[PUG] Unhealthy INFJs Cannot Freely Tolerate Public Opinion

[Orion]

And when INFJs go bad--it's a mental cruelty they inflict...
They're very good at appearing the wounded hero while exercising the worst sort of emotional manipulation with a dogged endurance.
Twisted INFP can be like that too... but INFJ are better at it. INFJs go cold and calculating.

So, what?

All types, when they go bad, are pricks. Stop trying to demonise INFJs.

He's trying to be clever and say that only INFPs can be so twisted...

I was pointing out that tertiary or inferior Te is incredibly ugly too... I've experienced it with a friend who is an ESFP, who's use of tertiary Te was fuelled by his insecurities.

Te by nature, in ill use, blames everything on external circumstances and stops the individual from looking inward for the answers and they end up treating people like complete shit and justifying it because "it's their fault!" without retribution on themselves.

 

[donkeybals]

My view on it, is if an infj feels strongly about something they will let you know. A lot of other types will say eh it's not worth arguing over or make a sly remark, etc, but infjs have strong morals and will stand up for what they believe in. It's admirable when the moment is right.

 

[Nixie]

I read recently that a Thinker has the ability to assign value to things but a Feeler has the ability to give worth to something. I have pondered this a bit and as to the OP.

While a Thinker may see and categorize all the pertinent data and be able to rationally assign labels to the argument at hand, the Feeler isn't categorizing, they are determining the worth of said arguments. Fe itself is concerned with the whole so perhaps the INFJ is assessing the worth of the argument (public opinion) with an eye toward it's intrinsic worth toward the whole (not just the individual). If the J preference is strong, then the person may be more strident with their rejection of the argument since it has crossed the "wrong" threshold.

I think the disconnect between a strong Thinker and an INFJ Feeler is that the Thinker doesn't understand the seeminly irrational stance (against public opinion) while the INFJ is confused because their natural tendencies (Fe) are telling them that the argument (public opinion) isn't in the best interest of the group.

To me the only unhealthy thing for an INFJ would be expect the world to conform to Fe. I think all worldviews have the ability to become unhealthy. I think personalities and specific situations have to be taken into account when determing whether something is type specific or individual specific. I think we all become entrenched in the habits of our opinions and it takes grace and tact to help us see our blindspots, not logic and force.

 

[not sure]

I think we all become entrenched in the habits of our opinions and it takes grace and tact to help us see our blindspots, not logic and force.

I could not agree more.

 

[Trifoilum]

To me the only unhealthy thing for an INFJ would be expect the world to conform to Fe. I think all worldviews have the ability to become unhealthy. I think personalities and specific situations have to be taken into account when determing whether something is type specific or individual specific. I think we all become entrenched in the habits of our opinions and it takes grace and tact to help us see our blindspots, not logic and force.

I also agreed wholeheartedly.

[MENTION=3473]InvisibleJim[/MENTION]

I'm afraid I can't do that. The specificity is to guarantee self preservation from misquotation; I am also have information that others are watching this thread intently which may not be clear to most of the contributors who these benefactors are or why.

In addition, there is the double benefit that the wider the remit of the question the more informative the answer.

Ah, I see. Well, I understand your reasoning. Then suffice it to say I've said what I have wanted to say. I hope it helps you. And in regards to certain....benefactors you're speaking about, I hope you're making this thread out of pure spirit of true curiosity, not merely trying to give shape to a justification.

Alas, if you may excuse me.

*whew!*

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

What kind of opinions are we talking about here?

 

[InvisibleJim]

What kind of opinions are we talking about here?

The voicing of an opinion by a person that does not match the 'group'.

Might I also add a thank you to the 8 individuals who have offered me supportive reputation in this thread. Alas I have not had the time to reply to you all in depth - however, you should know that your kind words have proven quite the motivational treat to keep it going and to continue my inquiry.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

The voicing of an opinion by a person that does not match the 'group'.

Oh ok, so it's in reference to the group's understanding, rather than the individual's.

This sounds more like ENFJ behaviour to me. Could you provide examples?

 

[InvisibleJim]

Oh ok, so it's in reference to the group's understanding, rather than the individual's.

This sounds more like ENFJ behaviour to me. Could you provide examples?

Alas no, because that would invalidate talking about Fe as to how it relates the INFJ psyche - I'd rather steer clear of individual anecdotes; as I said above I totally agree that it could be another type entirely and not INFJ representative behaviour through cognition in the slightest.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Alas no, because that would invalidate talking about Fe as to how it relates the INFJ psyche - I'd rather steer clear of individual anecdotes; as I said above I totally agree that it could be another type entirely and not INFJ representative behaviour through cognition in the slightest.

Well played.

I think that INFJs are more intolerant of attitudes and behaviours which run contrary to their conceptual understanding.
Really, as an INTJ you should know all about this so I won't elaborate any further.

When we react with Fe it is moreorless acting; we may react against a view simply because we wish to take on the
persona of someone who is reacting against a view. I don't think this is unhealthy behaviour for an INFJ, because it
implies a balanced personality. An unhealthy INFJ would, on the contrary, intolerantly stick to their personal view.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I think that INFJs are more intolerant of attitudes and behaviours which run contrary to their conceptual understanding.
Really, as an INTJ you should know all about this so I won't elaborate any further.

I wouldn't say this is necessarily the case at all. It's well noted that INTJs present the arguments and then allow people to walk the path; of course they form their opinions regardless as does the INTJ.

However INTJs will require that people behave on the ground rules that are common analytical boundaries; axioms, paradigms; in comparison to an Fe user demanding social boundaries; ethical constraints.

The tolerance is actually surprisingly high because the ethics need not be shared, but the INTJ will still hold their own and voice that in the developed Fi mode and intentionally avoid misunderstanding by forming friendships with those in agreement with their ethical viewpoints.

The biggest error an INTJ can make is to trust the untrustworthy by this logic; which is most often the reported case; especially when dealing with those who do not follow through their words with action. As you likely know Ni-Se works as a perception of idea to function; a definition of functional specification.

You will also note that I used unhealthy in the title; but I may have already stated I don't buy the idea of unhealthy and healthy cognition, it was more to get discussion going. Generally I find it's used an excuse to say 'you dislike me or have a strong unaccommodating opinion and thus you are unhealthy'. It's a duplicitous and close minded viewpoint of how another individual and how they think.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I wouldn't say this is necessarily the case at all. It's well noted that INTJs present the arguments and then allow people to walk the path; of course they form their opinions regardless as does the INTJ.

However INTJs will require that people behave on the ground rules that are common analytical boundaries; axioms, paradigms; in comparison to an Fe user demanding social boundaries; ethical constraints.

The tolerance is actually surprisingly high because the ethics need not be shared, but the INTJ will still hold their own and voice that in the developed Fi mode and intentionally avoid misunderstanding by forming friendships with those in agreement with their ethical viewpoints.

The biggest error an INTJ can make is to trust the untrustworthy by this logic; which is most often the reported case; especially when dealing with those who do not follow through their words with action. As you likely know Ni-Se works as a perception of idea to function; a definition of functional specification.

You will also note that I used unhealthy in the title; but I may have already stated I don't buy the idea of unhealthy and healthy cognition, it was more to get discussion going. Generally I find it's used an excuse to say 'you dislike me or have a strong unaccommodating opinion and thus you are unhealthy'. It's a duplicitous and close minded viewpoint of how another individual and how they think.

Demanding adherence to any kind of behaviour is still ethics - it's just logic-based rather than value-based ethics.

Unhealthy with respect to MBTI means not having your functions acting properly, often mentioned with regards to
dominant-tertiary loops, i.e. a person not having a proper means of exercising their auxiliary function.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Demanding adherence to any kind of behaviour is still ethics - it's just logic-based rather than value-based ethics.

Unhealthy with respect to MBTI means not having your functions acting properly, often mentioned with regards to
dominant-tertiary loops, i.e. a person not having a proper means of exercising their auxiliary function.

Oh I understand entirely, I simply disagree. with the idea of unhealthy cognitive functioning; the first two are the norm the second two are safety valves. Whats not to like?

The only not to like is that others dislike it because they dislike those aspects of others personality; there is really little unhealthy.

A function is something that does something. By contrast, is a door handle unhealthy? Is a shoe unhealthy? Perhaps others dislike it, but it is not an 'unhealthy' or 'healthy' shoe.

I would also point out that Dom-Tert looping is simply a management strategy for stress; it's not really unhealthy, merely a way of protecting the self from attack. Flip to primary set Ni-Fe, flip to secondary under attack Ti-Se, back to Primary to grapple with the situation Ni-Fe, back to secondary again! defend - Ti-Se eventually Ni-Ti. I would say that someone who couldn't do this would be unhealthy; it's simply the way of the mind to grapple with reality.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Addendum

- N.B. although relevant to the above I have just considered that this may require it's own thread.

I should also point out that I see these unhealthy/healthy labels as a result of the dominant extroverts requirement to mirror the mirror. When they get close to introverts any attempt by the introvert to assert their individuality and therefore to not to satisfactorily mirror the views of the extrovert is a personal attack; thus it is classified as unhealthy as the preference of extrovert (being defined by the external world) is to view that mirroring the mirror is healthy.

It's a convenient cop out.

You can generally view this outcome by the labels attributed to unhealthy states: lack of compassion; lack of understanding; obstinance; stubbornness; self gratification; anger; denial and even personal faith.

The lack of a communal-to-psyche focus is the root of the unhealthy debate and we are subject to it in more ways than we might think; simply because we do not mirror the external world to define the self. It is fundamentally an attack on the right to have self confidence and self introspection

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

The functioning being unhealthy is simply implying a lack of ability to make use of your functions. This could be the
lack of interaction with the outside world for an introvert, or a lack of internal reflection for an extravert. Extraverts
can just as easily have unhealthy functioning, but this is harder to recognise, because for introverts you only have
to see a lack of external balance, whereas for extraverts you have to see the lack of internal balance.

You are attacking people's misuse of the unhealthy label, not the concept itself.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Healthy and unhealthy goes more with how the cognition affects the mental state of the individual, rather than the actual process of cognition itself -- if Fe is used in a way that rejects or manipulates others and prevents the individual using it from enjoying happy, fulfilling relationships, then it is unhealthy. The use of Fe exists either way as a subconscious, neutral act -- a mean to an end. It's the conscious use and interpretation of the function that matters

 

[InvisibleJim]

Healthy and unhealthy goes more with how the cognition affects the mental state of the individual, rather than the actual process of cognition itself -- if Fe is used in a way that rejects or manipulates others and prevents the individual using it from enjoying happy, fulfilling relationships, then it is unhealthy.

You are attacking people's misuse of the unhealthy label, not the concept itself.

As bolded above is the problem with the misuse; and potentially the misunderstanding. Others can be rejected for entirely healthy reasons.

Anyhow I should really bring the thread back on topic; thank you for your very worthwhile contributions gentlemen.

 

[uuu]

What does [pug] mean again?

 

[arbygil]

What does [pug] mean again?

It means Warning: Debate thread ahead. Do not participate unless you're okay with heavy debate!

More or less.

 

[uuu]

So it's like the opposite of pax? I was hoping it would be an excuse to get everyone to calm down....