INFP vs. INFJ: A Functional Analysis

[Limit]

Well you're saying that an Fe user can't tap into Fi, this is like saying a major part of your brain is completely cut off.

We use every function.

Edit: And instead of linking articles trying to make scientific sense of MBTI written by some random person who pretends to have some credibility, try and remember that there's a reason MBTI is kept out of most psychological studies, and that's because it's largely unknown about, misinterpreted, or complete BS.

Then I suggest you don't tell someone they're wrong. Especially when you can't differentiate between MBTI and JCF, can't back what you're claiming, and show no real proof that you have any understanding on Jung's, Lenore's, or even Bebe's works.

You're not contributing to the conversation or furthering understanding.

 

[Morgain]

The simple answer is

 

[88chaz88]

Then I suggest you don't tell someone they're wrong. Especially when you can't differentiate between MBTI and JCF, can't back what you're claiming, and show no real proof that you have any understanding on Jung's, Lenore's, or even Bebe's works.

You're not contributing to the conversation or furthering understanding.

Well since you're in the mood of starting this up again let's have a recap. You said an Fe user can't tap into Fi. I said you're wrong. You then link me an "article" which isn't an article at all and has about as much credibility as a wet paper towel. Crazily though I actually agree with it and suggest you to read it again because you obviously haven't fully comprehended it by making ridiculous ultimate statements like you did.

Then to top it all off you claim to never have said what you did in the first place!

Anyway you want proof or understanding of what I'm claiming? Look anywhere. You said yourself "I know quite a bit about shadow theory" then say that you can't use shadow functions. That would mean shadow theory doesn't exist.

Feel free to backtrack further.

 

[arbygil]

Let's keep it nice, y'all....

But I can see where both ideas have merit. Beebe and Berens both subscribe to the shadow function, which in effect says we access all eight functions. Jung does not mention (or use) shadow functions. Lenore Thompson also subscribes to shadow functions.

*But* it's extremely difficult to know if you're accessing the "shadow functions" or not because you're not consciously using them. It's the Blind/Unknown area of the Johari Window. If you say you flit back and forth between Fi/Fe or Ti/Te or Ne/Ni or what have you, you're probably not. Instead, you're probably using two functions (auxiliary and tertiary, perhaps) to mimic another function. That happens far more often.

The thing is, if you use your functions well there's no question; it just happens. You just do it. But honestly you can't just "switch" back and forth without a) a huge amount of effort or b) you're mentally unstable, because they're complete opposites from who you are and what's comfortable for you.

So I'd say yes it's *possible* but not probable. If you're able to tap into the shadow function, you're able to do a complete 180 at the height of your emotion, and you're able to stop the behavior you don't like in its tracks. You have to recognize that you're acting up (which means knowing yourself well enough that you know you're acting up) and you have to do something completely different than you normally do to change the behavior as it's happening.

Berens quote:

The Pattern
The pattern of the processes can be represented by a stick figure. At the head is the process we lead with, commonly called the Dominant. At the right hand is the process we use in a supportive way, commonly called the Auxiliary. At the left hand is the process we use in a relief-giving way, commonly called the Tertiary. And at the feet is what we aspire to, commonly called the Inferior. Since this process is what we aspire to be doing well, it is often what “makes our feet go” even when we are unaware of wanting to go in that direction.

Think of the shadow processes as being situated just behind the stick figure to show that they are in the background. Just like a shadow, they are always there, but we are most often not actively using them.

http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/16types.html

 

[InvisibleJim]

I'm not a great fan of shadow functions.

I understand that the dominant and support (1st and 2nd) act in the conscious; the tertiary flip flops in and out of conscious control and the anima/us is mostly subconscious.

What Beebe would seem to argue is that somehow we magically access the other societal archetypes via some magical anima/us development. I'm not sure if that is possible; I can understand the distinction that we may soften our views to the other archetypes via. experience as we initially build our ego from a dominant function and then attitude of this function from societal archetypes and then support that via. further cognitive development, but not exactly that we somehow magically start to display other attributes.

However, I can agree that we can often show/feel the opposite of our tertiary (Ti vs Te for INFJs). There is also the magic conundrum that Ni obeys a lot of Fi laws as it forges an internal monologue by stringing intuition together into the ego and attempting to protect that path from the external world.

I think there is a lot of work to be done identifying how for the individual types the other functions can be cobbled together via a number of routes but it would appear they would regress to the default setup in most cases.

 

[arbygil]

I'm not a great fan of shadow functions.

I understand that the dominant and support (1st and 2nd) act in the conscious; the tertiary flip flops in and out of conscious control and the anima/us is mostly subconscious.

What Beebe would seem to argue is that somehow we magically access the other societal archetypes via some magical anima/us development. I'm not sure if that is possible; I can understand the distinction that we may soften our views to the other archetypes via. experience as we initially build our ego from a dominant function and then attitude of this function from societal archetypes and then support that via. further cognitive development, but not exactly that we somehow magically start to display other attributes.

However, I can agree that we can often show/feel the opposite of our tertiary (Ti vs Te for INFJs). There is also the magic conundrum that Ni obeys a lot of Fi laws as it forges an internal monologue by stringing intuition together into the ego and attempting to protect that path from the external world.

I think there is a lot of work to be done identifying how for the individual types the other functions can be cobbled together via a number of routes but it would appear they would regress to the default setup in most cases.

There is definitely a lot to learn and to be honest, most everything MBTI or function-related is theoretical. I think shadow functions may be likely, but I don't feel they're conscious in us. They're what we don't like about us and they literally aren't seen unless we "blow up" (the, "where did that come from" factor). Also under severe, prolonged stress we tend to protect ourselves mentally, in the same way we would protect ourselves physically in a physical accident (throw our hands up, scream, turn away, etc). It's a knee-jerk reaction. I think we do access all 8 functions, but not consistently and only on rare occasions. To me, I think the shadow functions are more "knee-jerk" reactions to potentially dangerous mental situations (depression, suicidal thoughts, bipolar disorders, etc).

Just personal thoughts, tho'.

 

[Hyuri]

INFJ: "I can sympathize with where you're coming from--allow me to emphasize some sort of cultural bond or familial connection that relates us in an objectively observable way and suggests that we have some degree of responsibility toward each other. Only through committed responsibility to these objective relationships can we form the social hierarchy by which we will decide--together through collective experience--what constitutes moral and ethical behavior within the communal bonds of our lives together. Morality is simply too important to be decided by any individual without any input from the consensus of the people he trusts, loves and respects."

Gee this source makes INFJs look extremely robotic.. Rather caricature-like, IMO.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Gee this source makes INFJs look extremely robotic.. Rather caricature-like, IMO.

I agree with it, and I can see how it sounds robotic, but it doesn't have to be. You don't see context with this excerpt.

I am exactly this way when I help people and give advice, but I am certainly not a cold robot when I do this. Although, just because someone is an F type doesn't mean they are going to be touchy-feely emotional. If anything Fe is less sterotypically F like then Fi is.

 

[Hyuri]

I agree with it, and I can see how it sounds robotic, but it doesn't have to be. You don't see context with this excerpt.

I am exactly this way when I help people and give advice, but I am certainly not a cold robot when I do this. Although, just because someone is an F type doesn't mean they are going to be touchy-feely emotional. If anything Fe is less sterotypically F like then Fi is.

No - I don't think it's wrong, it's just that I think it's exaggerated.

When I think about myself, I do think I can be emotionally removed from what I'm saying/writing when I give advice or try to be encouraging - but not THAT much.

 

[IndigoSensor]

No - I don't think it's wrong, it's just that I think it's exaggerated.

When I think about myself, I do think I can be emotionally removed from what I'm saying/writing when I give advice or try to be encouraging - but not THAT much.

From my personal experience, I can very easily. If I don't know the person well it is completely natural. This is just me, but I venture to guess I am not the only one who can, hence I think it is valid.

 

[Trifoilum]

From my personal experience, I can very easily. If I don't know the person well it is completely natural. This is just me, but I venture to guess I am not the only one who can, hence I think it is valid.

Me too. In fact when I become too engrossed, that signals an alarm inside my head that tells me to be careful.

*But* it's extremely difficult to know if you're accessing the "shadow functions" or not because you're not consciously using them. It's the Blind/Unknown area of the Johari Window. If you say you flit back and forth between Fi/Fe or Ti/Te or Ne/Ni or what have you, you're probably not. Instead, you're probably using two functions (auxiliary and tertiary, perhaps) to mimic another function. That happens far more often.

agreed with this, despite my belief. Now I can't speak for everyone, but for me most attempts that I'd alluded by my tapping back and forth is something that's recognized in retrospect. And indeed combining two functions to mimic one another is another possibility by itself, and it surely doesn't seem like it's been explored really far (so far, only VH's done this. God I miss VH. >_>)

 

[Razare]

INFPs and INFJs, when analyzed in depth, really have very little in common in terms of their personal philosophies and motivations.

Yes, exactly. This is why I am so confused by people claiming to be an undetermined INFJ/INFP or even worse, an INFX hybrid. Just because the test gives you a -0- on the J score or something, does NOT mean you are an INFX since that literally requires you to express every cognitive function in MBTI. Maybe you can express more functions than your personality possesses, which I actually doubt, but whatever the case, you wont consciously express all functions.

It's like on the INTP forums, I had this guy say how he was confused because he began his life as an INFP and then switched to an INFJ. He described his behavior all throughout his life and it was very clear to me, and I gave very convincing evidence to him based on what he described, that he was in fact always an INFJ from the get-go and never once behaved like an INFP would. After he read my post, he agreed. It's really a lack of understanding the difference between these two types that leads people towards confusion.

I think you have to know an INFP at least a few years to get a good grasp of the difference. I thought I was similar to the one I know at first, but I can't stand her anymore. 100% of their thought is focused on their own values, and I can't think of a behavior any more conceited and selfish. They are usually very nice people too, which hides the nature of their selfishness. In fact, in outward actions, I am more selfish than my INFJ friend. It's our inner motivations that differ so strongly as to be like black and white. Everything in an INFJ's life serves their inner values. Those values are good too, which means they are generally good people, and very caring of others. Yet, they will then plaster their personal values on the rest of the world, and expect the world to uphold what they believe is right. Their close friendships must share these core values, or it drives them away. >.< But take my post with a grain of salt, I'm having a problem with an INFJ friend. Rather, I guess I should say I am forcibly removing her from my friend list whether she likes it or not. As to why I am doing this, maybe I'll bring it up in another post.

 

[Morgain]

I think you have to know an INFP at least a few years to get a good grasp of the difference. I thought I was similar to the one I know at first, but I can't stand her anymore. 100% of their thought is focused on their own values, and I can't think of a behavior any more conceited and selfish. They are usually very nice people too, which hides the nature of their selfishness.

I don't think you should base your judgements of types on one friend who is supposed to be that type. It is very obvious that different people of the same type behave differently because of a different use of there functions. To generalize a group of people based on the behaviour of one member of that group is never a valuable thing to do.

And I don't see how "having personal values" is a selfish thing. I would say it depends on what the values are. Say one person has figured out for himself independently from others that caring for others is a valuable thing to do and a second person believes it too because his whole community values this. Would the first man be selfish because for him it is an inner value? I can see why it seems selfish but focussing on your own values is not the same as thinking only of your own benefit. I find it important to figure out what I value, what is important to me so I would not run around like a cheep following the group. If a group values something it doesn't mean that the value is right (let take the nazzi's as an example). If the group believes that it is alright to eliminate the weaker persons in a group to make the group stronger, is it then selfish to not follow the group but follow your own values instead?

Whether a person is selfish or not depends on their actions and the reason for their actions, not on their MBTI. Saying an INFP is selfish is the same as saying an INTP has no feelings, neither is true

 

[Animekitty]

From this link

INFP

(Fi) Subjective morality
(Ne) Possibility's of external changes
(Si) Sensory data is correlated with memories of past experience
(Te) Empirical validation

My subjective morality (Fi) is empirical validated (Te) by my actions

I am good by my efforts to be good and to perfect myself.

I know how the world can be changed in order to become moral (Ne) because I have remember when I was in good moral situations (Si)

INFJ

(Ni) Possibility's of personal changes
(Fe) Objective morality
(Ti) Theoretical validation
(Se) Sensory data evoke's reaction of instinct to current situations

People are only objectively moral (Fe) by the theoretical validation (Ti) I adherer to.

People are good by the standard of which good is so defined.

I know what I must do to a become objectively moral (Ni) and I can do so by adjusting my instinctual reactions accordingly (Se)

 

[Limit]

From this link




My subjective morality (Fi) is empirical validated (Te) by my actions

I am good by my efforts to be good and to perfect myself.

I know how the world can be changed in order to become moral (Ne) because I have remember when I was in good moral situations (Si)



People are only objectively moral (Fe) by the theoretical validation (Ti) I adherer to.

People are good by the standard of which good is so defined.

I know what I must do to a become objectively moral (Ni) and I can do so by adjusting my instinctual reactions accordingly (Se)

I was like,

 

[TaylorS]

http://www.personalitynation.com/jungian-cognitive-functions/2364-functions-simplified.htmlPeople are only objectively moral (Fe) by the theoretical validation (Ti) I adherer to.

People are good by the standard of which good is so defined.

I know what I must do to a become objectively moral (Ni) and I can do so by adjusting my instinctual reactions accordingly (Se)

That fits me very well, thanks!

 

[Arsal]

You can use all functions. MBTI only states which ones you prefer or are easier to use.

Well you're saying that an Fe user can't tap into Fi, this is like saying a major part of your brain is completely cut off.

We use every function.

I would really like to know why you think so. Please elaborate, possibly with examples, how you think it is possible to use both Fi and Fe?

 

[88chaz88]

I would really like to know why you think so. Please elaborate, possibly with examples, how you think it is possible to use both Fi and Fe?

Because it makes absolutely no sense that common aspects of human personality is completely shut off.

Why do you think that an Fe user can't ever possibly use Fi at all?

 

[Arsal]

Because it makes absolutely no sense that common aspects of human personality is completely shut off.

Why do you think that an Fe user can't ever possibly use Fi at all?

Because you cannot use something that you don't know exists.

Fe and Ti are yin and yang. When you are conscious of one, you are conscious of the absence of the other, and in turn, conscious of it as well. Whenever an Fe-user feel like using Fi, they switch to Ti or Fe that resembles Fi, but not actual Fi, simply because they don't know how to use Fi as it is not in a part of their psyche that they are familiar with.

Theoretically, you could learn to use Fi, but you would have reprogram your entire psyche for that, and unless you electrocute yourself/smash a brick over your head repeatedly/inject steroids directly into your brain, there's no way this would be possible in the current MBTI/JCF model.

 

[88chaz88]

Because you cannot use something that you don't know exists.

Fe and Ti are yin and yang. When you are conscious of one, you are conscious of the absence of the other, and in turn, conscious of it as well. Whenever an Fe-user feel like using Fi, they switch to Ti or Fe that resembles Fi, but not actual Fi, simply because they don't know how to use Fi as it is not in a part of their psyche that they are familiar with.

Theoretically, you could learn to use Fi, but you would have reprogram your entire psyche for that, and unless you electrocute yourself/smash a brick over your head repeatedly/inject steroids directly into your brain, there's no way this would be possible in the current MBTI/JCF model.

So there are personality aspects in half the population that the other half do not, and can not possibly possess without something shot of a lobotomy?

Bullshit.

Also by your logic, actors can't play characters of other types and writers can't create characters of other types.