How do you know if a person is an INFJ
- Thread starter faridsimpson
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tell-tale
I really think that, above all, the proof is in the pudding.
Whatever his/her inclinations, an INJ will exhibit clear INJ thought patterns. It is simply his/her essence, even if that person is going through some crazy phase where he/she is trying to be some completely different kind of person.
Whatever his/her inclinations, an INJ will exhibit clear INJ thought patterns. It is simply his/her essence, even if that person is going through some crazy phase where he/she is trying to be some completely different kind of person.
Put me around INJs and you will think I'm an INJ.
Put me around INPs and you will think I'm an INP.
Do you mean because INFJs are great actors, and/or have very malleable minds, or something?
I was only speaking for me personally and I don't know that it's acting or about being malleable. Usually, I want to be part of the group and whatever they're into, I'm into because they're into it.
I hung out with a "car guy" for a bit. Every time I saw him, he asked me if I had modified my car yet. I never had any intention of having my car modified. It was his thing, I was just content to share in it. I wasn't feigning interest, it just wasn't an interest I took with me.
Sometimes I do and get obsessed with something that leads me to places like this forum. I notice that when I join an online community, people think I'm a <community subject> person. What really happens is that I get the information I want, learn about the subject to the depth I'm interested, and understand the group dynamics and the way they relate to the subject.
At this point I'm content and become obsessed with something else entirely. Usually I get to keep a handful of contacts from each community and every once in a while I may check in on people. I don't think it is that my mind is particularly malleable. I think it's that all of these things become identity for other people and for me it's only an interest.
At work, when I talk to an ENTJ, I talk about "points" and "closure." When I talk to an INTP at work, I talk about "methodology" and "approach." I'm not acting. I think all of these things are important but I can tell what's more important to each person. It's just knowing your audience.
Interesting.
Otherwise, yeah, the whole thing seems kinda N + F -- in that order. In particular, it seems Ni + Fe, because the Introversion creates that sweet barrier that prevents a melding of identities, which ENFPs, who I would say interact in a parallel way, struggle with more.
You look at types like ENFJs -- they almost lose their identities to their social vicinities. I know one: We were doing pretty much the same thing for a few months: We were both hanging out with church groups. It turned out to be much more problematic for her, because she's more prone to that syncretization and loss of personal identity, whereas I can naturally erect a nice barrier to hold on to who I am in the face of divergent opinions, sometimes even pressure. She had to stop frequenting those groups; I'm still hanging out with them comfortably, studying them out.
So, I think I sort of agree with you.
It is possible to care about and take care of people who annoy you. Trust me in this.
I have been accused of this before and at first was hurt because I felt like they didn't know me. I think really it is that for them, defining identity is a big part of who they are. It's the difference between being an individual and being an individualist, maybe. So, they rightly see that I lack something they have. But I don't think I actually lack the thing they think I lack. I'm confident that I know who I am so that quest is not one I pursue. For other people, the pursuit of identity is part of who they are. They are always kind-of "finding themselves." I don't know whether this actually belongs to one cognitive function type versus the other.
Some people may see me walking around and think that I therefore must be lost. They don't hang out there so for them all they see is a path. They don't see movement so they think something is wrong. But I don't actually see the place as a path so our views are fundamentally different. For them, they need to be going somewhere so they kind-of assume everyone is like them in that way. Sometimes I walk with them for a little bit because they need the company or the encouragement. Sometimes I need the company too and I get something out of being in that role for them.
But then sometimes they grow frustrated with me because their path is not truly mine. Then they get confused and think if I'm not going the same place they're going, I must therefore be going somewhere else or harbor a secret desire to go somewhere else. They may even think I was faking it because for them that dedication seems so important that they can't imagine it not being important for someone else.
It is possible to care about and take care of people who annoy you. Trust me in this.
Thats not what I'm really talking about, I love and care about my friends and family, even when they annoy me. what I reject is the idea that an INFJ has to have an almost superhuman level of empathy for every person they meet and for the world in general. If that were true then there would be a whole lot less fighting on the forum.
That would assume that expressing this (superhuman) level of empathy is of greatest importance to INFJ and that everyone on the forum you see as fighting is actually INFJ and is actually fighting. Having empathy does not prevent someone from having ego, being academic, being analytical, having psychological issues, or being reckless. It definitely does not prevent miscommunication or error.
For me personally, my empathy is universal but crude. I feel it for other animals the same as for humans. It isn't dependent on context; I don't have to have been through something similar or think the creature feeling something is innocent. It does not have a conscious thought or analysis. My feelings just seem to automatically mirror what I see in others and this is what is expressed. I've asked whether this description applies to Fi to Fe or to both. The answers seem inconclusive.
I've thought about this. Ni is a dominant function quite unlike any of the others -- even Ne, which is still, as hard as it may be to believe if you've ever been around ENPs, more stable. Ne is still grounded in the objective outer-world, -- sort of like an enhanced Se, from the Intuitive perspective -- whereas Ni detaches itself completely.
When I think of an INJ, I think of a person who lives his/her life standing on an ever-shifting bit of ground, like swiftly-moving quicksand that never swallows them up, or a giant rubix-cube-thing where the colors are always being moved around, but that they never fall of off. I don't think any other type quite lives this experience, and it would probably even be terrifying for many.
So, as to the bold, I think it might not be a sure knowing of who one is, but rather an awareness and serene acceptance that it's impossible to know and hold onto it, or that there probably isn't really a self as the others conceive it. So in relinquishing that sense of self, you actually gain it, and those constantly seeking it out are none the wiser about it for it. It's kind of like...the self is so elusive and fluid that people who are trying to hold onto it find it always just slipping out of their reach, like that stale old metaphor of water through the fist.
Predictable really, but I was reading a bit on Eastern religions in the last week, and I came across something on the conception of the universe in Hinduism...in the West we operate largely on a mechanical model of the universe, even people who are atheist or agnostic, but apparently Hindus think the universe is just God acting. So God is everything we see, including ourselves, so we're never really ourselves, we're just God acting as ourselves. So once you stop trying to be yourself, then you can be yourself. It's an entertaining and interesting notion...but you can see how INJs are in an advantageous position to align themselves, in experience, with it.
Last edited:
I know that tertiary and inferior Te contribute to the whole animated 'talking with hands' phenomenon in EXFPs and IXFPs. EXTJs are also known to talk with their hands. I wasn't aware that hand gesturing would be XXFJ trait.
I'm with subwayrider on this, though. I wouldn't be trying to focus on getting a perfect score on this list. Just take a look at the broad patterns. See how much you identify with.
That's so meta.
I agree that is is acceptance but for me it stops there.I am of both perspectives and loosely call it nihilistic Taoism. I experience connectedness and observe the oneness of the universe. We are everything and nothing. We construct a premise of reality and within it a mechanical framework. Unitarian Universalists seem to have a similar perspective though many may also call themselves agnostic or atheist while I do not. You can private message me if you are more interested in discussing.
This is my view but I am not sure that it is universal. Some people seem quite content in their pursuit.
Can you elaborate on this?
I don't know if this what subwayrider had in mind, but my take on it is the fact that it's Ni with the auxiliary Fe that makes for a rather impersonal and detached combination ideal for the Not-Self. You have the Ni as a background process that's bringing in patterns in neat little, abstract packages that get to the essence of an idea and then you have Fe, which is an adaptive, accommodating function that simultaneously embraces and expresses these notions. There's no pre-judgement in a dominant perceiver as they approach each person and each situation without expectation. That altogether is the ideal combination for one zen motherfucker.
But aren't most INFJ religious (Western organized religion)? Don't they have much higher rate than other types? Even in this forum the topic is talked about a lot. There are bible study groups and such here.
It depends on what you mean by the distinction between religious and Western organized religion. INFJ's do seem to have a high propensity towards world-view orientation, but that is not necessarily bound to Western, Eastern, agnostic, secular, or atheistic forms.