How INTP and INFP conflicts

[Sonny]

Hello people

For those that saw my previous post i'am INFP who was confused if i was rather INTP.
However i have a question here because it is hard for me tu understand why so many people seems to think that both are kinda opposite from one another?

I know that INFP are more into poetic stuff and feelings and INTP rather into logical analytical stuff like math, stuff that INFP would normally hate. However with exception of this flavour, i think they are very similar since both hate social conventions and traditions, both have a hard time expressing themselves and telling how they feel.

It seems to me that both are loners seen as weird by other people and prefer to live in their own world than in the real one.

In the end they are very similar in my opinion, so why people say that they are completly opposed to one another? I think they would get along very well and share alot of similarity.

I would be interested to hear about situation in which both personality conflict each other?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Well I think they do get on well, it's just that their dominant functions - Ti versus Fi - are very far from each other, and they won't relate in that regard. Compared to say INTP vs ISTP where it's the auxiliary that differs they might get on better, although Ns tend to find an affinity with each other due to being in the minority in society.

 

[Sonny]

Thanks i am thinking the same, but would there be some exemple of real life situatin where both would not understand each other? Because i try to find one but can't imagine it?
I think Ti and Te as well as Fe and Fi would complete each other and work well together but that there will not be conflict am i wrong?

 

[cbryan13]

Sure, in my field of counseling. The feelings and thinkers (including me) disagree all the time on the best approaches to therapy. Feelers usually want to emphasize emotional processing, the counselor-client relationship, and personal meaning as the key tools of therapy. Thinkers tend to want to directly address behavior, assess thinking patterns for faults, and teach logical problem-solving skills, with rapport and emotional processing as more supportive tools. For me, I have a hard time working for extended periods on people's emotions. I tend to use that as a starting point and then help them learn to problem-solve as soon as possible. And feelers tend to want to validate just about everything whereas thinkers are more willing to rationally challenge. This is a pretty big generalization but it's the idea and often never ends up getting resolved by people who debate these different approaches. Think Carl Rogers versus Albert Ellis.

 

[Jennywocky]

Sure, in my field of counseling. The feelings and thinkers (including me) disagree all the time on the best approaches to therapy. Feelers usually want to emphasize emotional processing, the counselor-client relationship, and personal meaning as the key tools of therapy. Thinkers tend to want to directly address behavior, assess thinking patterns for faults, and teach logical problem-solving skills, with rapport and emotional processing as more supportive tools. For me, I have a hard time working for extended periods on people's emotions. I tend to use that as a starting point and then help them learn to problem-solve as soon as possible. And feelers tend to want to validate just about everything whereas thinkers are more willing to rationally challenge. This is a pretty big generalization but it's the idea and often never ends up getting resolved by people who debate these different approaches. Think Carl Rogers versus Albert Ellis.

Great example, the field itself allows for the differences between the two types to be more clearly shown. (It's typically what I experience in just providing advice / listening to folks online or elsewhere as well -- affirmation seems to be important, but I recognized early I couldn't take it nearly as far as my INFP brethren in general, it was always just a means to an end and not necessarily the end in itself.)

I find I get along much more easily with INFPs who are INxP focused like me (we tend to be more easy-going and "Ne" around a lot, it's a more playful relationship), but the stronger the T/F difference is (in terms of priorities), the more likely I am to get into a conflict of some kind. They state a value strongly or often enough that I feel the need to challenge if it doesn't seem to hold rational substance, and well that's all she wrote...

 

[Architect]

Dominant and inferior collision - Ti against Fi, Fe against Te. Fi is repellent to the Fe inferior INTP (e.g. Albert Einstein eschewing the "merely personal"), and Te is opposed to Ti (all the extrovert and introvert counterparts work at cross purposes).

For comparison consider the INFJ. They have auxiliary Fe which is very attractive to a Fe starved INTP. Nothing better than having a Fe dominant/auxiliary who is in love with you, easy to get drunk on that. Likewise we have dominant Ti which is super sexy to the tertiary INFJ.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

INFP - good with people
INTP - sucks with people

I asked my INFP cousin if we are similar (because we are in some way). He responsed very nervously NO, you are not good along people, you don't really like them, and I'm the opposite.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

Dominant and inferior collision - Ti against Fi, Fe against Te. Fi is repellent to the Fe inferior INTP (e.g. Albert Einstein eschewing the "merely personal"), and Te is opposed to Ti (all the extrovert and introvert counterparts work at cross purposes).

For comparison consider the INFJ. They have auxiliary Fe which is very attractive to a Fe starved INTP. Nothing better than having a Fe dominant/auxiliary who is in love with you, easy to get drunk on that. Likewise we have dominant Ti which is super sexy to the tertiary INFJ.

but we get more than infjs. we get secondary Fe from them, that we lack the most, but they don't get what they need the most - Se. So I really think there is imbalance in this relationship. ESFJs are better for us ;>

 

[Architect]

but we get more than infjs. we get secondary Fe from them, that we lack the most, but they don't get what they need the most - Se. So I really think there is imbalance in this relationship. ESFJs are better for us ;>

Sounds like a bundle of fuck.

Relationships are a balance, you want similarity and difference in equal parts. So people tend to align in practice on their first and second letters (I's with I's, E's with E's, N's and S's with each other), and differ on the third and last (T's with F's, J's with P's). So frequently you'll see ISTP with ISFJ, ISTJ with ISFP, etc. When you don't see this you find an imbalanced relationship, such as an ESFP/ISFP coupling I know, who can't manage their money one bit.

 

[cbryan13]

INFP - good with people
INTP - sucks with people

I asked my INFP cousin if we are similar (because we are in some way). He responsed very nervously NO, you are not good along people, you don't really like them, and I'm the opposite.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think it dramatically oversimplifies the matter. First off, it completely ignores the impact of experience and learning, it also ignores the fact that the two have different methods of processing information. Both methods can be great for social interaction but in different ways. If an INTP uses his/her systematic and analytical style of thinking to better understand social dynamics and then practices frequently they can be just as good. The key difference will be with the ways in which the two types connect to people. And you can always improve your weak areas to some degree. As an INTP I've spent a lot of my free time deconstructing communication styles and body language which, combined with a degree in psychology and plenty of practice, has resulted in extremely functional skills for handling people. The issue just has to be approached a bit differently.

 

[cbryan13]

Great example, the field itself allows for the differences between the two types to be more clearly shown. (It's typically what I experience in just providing advice / listening to folks online or elsewhere as well -- affirmation seems to be important, but I recognized early I couldn't take it nearly as far as my INFP brethren in general, it was always just a means to an end and not necessarily the end in itself.)

I find I get along much more easily with INFPs who are INxP focused like me (we tend to be more easy-going and "Ne" around a lot, it's a more playful relationship), but the stronger the T/F difference is (in terms of priorities), the more likely I am to get into a conflict of some kind. They state a value strongly or often enough that I feel the need to challenge if it doesn't seem to hold rational substance, and well that's all she wrote...

I notice that very same trend. It can be overcome but doing so is sometimes a bit tricky. It helps if you learn how to build rapport at a high level. That's surface-level social interaction but it's crucial to do it well when those fundamental differences are there. Neuro-Linguistic Programming has a lot of info on that sort of thing and some of the available books on body language are helpful. Usually, we allow ourselves to do it on an instinctive level which means that when major differences arise it probably won't happen. If you can learn to do it with intention you'll be better able to overcome something like a dramatic difference between T and F.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think it dramatically oversimplifies the matter. First off, it completely ignores the impact of experience and learning, it also ignores the fact that the two have different methods of processing information. Both methods can be great for social interaction but in different ways. If an INTP uses his/her systematic and analytical style of thinking to better understand social dynamics and then practices frequently they can be just as good. The key difference will be with the ways in which the two types connect to people. And you can always improve your weak areas to some degree. As an INTP I've spent a lot of my free time deconstructing communication styles and body language which, combined with a degree in psychology and plenty of practice, has resulted in extremely functional skills for handling people. The issue just has to be approached a bit differently.

maybe... in theory...
I say what I see in life. INFPs I know have such an easy with dealing with people. They aproach somebody and just talk with them, make them smile, laugh, or gain information they need. It doesnt stress them at all. It is very different with INTP, and what you described refers more to ISTPs, who use Ti to learn social dynamics and rules. And they can accept most of these good maners, social rules and whatever it is called(if they are at least minimal logical). INTPs fuck the rules and create their own, that's why we are awkward, weird and so on.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Thats kinda bullshit coz infps are pretty awkward and take forever to open up...
Edit: also I know this is a pretty shitty comment. I'll add more wordsies later...so sleepy

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

Sounds like a bundle of fuck.

Relationships are a balance, you want similarity and difference in equal parts. So people tend to align in practice on their first and second letters (I's with I's, E's with E's, N's and S's with each other), and differ on the third and last (T's with F's, J's with P's).

MBTI really sucks at explainig relations, because it lacks theoretical fundamentals, it has only behavioral observations (good though). Socionics is just an opposite.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Benefit

from here you will learn, that yes, you are somehow right, this relationship is "moderately common intertype pairing among married couples", but this isn't the most common, and isn't the best relation. You don't know many people, because you are intp, so you lack data. All you say is: I know two couples of this relation, so this is the best relation!
so naive...


use your Ti and better stick with theory.
(beneficiary=intp, benefactor=infj)

Spoiler

"This mechanism sets the nature of relations: everything that the beneficiary says and does, does not seem as significant to the benefactor, while the benefactor is perceived as a very substantial person in the sphere of benefactor's 2nd function (it is from here that the request is sent). The request is impossible not to carry out because it is picked up by beneficiary's weak 4th function that itself is unable to critically evaluate the information. "

Spoiler

Interestingly, in this pair both partners greatly admire each other. The beneficiary sees the benefactor as a person of great interest, while benefactor is delighted with beneficiary's ability to do things that he is not able to do. However, there is an asymmetry of perception: the benefactor is listened to, but the beneficiary is perceived as an interesting person, but not convincing enough. Thus the benefactor will try to help the beneficiary, try to explain something to him. In general, such relations are pleasant and friendly. However, excessive stimulation of the beneficiary prompts him to distance from the benefactor. Beneficiary does this to not get distracted from fulfilling already set objectives. Benefactor may become genuinely surprised by such behavior: "Where did he go? Why did he distance/leave?"

the last spoiler exactly describes relation with my infj sister

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

Thats kinda bullshit coz infps are pretty awkward and take forever to open up...
Edit: also I know this is a pretty shitty comment. I'll add more wordsies later...so sleepy

they are weird like any N person, but they are very open people. they don't talk much though, so that's why you think what you think. and they won't talk more, because they don't like. but they like gestures, helping without any word.

I have some story to share. I was in mountains and I was alone, it was my first journey and I was 18. After one day I was so tired and frustrated so I wanted to go home. I was in a hostel, where perhaps INFP worked. I spoke to him maybe 2 times. He wasn't talker.
In the morning he went to me and said: my friend go to the city, you can go with him, then you can catch a train and go home. But you must hurry, he leaves in 5 minut. I grabbed my things and left mountains in a roadster. This man knew exactly what I wanted, despite the fact that I don't show any emotions and I didn't say anything. I even said that I like this place. So, yeah, infps are good with people, they know how to affect them, how to help, what to not do, and especially - I read this about Johny Depp: when you are in his company, you can be sure that you have fun like none else in the world.

 

[Architect]

MBTI really sucks at explainig relations, because it lacks theoretical fundamentals

Define "theoretical fundamentals" for us.

it has only behavioral observations (good though).

Jungian cognitive functions, In Carl Jung's theories of psychological type the cognitive functions (sometimes known as mental functions) are defined as different ways of perceiving and judging. They are defined as "thinking", "feeling", "sensation" and "intuition".

Nothing about behavior, but a (theoretical if you like) description of arrangement of mental preferences. Notice the term "mental functions", e.g., not behavior but a configuration of the psyche.

Socionics is just an opposite.
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Benefit

I'll take a look at that, have not spent much time with Socionics

You don't know many people, because you are intp, so you lack data.All you say is: I know two couples of this relation, so this is the best relation!
so naive...

Annoying ad-hominem, what's the point? I thought we were having a nice discussion. If you're put off by my joke, I was responding to what I thought was a tongue in cheek. Anyhow, Instead of foolishness why not just help us understand Socionics better? If it is a better theory than MBTI I'm open to it.

 

[cbryan13]

maybe... in theory...
I say what I see in life. INFPs I know have such an easy with dealing with people. They aproach somebody and just talk with them, make them smile, laugh, or gain information they need. It doesnt stress them at all. It is very different with INTP, and what you described refers more to ISTPs, who use Ti to learn social dynamics and rules. And they can accept most of these good maners, social rules and whatever it is called(if they are at least minimal logical). INTPs fuck the rules and create their own, that's why we are awkward, weird and so on.

Keep in mind that we aren't JUST a bundle of inborn personality traits. I mean we know from a mountain of data that behavioral conditioning can adjust natural tendencies extremely effectively, observational learning can shift our tendencies a bit, and our thought processes can shape us as well. It's not nature or nurture but rather both. Now there is a process called "behavioral drift" in which natural tendencies will come back in the absence of continuous development, but if you stay active with the process you can maintain the changes.

Social dynamics can also be analyzed and deconstructed just like anything else. From there, practical skills can be derived and after that it's just practice as with other skills. However, INTP's tend not to do that because of course there is more uncertainty involved, which is disconcerting. It took me years but I developed that ability pretty effectively.

None of this is just theory, you can find plenty of experimental data to back it up. Look into the work of B.F. Skinner and the other Behaviorists. Or look into NLP, which also works on this sort of thing.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

Define "theoretical fundamentals" for us.

=explanation of behaviour

Nothing about behavior, but a (theoretical if you like) description of arrangement of mental preferences. Notice the term "mental functions", e.g., not behavior but a configuration of the psyche.

I never found good explanations of functions in MBTI. I needed to read descriptions of types and then conclude which functions causes what behaviour. It was socionics which opened my head, and there is still a lot to discover, I maybe read 1-3% of socionics stuff. And it still develops...

I'll translate from site why socionics better:
-proposial of functional model of psyche instead of just descriptions of observation
-concentration of inner mechanizms and not external characteristics and behaviour
-distinction specific mechanism types instead of using continious scale characteristics
-intertype reltion included in system
-very little importance of tests

MBTI is more focused on type dichotomies than functions, therefore in MBTI there is more stuff about people characteristics, than actual mechanisms in psyche.
The only reason why MBTI is more popular is - it's originally written in english... Not everyone speaks polish or russion, and all works are orignally in these languages. But still about 50% is translated to english, and I hope soon everything will be, so guys you can read the most important stuff.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

other Behaviorists. Or look into NLP

not interested in pseudo-sciences
also intp preference is to not analyze social every fucking shit; waste of time to meet other people expectations, fit their rules, and be like others.
instead I like psychiatry, neurology, all neurosciences - there is hidden pure knowledge about people

 

[cbryan13]

not interested in pseudo-sciences
also intp preference is to not analyze social every fucking shit; waste of time to meet other people expectations, fit their rules, and be like others.
instead I like psychiatry, neurology, all neurosciences - there is hidden pure knowledge about people

NLP isn't pseudo-science, or at least not completely. They heavily borrowed techniques from sub-fields of psychology that already had some research backing. NLP is really just a collection of methods from a lot of different sources. Pretty much every system of counseling or behavior change is just a minor variation on something else, and NLP is not really different other than with a few things. You're oddly dogmatic and rigid with you perception of what an INTP is and what being one means. Interesting...

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

NLP isn't pseudo-science, or at least not completely. They heavily borrowed techniques from sub-fields of psychology that already had some research backing. NLP is really just a collection of methods from a lot of different sources. Pretty much every system of counseling or behavior change is just a minor variation on something else, and NLP is not really different other than with a few things. You're oddly dogmatic and rigid with you perception of what an INTP is and what being one means. Interesting...

that's because I told about succesful and true intp - not a lazy, failure ones, that are very common. INTPs have high rate of non usings their talents and wasting potentials, and I despise such people. I'm talking what INTP should be. If you go against your natural instincts and preferences you're a slave and a loser - because you don't fulfill yourself. That's why I always do what I want.
That's why most people don't like me, I'm too proud. but returning to topic:

so you think nlp is a science? lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
"NLP has since been overwhelmingly discredited scientifically"
nlp works like placebo - if you tell yourself it works, then it works. But why fool yourself? don't be no stiupid, nor naive.
instead of quick and no-explained methods, go with more difficult path - understand how brain works, why it works, and then you can manipulate yourself and others.

Done.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Sounds like a bundle of fuck.

Relationships are a balance, you want similarity and difference in equal parts. So people tend to align in practice on their first and second letters (I's with I's, E's with E's, N's and S's with each other), and differ on the third and last (T's with F's, J's with P's). So frequently you'll see ISTP with ISFJ, ISTJ with ISFP, etc. When you don't see this you find an imbalanced relationship, such as an ESFP/ISFP coupling I know, who can't manage their money one bit.

I think I remember reading that relationship satisfaction is indeed predicted by similarity on the first 2 letters, and the last 2 letters made little difference, so you could be onto something. However, treating the second and third dichotomy in a different manner means that a function-based analysis doesn't really apply.

My opinion though, is that romantic satisfaction will be highest with someone who is completely different from yourself*. So, for example, for me (INFJ) it's likely ExFP because I am nothing like an ExFP, however wouldn't be, say, ESTJ because I have a fair few ESTJ characteristics from what I understand. INTP is probably in the middle, whereas INFP and INTJ are probably too similar as well. That's how I look at it.

* different in terms of personality - it's good to have similar interests and such

 

[cbryan13]

that's because I told about succesful and true intp - not a lazy, failure ones, that are very common. INTPs have high rate of non usings their talents and wasting potentials, and I despise such people. I'm talking what INTP should be. If you go against your natural instincts and preferences you're a slave and a loser - because you don't fulfill yourself. That's why I always do what I want.
That's why most people don't like me, I'm too proud. but returning to topic:

so you think nlp is a science? lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
"NLP has since been overwhelmingly discredited scientifically"
nlp works like placebo - if you tell yourself it works, then it works. But why fool yourself? don't be no stiupid, nor naive.
instead of quick and no-explained methods, go with more difficult path - understand how brain works, why it works, and then you can manipulate yourself and others.

Done.

I see someone is his own biggest fan.

 

[Nick85]

Sounds like a bundle of fuck.

Relationships are a balance, you want similarity and difference in equal parts. So people tend to align in practice on their first and second letters (I's with I's, E's with E's, N's and S's with each other), and differ on the third and last (T's with F's, J's with P's). So frequently you'll see ISTP with ISFJ, ISTJ with ISFP, etc. When you don't see this you find an imbalanced relationship, such as an ESFP/ISFP coupling I know, who can't manage their money one bit.

I tallied a bunch of responses (31) from PerC where people posted the MBTI types of their romantic relationships and which were most successful.

I vs E didn't seem to matter, for 16 posters the preference was for the opposing letter and for 15 it was the same letter.

N vs S there was a preference (20 to 11) for the same letter.

T vs F there was a preference (19 to 12) for the opposing letter.

P vs J there was a preference (20 to 11) for the opposing letter.

Although even where there was a preference, it's significant but not overwhelming, you still had about 1/3 of people that went against the norm, having had the best relationship with the opposing letter for N/S and same letter for T/F and P/J.

 

[Nick85]

MBTI really sucks at explainig relations, because it lacks theoretical fundamentals, it has only behavioral observations (good though). Socionics is just an opposite.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Benefit

from here you will learn, that yes, you are somehow right, this relationship is "moderately common intertype pairing among married couples", but this isn't the most common, and isn't the best relation. You don't know many people, because you are intp, so you lack data. All you say is: I know two couples of this relation, so this is the best relation!
so naive...


use your Ti and better stick with theory.
(beneficiary=intp, benefactor=infj)

Spoiler

"This mechanism sets the nature of relations: everything that the beneficiary says and does, does not seem as significant to the benefactor, while the benefactor is perceived as a very substantial person in the sphere of benefactor's 2nd function (it is from here that the request is sent). The request is impossible not to carry out because it is picked up by beneficiary's weak 4th function that itself is unable to critically evaluate the information. "

Spoiler

Interestingly, in this pair both partners greatly admire each other. The beneficiary sees the benefactor as a person of great interest, while benefactor is delighted with beneficiary's ability to do things that he is not able to do. However, there is an asymmetry of perception: the benefactor is listened to, but the beneficiary is perceived as an interesting person, but not convincing enough. Thus the benefactor will try to help the beneficiary, try to explain something to him. In general, such relations are pleasant and friendly. However, excessive stimulation of the beneficiary prompts him to distance from the benefactor. Beneficiary does this to not get distracted from fulfilling already set objectives. Benefactor may become genuinely surprised by such behavior: "Where did he go? Why did he distance/leave?"

the last spoiler exactly describes relation with my infj sister

Interesting - in the same PerC topic, of the 6 INFJs that responded, four said their best relationship was with an INTP (others were ESFP and ENTP). However, out of the 7 INTPs that responded, none felt that their best relationship was with an INFJ... (3 were with other INTPs, 2 with ISFJs, 1 with ENTJ, 1 with INTJ).

Out of the 9 people that said their best relationship was with an INTP, four were INFJ, three were INTP and then there was one ISTJ and one INFP.

Not necessarily the best measure though, since I didn't look at who each type's worst relationship was. INTPs might have a low likelihood of even entering a relationship with many of the other types out there (and PerC posters skew strongly towards INxx).

 

[ENTP lurker]

INFP to INTP is same as ENTP to ESTP.
They have common interests dynamics but need to use Fi and Ti which creates bit of pressure on those oppositions.

As far socionics LII (INTP/INTj) and IEI (INFJ/INFp) goes its something where IEI tries to help INTP out while being too heavy handed with Fe issues.

My befinefit benefacor interactions:
I as an ILE (ENTP/ENTp) have similar dynamics with LSE (ESTJ/ESTj) where ESTJ tries to do Si in very matter of fact way. This is wrong in our apartment: let's go by obeying my ways.

On the other side of the fence is EIE (ENFj/ENFJ) where I use logic too much in very cold manner on ENFJ.


SLI (ISTJ/ISTp) and LII (INTP/INTj):
INTP tries to create too Ne heavy stuff for ISTJ. ISTJ goes: now I'm down with this and INTP is just getting started. I'm actually very accomodating with ISTJs' Ne issues.

 

[JimJambones]

One of the problems with MBTI is that it converts dichotomic results from the questionnaire into a cognitive function breakdown. Now if cognitive functions are true, then there should be very little in common with INTP and INFP, since they only share a preference for half of their functions. However, if it is false, one would expect many people who test borderline F>T and T>F, while sharing a clear preference for I,N, and perceiving to be remarkably similar, more similar than what CFT can predict.

It's actually quite illogical to assume that because results so INFP or INTP that one must have a functional stack of FiNe or TiNe. Also, just because one scores INFP or INTP, it doesn't follow that one has to prefer any cognitive functional stack all, since CFT is a theoretical mess.

 

[TheManBeyond]

they are defensive types, they can't attack each other, they look at each other and when eyes make contact they go back to their phones as if nothing ever happened