Are Non-INFJs Still Welcome Here?
- Thread starter Flavus Aquila
- Start date
Just realized I messed up my vote. I know I can read, seriously *shakes head*
Also, I can't emphasize enough that there's a difference between the MBTI dichotomies and the functions theory. We can't say F is unilaterally a contributing factor to being gentler, because F is value judgment, which can be either harsh or not depending on what we're talking. T is value-neutral stuff, so it's neither harsh nor assigns value to people. I tend to identify as a T in part because my value judgments are flatter/simpler and psychologically just more uncomfortable a space, but basically much as there are NiFe types who are more Ti-ish than others, I'd call myself a more Fe-ish NeTi type (for shorthand I just say this is the N rather than T subtype --- especially horrific with sensation lol), so I guess this in some ways makes me a little more compatible with the NiFe crowd.
The MBTI dichotomies F tends to lean to the more compassionate, less harsh aspects of heart-based judgment.
That was Myers' own spin
but it's not the only way F-judgment can go.
The MBTI dichotomies F tends to lean to the more compassionate, less harsh aspects of heart-based judgment.
That was Myers' own spin
but it's not the only way F-judgment can go.I had to change my ways for y'all honkies to accept me. I was assimilated! I did this all for you.
Like Hush said - (paraphrasing) anyone of any MBTI type can be an asshole, so it wouldn't make sense to discriminate based on type.
And we appreciate it ruji. The long hours it took you to change from a caterpillar into a moth were well worth it.
I partially agree. Apart from being an asshole, people communicate in a way that others don't receive well despite their intentions.
Aww, but ru, we loved you anyway. Just as you were, and now as you are. ❤
This is so much less about MBTI and so much more about communication and intention behind what is communicated.
Well, the nature of the dispute would depend on how well each person agrees with the other's way of looking at the system - are the ideas compatible/implied by each other? Or does equating the two lead to contradictory observations?
Then, it is a recognition that there are nuances to the typing method of each person - we've all read different sets of information on the topic and come to different conclusions at varying rates, so we're all using our own system, with varying degrees of empirical evidence.
And as well as different systems, we apply them differently - one person may be good at getting to the core of a person's psychology, while others may be less able to properly differentiate what processes are being used, so it's based on a person's accuracy under their own system as well.
A good way to determine a person's type is to compare them to other people, and then try and articulate the differences between each of the clusters of people.
Last edited:
Kaotiklysm said:
That's certainly a factor; I just think it's worth emphasizing in addition that the reason that we get rampant and apparently nonsensical disagreements (as opposed to more modest ones where we generally agree and occasionally differ in some typing) tends to have more to do with the foundations than application strategy. For example, if Beebe types Jung as a NiTe type, and Jung wouldn't agree with that, that's because in part the two's systems fundamentally differ. I dislike when the Beebe-ites try to smooth over this foundation-level difference and try to make it seem like they're just seeing his type differently with roughly the same framework. Even the definitions of things like "N-dominant" can differ radically across systems -- what you consider to be intuition is up for definition. In fact, I even dislike the suggestion that the attitudes of functions alternating comes down to a difference at the level of application "one just works!" rather than a foundation level difference, where the latter is more about singling out what your system is about from the getgo than about having a rough idea in mind and then seeing what version of it fits the facts best.
At that level, I don't find it useful to appeal to application differences; we'd have to examine if either a) one model is true or b) each is true in different precise senses.
I have arrived at something more like b), in that I think the reason Jung had typings like NiTi>FeSe in his world is that he fundamentally differed in the direction he took his foundations: even the very definition of a function being introverted/extraverted might subtly differ.
I think if you really examine each person's thinking, you can see how they arrived at their way. Then it comes simply to picking the better framework. I have come up with such a framework that I find covers all the advantages/disadvantages pretty well, and of course I also sometimes am willing to just appeal flexibly to different frameworks for sake of argument to say "well, in this framework, maybe my type or X's or Y's type would be different.....and I see what that logic would be....I still think my framework is philosophically more complete and reasonable"
I think so. The biggest downside to this forum is that INFJ's like to talk about things that I don't. Mind you, the INTP forum isn't any better. They seem to spew words onto the page without a second thought as to whether anyone else can even understand them. Listening to other INTP's speak is like listening to word salad; so frustrating.
D
Deleted member 10171
Absolutely but please make sure you use monkeys liberally 
D
Deleted member 10171
Tin Man
"a respectable amount of screaming"
I don't think non-INFJs have ever been accepted. I mean I've been here for years and yet people still won't admit that INTJs are just plain better than everyone else.
NO. I'm calling for a total and complete shutdown of non-INFJs entering the INFJs forum, except for me, until our site's representatives can figure out what is going on.