose the self-actualized person according to Maslow could be summed up as a spontaneous, creative usage of objective facts in tackling problems without prejudice toward a moral purpose.

I find creativity and spontaneity to be of greatest delight on the list, personally.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
 
I guess that's one way of summing it up. :wink:
Or just being objective and creative in general...and realistic too it seems...acceptance of facts there...
It does stink a little NF though... You'd think for a dry rational logical type doing your taxes really really efficiently and exactly would be very fulfilling and self-actualizing... I know a couple people who delight in meticulous execution of tasks that make me snore at the thought of them.
I thought worth noting in the article:
Some of these criticisms may be really about Maslow's choice of terminology, especially with the term "self-actualization". "Self-actualization" might not effectively convey his observations that this higher level of motivation is really about focusing on becoming the best person one can possibly become, in the service of both the self and others: "A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately at peace with himself. What a man can be, he must be. He must be true to his own nature. This need we may call self-actualization."[19] At these higher levels of motivation, what we do generally benefits everyone, but Maslow's term might not be as good at clarifying that as it could have been.

...and accountants must do accounts, maintenance men must fix doorhandles, bus drivers drive busses....

true to his nature, so an INTP being very INTP or an ESTJ being very ESTJ in a healthy way would both be self-actualized
 
Reverie said:
Well it would be helpful to have
1) A good thorough definition of idealism
2) A description on how it manifests in each type of NF
3.) A compelling argument why based on 1) and 2) as to why INFP is the truest idealist
....
4.) TRUEST idealist... define the word true in this context too
Click to expand...

This.
And really... self-actualization... define again.
You have to be a little more precise with the terms. These claim a lot and say...not so much.

How on earth is this is any way type related?????? Here is where you really have to throw MBTI out of the window unless you only use it to find clues as to how you'd best become self-actualized.
:mpff:
Click to expand...

I think similarly of self-actualization. To me, it isn't really something that applies more to one type than another, it's the best anyone can be, which is different for each person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top