I think even "very normal" people are weird. People are weird. Humans are weird.
INFJs are just more weird than most.
INFJ myths
- Thread starter Mary Shelley
- Start date
INFJs are just more weird than most.
Is this really what is meant by sensitive?
I relate to the being different thing but not to the rest.
Here are some other common definitions.
sensitive @ Webster
I think this one (above) is the common usage. This one does not describe me. If this is a requirement for Club NF, I might should go back to NTland.
This happens more often than I intend, particularly when it comes to being around people who meet the prior definition, but...
I generally do meet this definition. I do care about and pay attention to the way other people feel.
The above are likely not more true for me than is typical.
This seems to combine the prior definitions and I think this is what introduces the confusion. Half applies to me more than the other. I am quite aware of the attitudes and feelings of others but am not particularly easily hurt or damaged by them emotionally.
The things that do get to me emotionally? Rejection, abandonment, being excluded or left out of a group. I am sensitive about these things.
If you don't like music I listen to, tv and movies I watch, food I eat, clothes I wear, car I drive, views I hold, opinions I form, company I keep, my hairstyle, my hobbies and interests, what I think about, how I think, or what I think, zero fucks are given. I am quite interested in the tastes, thoughts, and motives of other people but have absolutely no need for their approval or conformity.
When someone else makes the above important enough to divide us, attempt to create drama, or put excess effort into constantly informing me of what they don't like, I may become irritated but I will mostly be disappointed. When someone exclaims, "I don't like ____ !" I may commonly respond, "Congrats!" or "Hang on, let me get you a medal." Really, if disliking stuff is one's biggest accomplishment, one might refrain from boasting to highlight the fact. The difference of opinion will not hurt me.
I do care about whether someone thinks I'm attractive, easy to talk to, or fun to be around, but only so much as it is productive. I'm far more concerned about whether someone I'm dating is into me than whether everyone is. In fact, too much attraction can be a detriment to platonic bonding anyway. So, as long as I'm neutral or better such that people can stand to look at me and I can make my presence felt in other ways, that's probably good enough.
I have sensitive eyes and sensitive skin. I'm pale and fair. I burn easily. My skin damages easily. Too much sun makes me cranky. Too much light gives me a headache.
This one is debatable.
I have sensitive touch. ...
I have sensitive taste buds. I can usually pick out ingredients and discern differences between foods other people can't. I may be a supertaster. This may be in compensation for having no sense of smell whatsoever.
N/A
That which is most common/ a set standard.
So normal is what either occurs most often or accepted as the rule or benchmark. Weird would be anything that deviates from the norm in either a positive or negative way.
Work Cited
myth: That the INFJ is complicated and mysterious.
Yes. This makes it relative and dependent. Normalization is relative to surroundings, so nothing is normal or not normal in any absolute sense.
Basically normal is not a thing other than to describe what usually happens. It has nothing to do with any virtue or implicit nature of the thing so described. This should be obvious but many use the term as if they don't know this.
In many cases 'normal' could theoretically be changed. It is not useful to describe merits. It is only useful to describe what is usual, which may or may not be meritorious, and has the possibility of even being deleterious - e.g. death is normal.
Yes,my point exactly. That's why I'm not ok with INFJ's as been weird in any objective sense. It's very relative all this thing with "INFJ weird" and not only to INFJ's, but to INFP's too, or other "weird" types. What is "normal" could be changed in seconds.
Take for example quantum physics. It has been described as "strange", "weird", altough is not. It only appears to be weird because the physicists can't exactly calculate what is happening there, but this doesn't mean that quantum particles are irrational. Weird is a subjective term, not an objective, intrinsic one.
Last edited:
I'm glad that this kind of sensitivity does not describe you. However, from my experience, you can find this "sensitivity" in most INFJ's, especially in imature ones. Still, I hold my postion: the root cause of this sensitivity is FEAR and SELF-PITY !
It seems to me that you only described what is considered to be normal. My firs request was to describe what is INTRINSIC normal.
You say people are weird. Than you say "INFJs are just more weird than most". In making such assertions, you MUST have a STANDARD of what is normal in order so you can describe what is weird . Can you actually describe your standard? I am so curious...
Hmmm... so what will you say if I tell you that what today is a statistical averarge, TOMORROW or YESTERDAY could be/was not what today is "statistical averarge"???
people WILL fall outside it - as I was saying, I completely agree with this, but just for today, or this period, because tomorrow, it could be the complete reverse. If you look in history, you would see exactly my point.
So, the bottom line is this: what is considered to be normal is dependent upon circumstances, is variable, inconstant and therefore is subjective. Now, that does not mean that what is intrinsicaly normal does not exist. What really is normality is unknown with certainty. Some people believe they know it, others don't.
Most animals avoid, or overcome external difficulty for themselves in a simple, straightforward way.
Humans and cats do not. We get ourselves into difficulty, even when things are going well. Is that not weird?
Hmmm... so what will you say if I tell you that what today is a statistical averarge, TOMORROW or YESTERDAY could be/was not what today is "statistical averarge"???
people WILL fall outside it - as I was saying, I completely agree with this, but just for today, or this period, because tomorrow, it could be the complete reverse. If you look in history, you would see exactly my point.
So, the bottom line is this: what is considered to be normal is dependent upon circumstances, is variable, inconstant and therefore is subjective. Now, that does not mean that what is intrinsicaly normal does not exist. What really is normality is unknown with certainty. Some people believe they know it, others don't.
Yah of course but I'm pretty sure INFJs will have been weird yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
People's individual interpretations on reality will always be subjective. But typically they are somewhat reflective of reality, which is objective.
I defined the word normal, asking what is intrinsically(naturally/essentially) normal is just a very general specification. It is intrinsically normal that people need oxygen, food and water to survive. To find a person that does not need one or more of these things would be weird perhaps intrinsically so.
I'm afraid I can't agree with you. With all due respect, what is intrinsically normal is not a very general specification, it is exact the oposite, although I may not understand your point enough.
You gave me an example here, with regard to people in general. Can you give me one example regarding INFJ's ?
Well, yah, of course but I'm pretty sure you don't know what you are talking about. Have you checked the Romantic Period ??? The Greek Philosophers ? The majority of the philosophers ? They were not ENFJ, that's for sure ...
Yes.
You don't think humans are somewhat different from the other animals?
You're just being deliberately stupid.
I made a huge post with dictionary quotes and what do you guys do? Go and argue about a different term entirely.
I see weird as inherently synonymous with unusual. The value judgments associated with it are often unwarranted. When people argue about the weird/normal thing, I often wonder which thing they are fighting--that something is or is not unusual or that the value judgment should or should not be levied against the thing that is unusual.
I think I am different from most people in all kinds of ways. Though I don't think negatively of these traits when I find them in other people, I do associate having them with separation from the larger group. It has always been easy to scapegoat being different for feeling like I don't belong somewhere, am an outsider to a group, or that I lack kinship with its other members.
When this happens, I think people tend to build a balance of resentment against both the differences themselves and against other people who highlighted those differences. It would be easy to blame the people pointing out how "weird" we are for not receiving full membership to a group. I think this association might explain some of the defensive posturing some people assume when the words weird or normal are come across in conversation.
In INFJland, I have observed a frequent compensation of specialness. It's how a lot of INFJ and INFP "own" the weirdness. They convert weird into special. I think this embodies Enneagram 4. With INFJ perhaps it is due to having such a strong need to find meaning for the weirdness, hence giving it a purpose which allows the person to have a role in the larger group context. "Because I'm weird in this way, I am perfectly suited to be the one who ____."
It is with some irony then that on the other side of this, I sometimes see someone trying to use the product of having found a purpose for being weird as evidence that they are not weird. The value judgment rewrites the definition of weird such that anyone who provides value within the group context is no longer weird. (e.g., "Have you checked the Romantic Period ??? The Greek Philosophers ? The majority of the philosophers ?") But people who stand out in history do not stand out for their normalcy.
If the question is asked: who writes the standard for normal against which other things are deemed weird, surely an answer can be found in historians and journalists. What's normal isn't news. When an average guy has an average day and nothing unusual happens, this is not newsworthy. Something has to be weird to be news at all. Delta from normal is what makes something relevant in news or in history. When we look back on this and see subjective value, we may want to take power away from the value judgment but for the context of the time period, anything that altered status quo was by definition weird.
I see weird as inherently synonymous with unusual. The value judgments associated with it are often unwarranted. When people argue about the weird/normal thing, I often wonder which thing they are fighting--that something is or is not unusual or that the value judgment should or should not be levied against the thing that is unusual.
I think I am different from most people in all kinds of ways. Though I don't think negatively of these traits when I find them in other people, I do associate having them with separation from the larger group. It has always been easy to scapegoat being different for feeling like I don't belong somewhere, am an outsider to a group, or that I lack kinship with its other members.
When this happens, I think people tend to build a balance of resentment against both the differences themselves and against other people who highlighted those differences. It would be easy to blame the people pointing out how "weird" we are for not receiving full membership to a group. I think this association might explain some of the defensive posturing some people assume when the words weird or normal are come across in conversation.
In INFJland, I have observed a frequent compensation of specialness. It's how a lot of INFJ and INFP "own" the weirdness. They convert weird into special. I think this embodies Enneagram 4. With INFJ perhaps it is due to having such a strong need to find meaning for the weirdness, hence giving it a purpose which allows the person to have a role in the larger group context. "Because I'm weird in this way, I am perfectly suited to be the one who ____."
It is with some irony then that on the other side of this, I sometimes see someone trying to use the product of having found a purpose for being weird as evidence that they are not weird. The value judgment rewrites the definition of weird such that anyone who provides value within the group context is no longer weird. (e.g., "Have you checked the Romantic Period ??? The Greek Philosophers ? The majority of the philosophers ?") But people who stand out in history do not stand out for their normalcy.
If the question is asked: who writes the standard for normal against which other things are deemed weird, surely an answer can be found in historians and journalists. What's normal isn't news. When an average guy has an average day and nothing unusual happens, this is not newsworthy. Something has to be weird to be news at all. Delta from normal is what makes something relevant in news or in history. When we look back on this and see subjective value, we may want to take power away from the value judgment but for the context of the time period, anything that altered status quo was by definition weird.
By "yesterday" I only literally meant yesterday. I'm not doubting that perhaps back then INFJs were "normal".
Here's a caveat comment to make you feel good and special though: Maybe if INFJs were more common, the world would be a better place than it's been all these years. Maybe Rome fell because all your INFJ savants migrated out of it.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's not intrinsically normal. People intrinsically need air water and food because they so happen to work that way. To find a person who does not need those things would cause it to no longer be intrinsic, since in that universe where you find such a person it is clearly possible for two kinds of people to exist - the kind that needs air, food, and water, and the kind that doesn't. If it is theoretically possible in that universe then it might also be possible that people who don't need air, food or water would become the norm if the variety of people who need the essentials became extinct somehow (perhaps because of their need for air, food, and water)