You probably think I'm mad to mention INFJ and aggression in the same breath. You probably think this because we have a certain conception of INFJs as non-confrontational people who are easily taken advantage of by others. But allow me to explain:
Almost all INFJs are easily hurt, but there are those who cope by withdrawing and "bottling up", and there are those who cope by lashing out. The latter type of people are never detected as INFJs because they don't fit the popular image of INFJ as meek victim. (Thus, it's hard to tell whether they are actually less common or just underrepresented.) And because other people fail to look beyond the belligerence to notice that hypersensitivity is what's causing it.
Let me elaborate: when an INFJ has a bad temper, poor impulse control, or both, they easily become a "defensive aggressor". I know all about this because I used to be one when I was young. All the kids thought I was crazy in elementary school because I would get into fights with pretty much anyone (and everyone) over minor teasing. I was never actually a victim of full-fledged bullying, but that didn't prevent me overreacting in "self-defense". Eventually other kids came to be afraid of me because I had a reputation of flying off the handle over the smallest offenses. As an adult I'm not nearly as angry or reactive, but I'm still able to identify others like this quite easily due to having been there myself.
Which is why I also think the belligerent INFJ constitutes one particular type of abusive romantic partner. If you know about psychology, you know that certain types of people are particularly prone to becoming abusive partners. (Not surprising, as such patterns tend to emerge in all areas of life.) The sociopath is the popular prototype, due to their predatory nature, but I think another distinct type is the insecure INFJ with a bad temper.
Here's why: the INFJ's hypersensitivity and emotional intensity, coupled with the emotional intensity of being in love, already sets up a potentially volatile situation. So when the person in question is also insecure and has a quick temper, it almost guarantees disaster. They are obviously not acting under the same motivations as the sociopath, but they get themselves into the same situation by way of being too passionate in unhealthy ways.
Although I generally avoid "typing" celebrities and fictional characters (it seems silly), in this case offering a concrete example might be helpful. So here goes: if you have ever seen 8 mile...? That would be the kind of behavior I'm talking about.
I wonder if any one else notices this manifestation of the INFJ personality in the real world. They are typically very kind, caring, and loyal to their own (excepting those who abuse their partners) but hard-edged and downright aggressive in most other avenues of their lives. I see it in men mostly (that's to be expected, of course) but it obviously isn't exclusive to men. I'm female myself.
P.S. I realize this man is an extreme. I cannot imagine most INFJ behavng this way. I just want to point out that this is not necessarily a desireable type to be. It has a serious possibility of going off the road in spectacular ways.
I think abusers can come from any personality type....That being said, it seems to me that INFJ males can go in to the particular category of abuser referred to as Mr. Sensitive.
I want to relate my story now.
I've seen the INFJ's referred to as the couselor. This is an irony as my last relationship was with a therapist who is the posterchild for the underdeveloped INFJ.
He was arrogant, self-entitled and felt that his reality was the only reality that mattered. His profound skill with logic and reasoning did not extend to his own behavior and he felt that if he wanted something, he was entitled to take it. Unfortunately this included starting a relationship with me who was his patient at the time. We did end the therpeutic relationship, and then began dating. It seemed like a perfect match to start with, until he became more and more dissatisfied with my imperfections and began an all out campaign to get me to be better. As a dutiful ENFP (and some would say also as a former client) I began trying to become exactly what he wanted; less sociable, staying home instead of going out, cooking, cleaning whatever he wanted, but no matter how hard I worked, the goal posts kept moving, and it took me a long time to realise that I should never share with him, because he took it down on his mental notebook and saved it for when I had disappointed him, by picking up the groceries an hour later than I said I would (that was breaking a promise), by leaving my bookbag next to the couch, by talking to him after he came out of session without giving him his 1/2 hour of "decompression time." He would then take out his mental notebook and begin the hours long evisceration of my character using all the little tidbits he'd memorized during our good times together when I had been foolish enough to be honest with him. He finally told me, after three years, that I just didn't want the relationship badly enough, and he wanted to be free to find someone who could give him what he wanted. This was apparently someone with the perfect combination of high and low self-esteem.
The main feeling I remember from all of this is the feeling of being dominated. I wonder if this need to dominate in a passive aggressive way is also a flip side of this type?
P.S. I realize this man is an extreme. I cannot imagine most INFJ behavng this way. I just want to point out that this is not necessarily a desireable type to be. It has a serious possibility of going off the road in spectacular ways.
"However I wouldn't say to swear off all INFJs, they are all individuals and some are shitty and some are great. I know one great one and possibly one shitty one though I would never want to admit that he could be an INFJ as he'd be a tyrant if he'd ever de-hermit-ted himself. However there are great differences between the two and they are nothing alike. INFJ and MBTI will not dictate how someone will act, only how they think, how they come to conclusions. There are some great INFJs, you just met a horrible one"
I believe you are right about this. The sense of entitlement that goes with abusive behavior could show up in any person, no matter their height, eye color, IQ, or personality type.
I have just told you that I was abused, discarded and disregarded in a way that is not only considered unethical, but is also illegal, and your response us to accuse me of typism?
This man seduced a patient.
This man emotionally and physically abused me for three years.
I have a feeling, from you earlier response that I even know what you will say to all this. Please prove me wrong and show some compassion.
It is typism if taken out of context and, admittedly, I did not give you enough, because one of the rules for joining is to keep this board family friendly. That means I can't tell you half of what this man did to me. As I said at the beginning of my post. All types can lean towards being one type of abuser or another. I am simply flummoxed that so many people seem to want to be included in this particular personality type, because it is "rare." It is full of just as much frailty, inanity and absurdity as any other personality and I don't get why rarity means better to so many. In your defense I did not include this thought process in my post, because I thought that people were discussing it so much, that it did not need to be thoroughly and carefully explained, yet again...........
No type is necessarily desirable.
The key word here being 'necessarily'. Necessarily desirable means that inherently and automatically the type is always desirable and there can never be enough bad points to break this - that is clearly not what happens.
No type should be painted as the best or desirable type because everyone is an individual and all can go wrong in myriad ways.
If you think INFJs are the best or inherently desirable then you are wrong. If you think any other type is like that then you're still wrong.
If someone went onto a site set up for a group of people eg gay people or womens lib or civil rights or any of the other MBTI types for that matter and started saying that it is 'undesirable' to be an INFP or an INTJ or gay or a woman or black or whatever i think at least one person might speak up and say ''hold on a minute...that's a little unfair isn't it?''
The problem for INFJ's is that not only are they so rare that they are elbowed out of their own forum but that they generally want to avoid agro unless they deem the cause worthwhile
This means that INFJ's in many situations in life are pushed aside by the more aggressive, more sharp elbowed members of the human race (this is why they often go into certain jobs because they don't want to be involved in the cut and thrust of more aggressive, cut throat professions)
INFJ's often have very good ideas but due to their reflective and reserved nature (and sometimes quiet delivery) they are often not given the credit for them or are ignored or verbally kicked down. I think part of the challenge for INFJ's in this world is for them to assert themselves more because i think they often have perspectives that are valuable for society
"Not necessarily desirable" and "undesirable" are two entirely different concepts.
If one wishes to utilize valid reasoning then it is best to understand this difference.
No type is necessarily desirable.
The key word here being 'necessarily'. Necessarily desirable means that inherently and automatically the type is always desirable and there can never be enough bad points to break this - that is clearly not what happens.
No type should be painted as the best or desirable type because everyone is an individual and all can go wrong in myriad ways.
If you think INFJs are the best or inherently desirable then you are wrong. If you think any other type is like that then you're still wrong.
The difference is that one is more explicit (and overtly offencive) than the other
The context provides the insight
No. They mean entirely different things. I already explained it once.
This is about what is true and not what is 'offensive'.
Saying that anyone is desirable because of their type is frankly kind of stupid and another form of typism. It leads to this absurd notion that "You can't be INFJ because you were mean!"
Not all INFJs are pleasant and that is the damn truth no matter how uncomfortable it is. Saying that INFJs are necessarily desirable would not be the truth because 'necessarily' means that the trait is inherent and present in every INFJ, but it is clearly not.
Saying that INFJs are necessarily desirable is just as bad as saying they're undesirable. Both are untrue. Saying "not necessarily" is more reasonably true than either of the alternatives.
I haven't said at any point that INFJ's as individuals cannot be bad or do bad things
Here is the comment we are talking about:
P.S. I realize this man is an extreme. I cannot imagine most INFJ behavng this way. I just want to point out that this is not necessarily a desireable type to be. It has a serious possibility of going off the road in spectacular ways.
I interprete this to mean that the INFJ type is not a desirable type to be because it is capable of going off the rails in bad ways
This is singling out INFJ's as being different in being able to go bad more or differently than other types; it is a targetted comment about the INFJ type
Society needs diversity in the personality realm. When I was younger I would always think that the world would be better if everyone behaved a certain way, but now as I've needed the help of so many types of people for a countless number of different things I realized if everyone was like me, or any other type for that matter, we may be able to survive just fine for a while, but eventually some outside pressure is going to destroy the peace and you have to have other types to be able to handle all the things that could happen.