Nuances Between INTJ and INFJ (and More) | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

Nuances Between INTJ and INFJ (and More)

This is not lack of identity, it is adapting to the structure (note: not perspective) to get to my desired outcome.

Exactly. People almost see this as selling out in some way. I talk to people in their own language. I'm still saying the same things, essentially, I just need to speak in their tongue for them to take it on board. Manipulation, essentially, but must that be such a dirty word? :)

Had queries, then deleted once I'd read this twice!

Have another question now though. Just so I understand. My boyfriend left school at 17. I got the highest results in my year at university. Would an INTJ consider my academic opinion more valid? I'm assuming it isn't this simple, right? Because in reality my boyfriend is at least as intelligent as me and this really shows. So do you just mean that they don't hold people's opinion in as much esteem if they are not intelligent? I mean, I do that. If someone's opinion of something doesn't sound very well thought out and I can see holes in it everywhere I probably won't give it too much thought. I won't actually say anything to them, but I won't give it too much thought. Would an INTJ actually point out the holes?
 
Last edited:
Thank you. I'm... not sure what you mean by tolerating complexity. Could you be more specific?

Yes sorry, that wasn't very clear. In some of your linked research, it says that INTJ's like to keep things simple and you mentioned that they like to work with absolute principles. I guess I'm wondering what, in your opinion, the development of Fi would do for an INTJ. I feel that, as I've aged, I've been more able to appreciate the Fe approach. Theoretically, do you have any ideas about what that would look like? Hope this makes sense? :/
 
This is the first time I've been able to follow a talk on Fe Ti Se Si and Ni and think I've actually grasped it. Thanks Arsal!

subscribes...
 
This synopsis smells of simulatedworlds usual attempts to make Te 'non-empirical' and 'non-objective' and Ti as 'empirical' and 'objective' because of how much he hates his dad and brother and their (in his view) rejection of his superiority.

Yuck.
 
This synopsis smells of simulatedworlds usual attempts to make Te 'non-empirical' and 'non-objective' and Ti as 'empirical' and 'objective' because of how much he hates his dad and brother and their (in his view) rejection of his superiority.

Yuck.

What evidence to you offer? Not being smarmy.
 
Everytime I read this I change my mind on what type I am :) It feels like I could be either because there's parts of both I recognise. I think I have an immutable position on morals. I mean, morals seem very simple to me. I consider every situation according to the extent to hurt on others. So, for instance, I would tell someone I no longer loved that I didn't love them before I left. Because that gives them certainty and quashes their hope (especially if I refuse communication afterwards). This way, they go through pain before getting over it relatively quickly. Otherwise, they could maintain hope, which might hurt less at first but will draw the process out and in the end hurt them more. So it is situational. I would act a different way in a different situation and according to the personality of the person (i.e. above was a general law but it depends on the individual), but the rules seem very clear to me. It feels like it's always that one same underlying principle that I model each moral decision on and act accordingly.

Also, I tend to be quite black and white when it comes to like and dislike about people, although most of the people I hang around with are classed as "fine", which I guess is grey. That's just that there's nothing wrong with them but if they went I wouldn't miss them. I judge based on their character (rather than actions or words) and immediately upon meeting them - just a feeling I suppose. I usually don't know why I find someone unbearable but then at some point they'll say something and I'll go "oh, there it is" - though it might take years. My friends don't have to live by my morals. Like they can cheat on someone, I'll be disappointed, but I'll find common ground to help them and I'll know all along that they never meant to hurt someone because their intentions are sound. But I will not think the act is "ok because it was a nice person that did it", I will think the act was wrong but the person isn't. I may have read your theory wrong and got the wrong end of the stick but it seems to me I could go either way.

I very rarely miss people and this kind of explains why...(I have such bad Si I forget what they looked like anyway....I realised last night that I can't remember whether a man I was in a 1.5 year relationship with and was deeply in love with not two years ago had a beard or not.)

Thanks for the good description :)
 
Last edited:
Every time I reference back to this thread, I begin to question my type all over again. Screw it, I'm going to make my own personality theory and my own type so that I can finally have closure in this regard. If there is one thing I do not question about my type is my preference for J. I absolutely cannot stand things being left "open" or unresolved.
 
Interesting information, thank you for sharing! My husband is an INTJ, and it is like being married to a more scientific/analytic version of myself. We have a marriage that is possibly narcissistic in that we really are so similar that a conversation becomes more like a hallelujah chorus than a chance to give and receive new information.