[INFJ] Types you're attracted to?

philostam said:
I think @David Nelson is reading too much 20th century leftist books, that's where all of his misrepresentation of reality comes from.

Te and Ti are both great if applied to science/engineering/math, but unfortunately a lot of Ti users are attracted to social "sciences" which is a minefield. There you can read a lot of logically consistent arguments and theories that appeal to Ti in combination with Ni/Ne, but are actually completely made up woke narratives. This can poison and blind people. It takes years to get rid of that stuff.

While in the meantime Te users just go about their day solving actual problems.

And the INTJs that do go into social sciences are usually more objective and can see trough bullshit, and don't fall pray to woke made up unproven narratives about how the world works.
Click to expand...
It's true that some products of modern social sciences piss me off, but so do hardcore STEM fanboys lol. In some circles I would be even considered "anti-science". I'm much more interested in psychology and other "intangible" fields, and my general disposition is counter to the culturally rooted presumption that quantifiability automatically makes something more true. This is not only present in current scientific mindset but has seeped into society at large. "He makes more money, that must mean he's smarter than the other guy."; "Messi scored 10 more goals this season, that proves he's a better player that Ronaldo."; "Maybe I would have liked him if he was over 180cm." Numbers are like the ultimate argument for everything to justify anything. And they're so juicy because it's so easy to use them.

That's why I want to move beyond insipid tumblr-grade definitions like "Ni = you get aha moments and have your entire life planned out" that are almost purposely made to be "fun" in the same way reading a newspaper zodiac is fun. The attribution of facts to Te, for example, has to be always taken in relation to the larger mechanism of the cognitive stack. Te subordinated to Ni doesn't think of facts in the straightforward sense, like a glass being on a table. It sees facts in phenomena which are not bound to locality or time, and their concrete actors are merely incidental and insignificant. A fact to me represents state of affairs that have always been true, not just as a singular moment. These events exist objectively and are obvious to me, but at the same time they are qualitatively different from the common meaning of fact. That's also why "facts" are determined by how convincing they are according to some commonly accepted metric, not because they're self-evident.

In short, we can make the analogy of Te being philosophical pragmatism and Ti being Cartesian analysis. Telos vs. essence. Descartes asks how we can know reality if we don't even know whether wax is in its nature solid of liquid, and William James answers what does asserting one definition over another matter if nothing actually changes as the result. But this can again imply that Te supports the "ends justify the means" approach, while realistically the resistance of Fi has to be accounted for. For instance, I understand the optimal means of promoting myself to get more clients, but I also find marketing myself and spinning up self-flattering bullshit to make myself more likeable or competent so cringy that I'd rather choose to be inefficient. An inexperienced dilettante might immediately make the content fallacy here by assuming an unbreakable 1:1 correlation with Te and efficiency, which is only too common. To me, the interoperability of the functions is the basis of any reasonable understanding, not pitting two opposite functions against each other in a non-existent context to determine which one is the greatest of all time lol. At that point, cherry picking and confirmation bias goes rampant anyway.
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
It's true that some products of modern social sciences piss me off, but so do hardcore STEM fanboys lol. In some circles I would be even considered "anti-science". I'm much more interested in psychology and other "intangible" fields, and my general disposition is counter to the culturally rooted presumption that quantifiability automatically makes something more true. This is not only present in current scientific mindset but has seeped into society at large. "He makes more money, that must mean he's smarter than the other guy."; "Messi scored 10 more goals this season, that proves he's a better player that Ronaldo."; "Maybe I would have liked him if he was over 180cm." Numbers are like the ultimate argument for everything to justify anything. And they're so juicy because it's so easy to use them.
Click to expand...

I would hope people are more nuanced than the examples you gave :)

On the other hand, you cannot argue that bridges made out of steel are not better than bridges made out wood. Perhaps that's not interesting for you and that's fine, but steel bridges and buildings allowed for great progress in human society.

PS: I don't think there is anything wrong with using money as a proxy for some desirable personality traits. Not perhaps pure intelligence, but intelligence combined with other traits. We'd just have to factor out people who inherited a bunch of wealth.

Perhaps our fiat monetary system messed up a bit the positive correlation of money earned with service to society.
 
Last edited:
STEM developments are not just due to Te/Fi or INTJs. This INFJ is currently developing a new hifi product. It’s a new take on an existing problem, so actually adds to the technology in existence. It’s nice to think that I will have given something to the world which will survive my death, and something which potentially benefits all good hifi systems. I’ve not got my patent application in yet, so can’t say too much at present. Ni and Ti are great for tech innovation. My interest in hifi stems from a love of music and quality sound reproduction (Highly Fe linked).
 
David Nelson said:
I think my point is that Te is overall less useful in the making the world better than Ti. It might be controversial like my belief in INFJ having possibly the most important function stack. This can only be resolved in an essay/book imo, and will likely always polarise people in their opinions about it.
Click to expand...
You can believe that, but as long as you do I'll also believe that you're insane lol. I'm curious how exactly do you intend to resolve that. An INFJ talking about how INFJs are the most important is like trying to prove that mathematics is the truest science by using mathematics. That's exactly what Tarski's undefinability theorem is about. Using your cognitive stack to decide that the same stack is somehow more correct will always be a tautology. You can't determine if your tools are correct if you're already assuming that they are by using them to find the answer.

It's the same problem when people assume they are right just because they use "critical thinking". Okay, but have you been thinking critically about your critical thinking? And then about that? It's an infinite recursion that can never be resolved. If your system has a flaw and you use the same flawed system to patch it, how can you be sure that the correction wasn't itself flawed?
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
Okay, but have you been thinking critically about your critical thinking?
Click to expand...

I was having a good day, now I'm not so sure
Luckily I have an infinite supply of brainlets
brainlet-titanic-brain-thumbnail.png
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
You can believe that, but as long as you do I'll also believe that you're insane lol. I'm curious how exactly do you intend to resolve that. An INFJ talking about how INFJs are the most important is like trying to prove that mathematics is the truest science by using mathematics. That's exactly what Tarski's undefinability theorem is about. Using your cognitive stack to decide that the same stack is somehow more correct will always be a tautology. You can't determine if your tools are correct if you're already assuming that they are by using them to find the answer.

It's the same problem when people assume they are right just because they use "critical thinking". Okay, but have you been thinking critically about your critical thinking? And then about that? It's an infinite recursion that can never be resolved. If your system has a flaw and you use the same flawed system to patch it, how can you be sure that the correction wasn't itself flawed?
Click to expand...
So you are saying a person’s personality type imposes a limit on how they can investigate or assess their own personality type? Makes me wonder how Ren wrote his book about INFJs lol
Look, Templar types have the most ‘pure’ set of cognitive functions, hence they are not philosophers, wayfarers or crusaders. And INFJ is the only Ni dominant, or one with the most highly evolved cognitive function, of the Templar types, so that has to mean something.

If we define what being human is about and what we strive for, I believe this fits the natural goals of INFJs best, hence Jesus archetype. INFJ is the tip of the spear pointing humanity in the best direction. All types have their own unique abilities and uses, but if we are to define any hierarchy, which we do already in society, I’m going to vote for INFJ over any flawed artificial dominance hierarchy position.
You can of course reject this as elitism, and egocentric of me to pose it as an INFJ, but I believe it is true. If you reject this, please pose a counter theory which makes sense. If you can’t or won’t, you simply have a different opinion which is objectively no better or worse than mine, so don’t assume moral or intellectual superiority simply because you have chosen to believe a moral level playing field for all types of people (which doesn’t reflect reality) based on no logic. All you are doing is playing to the gallery of choosing popularity over truth.
 
David Nelson said:
So you are saying a person’s personality type imposes a limit on how they can investigate or assess their own personality type? Makes me wonder how Ren wrote his book about INFJs lol
Look, Templar types have the most ‘pure’ set of cognitive functions, hence they are not philosophers, wayfarers or crusaders. And INFJ is the only Ni dominant, or one with the most highly evolved cognitive function, of the Templar types, so that has to mean something.
Click to expand...
Ren wrote the book, so that makes it an authoritative source? Most highly evolved according to whom, another self-proclaimed apex of judgment? You're still just presuming the infallibility of your sources which are themselves instrumental to proving any of your wild ideas. It's the old "God is true because it's in the bible; the bible is true because God made it" galaxy brain argument. Completely hermetically sealed and circular.

David Nelson said:
If you reject this, please pose a counter theory which makes sense. If you can’t or won’t, you simply have a different opinion which is objectively no better or worse than mine, so don’t assume moral or intellectual superiority simply because you have chosen to believe a moral level playing field for all types of people (which doesn’t reflect reality) based on no logic. All you are doing is playing to the gallery of choosing popularity over truth.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to start writing a formal refutation, get real. Nothing I wrote had any undertones of morality, I was just explaining basic epistemic principles to you that guarantee your venture to fail. I don't need to go beyond that because they counter your theory at its genesis. No logic? I mean, Tarski's theorem is literally a principle of formal logic. Who exactly am I gaining popularity with, your fellow supermen? Of course they would know how to pick the winning horse, given their supposed supreme intellect and judgment. :p
 
Case closed. As the self proclaimed most objective personalilty type and thus a natural impartial judge, I announce Sidis as the winner of this matter.
 
David, you can assess your personality type but you cannot compare it against any other and say yours is better for humanity lol. That's completely crazy. That's probably how Hitler thought too. It's not only crazy but extremely dangerous.

PS: I didn't check but is this clown Trudeu an INFJ too? He's completely lost the plot with this Covid fiasco.
 
Do you believe all people are morally equal? I absolutely don’t. If you believe they are, then you might as well choose your friends and romantic partner at random. Are all people intellectually equivalent? Clearly not. We can probably agree on this at least?

Now applying the above to personality type might be a jump too far for you, but I am unable to reject the proposal. Any type can do bad things and character has to be assessed in relation to potential and a persons virtue. A person of modest potential who achieves well beyond what is normal for them deserves amazing credit. And a person of great potential who achieves well short of their potential ( as most do) deserves less credit, even if they achieved more than the person of much lesser potential in objective terms. But the natural difference in potential exists nonetheless, and this relative achievement difference matters as much as absolute potential (they both matter). This potential does, I believe, have moral and intellectual dimensions.

Something related that has occurred to me, and which might have started a new thread, is that the weaknesses of most types tend to cause problems for others, whereas the weaknesses of INFJs seem to mainly negatively impact the INFJ themselves. I am of course aware that there are definite moral implications for a lack of personal achievement, which INFJs are more than likely to be subject to. Failure to launch syndrome for eg. I think this an interesting point to make. ESFJ are highly caring and helpful to others but they don’t tend to rock the establishment or status quo. INFJ usually have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that others regularly send their way, although INFJ do tend to encourage this by being too empathic and ‘nice’. We are often used by others, which is very ironic. I have a quote by Edgar Allan Poe somewhere in my writing about a hypothetical superior human and what would probably happen to him in a world of lesser humans. I’ll dig this out one day to make a new thread. It could be an interesting discussion.
 
OMG. So you are saying that because someone is born an INFJ (he/she deserves no credit for that), it gives him superiority? This is essentially the same as saying that being born white gives you innate superiority. And being born German gives you superiority over Slavs and Jews.

No wonder you have central planning tendencies. You probably think bunch on INFJs should rule the world and it would be better for everyone. They would know best, we don't need to distribute decision making across 8 billion people and let them vote trough their actions and preferences.

Thanks God you're not in any position of power, because you have megalomaniac and narcissistic traits. The system is doing it's job perfectly not giving power to people like you.

Like I said in another thread: being born an INFJ doesn't mean jack shit. 99.9% of the people don't even know what INFJ is. You deserve no credit for your "potential". Go out and make stuff happen or not. The world will judge you based on your achievements, not on your "innate potential" as an INFJ.
 
Last edited:
I think being born an INFJ gives you greater potential, yes. Just like being born more intelligent. Or being born kinder. Or being born more attractive etc etc. All those things are valued.

Of course we have to be judged on what we do. I’m not saying an INFJ personality means we deserve a medal. But given that INFJs usually suffer more than most, yet have great potential to do good and be nice to others, I think this needs to be acknowledged, and the rank injustice mitigated. It seems only those close to healthy INFJs can really appreciate what we have to offer, other than the few INFJs who achieve wider success and greatness. Sadly much of what we can offer is downplayed in our often sick culture. SJ rules rule sadly.
 
David Nelson said:
Of course we have to be judged on what we do. I’m not saying an INFJ personality means we deserve a medal. But given that INFJs usually suffer more than most, yet have great potential to do good and be nice to others, I think this needs to be acknowledged, and the rank injustice mitigated. It seems only those close to healthy INFJs can really appreciate what we have to offer, other than the few INFJs who achieve wider success and greatness. Sadly much of what we can offer is downplayed in our often sick culture. SJ rules rule sadly.
Click to expand...

That's not true, I am an INTP with an INFJ girlfriend and I really appreciate what she has to offer. And she has friends and family that also appreciate the fact she is a good listener, positive, kind, engaging etc.

But OK, I won't continue you this debate. I actually feel sorry for you, and not in a disparaging sense. I don't know your situation and what you went trough, but I hope you found or had found people that appreciate you.

The world is not as bad, or I am just lucky. I don't know.
 
philostam said:
That's not true, I am an INTP with an INFJ girlfriend and I really appreciate what she has to offer. And she has friends and family that also appreciate the fact she is a good listener, positive, kind, engaging etc.
Click to expand...

You just don't think she's capable or deserving of being anything beyond a pleasant confidant :thonking:
 
David Nelson said:
I think being born an INFJ gives you greater potential, yes. Just like being born more intelligent.
Click to expand...

I see where you're going with this, but I don't think those things equate.
There would just be a whole different set of problems if INFJs ruled the world. It would look different, better in some ways, worse in others. Same for any type holding dominance. I suspect the general rarity of infjs holds some good purposes in itself.
Distribution of type and cooperation are what really drive us all forward.
 
Wyote said:
You just don't think she's capable or deserving of being anything beyond a pleasant confidant :thonking:
Click to expand...

What's your point?

I can choose who I want for my partner, and vice-versa for her. I choose her qualities because I value them. Had I valued a competitive woman who works 80 hours a week and doesn't have family values and no empathy, I would go for a different one.

I am not forcing her into anything and asking her to change. I am also supporting her in her career but she is completely satisfied with how things are. If she all of a sudden changed and became super competitive and career oriented, would I have a problem with that? To an extent yes, because this would be a radical shift in her personality. If she turned from enneagram 9 to 3, yes, I would not like it.

There is someone for everyone out there. I don't understand what INFJs even want. They want to be all 9 enneagram types in one, or what? Be super helpful, nice, family oriented, esteemed for all of the feminine qualities, but then also respected for their work and dominate hierarchies in a way that everyone finds pleasant?

Sorry but you're not that special. It's not like everyone has 24 hours a day, only INFJs have 72 to be able to be all at once. There are trade-offs to every type. You cannot be everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top