And you have a typically Ni stubborn reluctance to consider anything outside of your own paradigm.
But it doesn't include what is correct Nobleheart, it includes a very small scope of what is correct.I don't have to consider anything outside of my paradigm when my paradigm includes what is correct. Considering what is not correct is an exercise in confusion, which INTPs seem to excel at.
I think this theory is very creative, and the intention of it is very good, to promote a deeper understanding of these cognitive functions which we are all focused upon understanding more clearly.
The problem I have with this thread is that it is leading people in a direction that confuses both the nature of type and cognitive functions by delving so far into shadow functions that you're actually describing types other than INFJs in most cases.
I'd be happy to shut down any of the examples you wish with a detailed account. I personally found most of them to be so ludicrous that addressing the entire volume of them would have taken an hour or more of my time which could have been better served doing something less redundant.
And you have a typically Ni stubborn reluctance to consider anything outside of your own paradigm. I figured I might get resistance out of you more than anyone, considering you are the MBTI Guru around here and I am treading on your territory. Dude, really? You are taking the revolutionary away!? Wow Nobleheart, just wow. That is by far the most accurate and most important one. The Revolutionary is the standard far more than the Academic is. Especially if that Academic is also a revolutionary.
I'm confident with every example I gave (Except maybe Sacha Baron Cohen*), the fictional ones are not too important, but the theory behind it is solid, and I'm not changing any of it just because you can't see it. Unless of course you can show me otherwise, without just saying "WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!"
*Indigosensor: I think you might have been on to something when you said you are not seeing Fe... I took a second look at one of his interviews that he is doing out of character. Damn, his mouth is unaware of itself, which indicates he is articulating out of Te. I'm seeing INTJ... He is definitely an Ni dom for sure though... *Sigh* now I need a new method actor, how embarassing.
Bjork is INFJ to the core. Listen carefully to this song:
YouTube- Bjork - Wanderlust
It's almost a distillation of the essence of the true INFJ.
Perfect... I could not have said it any better myself, you are absolutely right. Lyra, this is why I told you before that even an MBTI expert practitioner would have failed to typed you. It is not skill or knowledge level that is the problem, it is the limitation of the conceptual framework that they are working with.
Method actor? How about a relevant example: the INFJ whose method acting caused INTPf to close registrations for several months. And who cobra'd her way back in. And whose method acting was originally employed towards revolutionary ends, but then degenerated into 'destroyer of worlds' when the response was inadequate.
You know...
Your OP is just perfect. I'm just happy that somebody out there (i.e. you) recognises that such traits can go together, and that they combine to form a coherent whole, or originate from a common source; if 'INJF' is the word for that coherent whole or common source, then INFJ it is.
I spent a long time fighting the MBTI-- I hated it. But your posts have made me realise that it's not the MBTI itself that I was fighting, but the murky waters of dogma and restrictive and non-dynamic verbal stereotypes which most of its modern practitioners wallow in. That version of the MBTI-- the prevailing version of the MBTI, and the version that typically causes people to reject your posts-- simply does not mesh with an advanced understanding of how people work, and how variable they are. It is infected with moralism, and is calcified and non-dynamic. Typology as you present it has elevated my understanding of myself, and given me a language of human behaviour unmatched by any other systemic conceptual model I've encountered. It works; it fits with my experience, it doesn't force exclusion of a significant amount of contradictory information (as the version of every other internet-MBTI-theorist I've encounter does), and it's a significant contribution to humanity's understanding of itself.
What repels me about typology forums, uniformly, is that the versions of the types generally accepted are surfaces: combination of superficial traits, tendencies, and appearances which adherence to is taken as proof of being an example of. The model is very rarely thought of in terms of its underlying conceptual coherency, and thus somebody who appears to differ from the more common results of the interaction of their type's cognitive functions is assigned to whatever other collection of surface-appearance best fits them (in the opinion of he whom is assigning). The result is a worthless interplay of worn-out stereotypes and parodies of the complexity of humanity, and a place for weak people to come and find a description which gives them a sense of self, and a tepid validation. The vituperation with which systemic attempts at innovation and clarification are met is, I think, a result of this: most people on typology forums are not there for understanding, but because they need to substitute a collection of traits (the meaning of which they do not comprehend, and the overall systemic context of which they do not challenge, regardless of whether they enjoy fantasising that they are ''Architects'' and ''Masterminds'' or not) for genuine character.
Your conception goes beyond that, to the functional language of the model itself, and thus to that which is not bound by superficiality. Or, put another way, to the relationship between the immensely varied surface-appearances which the functions can produce. It illuminates the essence of the model-- which has validity-- and consequently does not place restrictions upon appearance. It also strips people of the comfort which their adopted identity-- their donned superficiality-- gives them, which is why you do, and will continue to, receive highly negative reactions from people whose conceptual understanding you challenge. Most people don't want the truth about themselves.
Lyra.
This right here?
No, because MBTI is actually seeing and recognizing an existent pattern. The problem with MBTI is that it is not seeing the full pattern, only a very small and superficial point of view. This is why MBTI can only be not more than 75% accurate (I personally would say it is more like 60%), and they can only type people who do not have personality disorders. Because while even people with personality disorders have personalities, their understanding of the functionality behind the personality is very flawed and limited.MBTI wouldn't exist if it didn't work.
The difference I see here is we are approaching this from different sides, Ni versus Ne. I won't lie Ne thinking drives me nuts, I can't stand it because it can't be pinned down. The purpose of MBTI is to put people in to boxes. To me it seems like you are trying to open them up to fit more people. The problem is though you are going to do it to the point where you can no longer define people by MBTI at all. That's part of the reason I haven't responded to this in detail. You're trying to break down the walls, which are infact needed in order for MBTI to work.
I understand that not everyone is going to fit MBTI well. However 99% of people can be put into some kind of box with it. Whether or not people agree is a different matter though.
No, because MBTI is actually seeing and recognizing an existent pattern. The problem with MBTI is that it is not seeing the full pattern, only a very small and superficial point of view. This is why MBTI can only be not more than 75% accurate (I personally would say it is more like 60%), and they can only type people who do not have personality disorders. Because while even people with personality disorders have personalities, their understanding of the functionality behind the personality is very flawed and limited.
And no, I am actually not trying to be overly open ended at all, because I do still think everyone fits into a single one of the 16 types. MBTI's problem is that is not correctly defining what makes a person fit into said type. The only thing that defines a personality their cognitive function hierarchy, and from what functions do they get their stimulation and energy.
For instance, as an INTP, I get my energy from Ti and to a lesser extent Ne. However I am also an extremely talkative, and even somewhat directive person, especially when it comes to my theories. Although that does seem like extroverted, and J like behavior. I am still more energized by my inner Ti world as well as free-form brainstorming, than I am engaging the external world, and creating structure. Furthermore I am still using Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, when I seem more extroverted it is from Ne and Fe, when I seem more J it is from Si and Fe. There are an infinite amount of ways I or another other personality type could behave, but if they are doing it with certain cognitive function, then you know for certain that they are that type.
It is not necessary to cover all ground through description and labeling, nor is it even possible.As far as the conginitve functions, I don't fit the mold very well for an INFJ. I fit the core of it, but there are some very marked differences that I have. I get what your saying with describing your type and function.
I am going to stop here, because we are not going to see eye to eye no matter what either of us say. Nor will we ever understand each other. All I can say is that I really don't agree with your ideas with the inital post. At the core it is fine, trying to refine a definition within an INFJ, I like that sort of thing. You just go about it in a divergent way and are trying to cover too much ground with it in my opinion. If these are just modes that an INFJ can enter for short periods of time, that's fine. I mean no offence by this either. We just won't get each other.
It is not necessary to cover all ground through description and labeling, nor is it even possible.
I am actually approaching this in a convergent way, I am taking all of these different archetypes and showing you how they are all using the same hierarchy of cognitive functions. How these seemingly paradoxical personality prototypes are all working from the same set of tools, it's actually more Ni than it is Ne.
That's really sad that you are just going to cop out with "We'll never see eye to eye", are you really so afraid of being wrong?
This right here?
This is pure Cobra.
Just something to note, you can clearly see she is an Fe user from this alone. Notice that face expression she has at 1:49? Fi users don't do things like this, because Fi is not meant to send expressive messages in the way that Fe does. From that alone we can rule out the possibility of her being an xxFP. Now notice how readily her Fe comes high up on her face, just below the eyes, it is something easy for her to use. Although do note that it never really overtakes her face, she is always watching, always perceiving (Perception First).
For the first half of this video, she is putting on an extra charming show with her Fe, because she is aware of what is approaching: the video of her attacking the Paparazzi.
See that face at 3:00, she is going Cobra. Head jutted forward, absorbing information as it is happening, and constantly checking Ni to see where this is going.
"I haven't even seen it myself" Yeah, that's a lie.
"Will it get me really upset?" You don't want to make me really upset again do you?
As for the video attack itself: This is why you should never ever ever ever touch (Se) or interrupt an INFJ while they are inside their Ni. Because the Se kills their train of thought, and now someone or something is going to have to die. In this case, it is the Paparazzi.
3:46 - That sly grin after watching the video, just priceless.
Method actor? How about a relevant example: the INFJ whose method acting caused INTPf to close registrations for several months. And who cobra'd her way back in. And whose method acting was originally employed towards revolutionary ends, but then degenerated into 'destroyer of worlds' when the response was inadequate.
Just something to note, you can clearly see she is an Fe user from this alone. Notice that face expression she has at 1:49? Fi users don't do things like this, because Fi is not meant to send expressive messages in the way that Fe does. From that alone we can rule out the possibility of her being an xxFP.
Now notice how readily her Fe comes high up on her face, just below the eyes, it is something easy for her to use. Although do note that it never really overtakes her face
she is always watching, always perceiving (Perception First).
See that face at 3:00, she is going Cobra. Head jutted forward, absorbing information as it is happening, and constantly checking Ni to see where this is going.
As for the video attack itself: This is why you should never ever ever ever touch (Se) or interrupt an INFJ while they are inside their Ni. Because the Se kills their train of thought, and now someone or something is going to have to die. In this case, it is the Paparazzi.