The INFJ quest for validity

INFPs use dominant Fi to both decide their values and feel strongly about them, while INFJs have to use Ni to provide their Fe with values to apply to people. Some of those of each type will supplement with a T function; INFJs are probably more likely to do so, since Ni is not a "rational" function.

 

Do you mean why do we believe the things we believe, and why we feel the way we feel to validate ourselves? That's a deep question. I really couldn't tell you why, other than it's because I want answers to my questions and just feeling alone doesn't answer those questions. I have to have something else that tells me on the right track. Once I make the decision, though, I don't need to return to that same subject. It's a done deal in my mind. Once I stamp it "valid" I don't need to question it anymore.

At least that's how I view it. Hm. This question may require more thought...

 

I think it comes with the whole Fe "who you cast your chips in with" type of ethical reasoning. Fe based ethics are based on society's ethics or at least that part of society that that Fe type wishes to cast his lot in with and because of that his own ethical understanding is greatly derived with those he casts his lot in with.

In order for an INFJ to know his own heart's desires, he must know what those who he is close with wants, feels, and believes as part of him defines himself by this.

Fi ethics are based more on absolutes and so the ethics of the Fi type are mostly influenced by his own understanding and not the understandings of those around him.

The Fe type controls his environment by knowing peoples wants and needs and acting based on that understanding.

 

A good portion of what I believe either deviates from the norm or goes against it entirely -- in a society that is full of pressure to do and feel a certain way, this is sometimes difficult. It requires reevaluating and real consideration, and sometimes it's a good idea to be able to understand or change beliefs.
That, and I'm socially insecure

I'd say that Fe is more based on outer social systems, but Ni has more to do with coming up with unique or less apparent viewpoints, and Ti analyzes and questions these...so, we want to make those around us more comfortable, which often times requires a bit of conforming, but we also want to question what we're asked to believe...
I'm not quite sure, though. I'm not so great at talking in terms of functions; I just know why I do it myself :/

 

yes x10 haha.

It really is jsut a product of Ni/Fe. When you put those two together it explains it. Doing this is second nature to me, albeit it does get annoying when I can't stop, haha.

 

Seems that you wouldn't know then. /shrug

 

Maybe you wouldnt know. An Ni type employs a different type of thought processes. The INJ stores their information in a vast disorganized cloud of understanding with little differentiation between the substances (data) which compose the cloud. You would be amazed at how an INFJ can sometimes pull a conclusion seemingly out of nowhere, with very little immediate supporting data or ability to back trace his thoughts to the original sources of data, and still be right. Of course theres a chance of being wrong especially if the INFJ is being biased too much by his own personal feelings, but sometimes we amaze people like this.

 

Meh.

Duty, you just described the difference between an INTP and an INFJ in one quick, uncomfortable sentence.

 

Well, just because you turned out to be right doesn't mean you knew it would happen. The lottery winner doesn't know the winning numbers, but they are right about them. The scientist doesn't know his hypothesis is correct before testing it, but he may still turn out to be right.

 

If I'm frustrated because I 'know' I'm right but don't know how to explain it.. I'll flip gears and say I don't know if I'm right until I can explain it...
So essentially, I won't say I'm right unless I can back it up.

 

Sounds like INFJs, for personal growth, probably go through a lot of strides in being able to explain their reasoning. I mean, if you can't explain why, then it won't be very persuasive or meaningful to others. I think Einstein or Feynman (sounds like a Feynman quote, but for some reason I want to say it was Einstein) said something like, "A scientific theory, no matter how elaborate or correct, is not persuasive if it can't be explained to lay people, including children."

 

Whatever...I was just asking questions. No need to be paranoid.

 

i've been on a quest to validate some of life's patterns i've come to understand and trust, yet every time i attempt to explain it, they never quite communicate the depth of certainty nor the wholeness of feeling i want to convey.
perhaps it may be that words are taken to have limited and largely practical definitions that either take away or do not operate on the wavelength as these inner claims?
this may be comparable to the fact that thinking and feeling are both ways of forming judgements, yet their conclusions arise from different planes...hmm...just my thoughts