INFP's - Explained

[mack]

I think the rise of conflict stems from the inability to accept the other's viewpoint, rather than not understanding it. Of course, not understanding their point at all makes it hard to accept it, which could then lead to conflict.

If two persons didn't understood the others point, but remained calm and constructive in order to sort it out there wouldn't need to be conflict. Remaining calm is key.

If two persons did understand the other but didn't accept the other's argument there could be conflict even without communication problems. Unfortunately not all conflicts can be solved with improved communication.

I can agree, though, that a lot of our conflicts today comes from not understanding what the other meant or not seeing where they're coming from. Actually, I have noticed that after long fights it often turns out that the original points of view were pretty similar. We just didn't see it at first.

I agree with all of that.

I think that the reason that one would not be able to accept the other's viewpoint is a difference in held values(ignoring circumstantial stuff like mood, poor communication, etc.). The biases accumulated from when one's mind was more malleable.

These biases can even(and very often do) influence the facts that one accepts. People who feel that their viewpoint/belief(s) is threatened--especially when they feel strongly about said viewpoint/belief(s)--have a tendency to strengthen, not doubt, their conviction. This, of course, can both engender and intensify conflict.
(For an article discussing this phenomenon's effect on democracy, read this.)

 

[Black Rose]

Revision

Judging Functions​

(Fi) Subjective morality
(Fe) Objective morality

(Ti) Theoretical validation
(Te) Empirical validation

Perceiving Functions​

(Ni) Possibility's of personal changes
(Ne) Possibility's of external changes

(Si) Sensory data is correlated with memories of past experience
(Se) Sensory data evoke's reaction of instinct to current situations

INFP​

(Fi) Subjective morality
(Ne) Possibility's of external changes
(Si) Sensory data is correlated with memories of past experience
(Te) Empirical validation

INTP​

(Ti) Theoretical validation
(Ne) Possibility's of external changes
(Si) Sensory data is correlated with memories of past experience
(Fe) Objective morality

INTJ​

(Ni) Possibility's of personal changes
(Te) Empirical validation
(Fi) Subjective morality
(Se) Sensory data evoke's reaction of instinct to current situations

 

[dark]

I know this is completely irrelevant, but I realized my little cousin is an ENFP, that or a over active INFP. I can't really tell because he likes being alone and sometimes with people around, he gains energy either way, same with me. So maybe he is ENFP.

 

[nexion]

And you're is wrong.

Proof; 1+1=3 is wrong.

Subjective things exist subjectively. The concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are subjective.

The only option is duality, where you accept your concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' as objective for you, while also accepting another's concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' as objective for them.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Subjective things exist subjectively. The concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are subjective.

The only option is duality, where you accept your concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' as objective for you, while also accepting another's concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' as objective for them.

Sophistic word game. 1+1 =/= 3 regardless who you are or where you live.

The long (form-over-substance (for INTPs)) version; Everything anyone ever thinks is necessarily subjective. However, reality is not subjective itself. We can use the similarities in our subjective thoughts and determine what's objectively true, and 1+1 =/= 3 by the definitions we agree to place on the terms we're sharing in order to communicate these ideas. The shared concept of "right" applies to the shared concept of "1+1=/=3" and the shared concept of "wrong" applies to the shared concept of "1+1=3". Further, outside of our subjective perceptions and thoughts, placing two sticks in an area barren of sticks will always result in two sticks, regardless what we think about it or if we're even aware it happened.

 

[nexion]

Sophistic word game. 1+1 =/= 3 regardless who you are or where you live.

The long (form-over-substance (for INTPs)) version; Everything anyone ever thinks is necessarily subjective. However, reality is not subjective itself. We can use the similarities in our subjective thoughts and determine what's objectively true, and 1+1 =/= 3 by the definitions we agree to place on the terms we're sharing in order to communicate these ideas. The shared concept of "right" applies to the shared concept of "1+1=/=3" and the shared concept of "wrong" applies to the shared concept of "1+1=3". Further, outside of our subjective perceptions and thoughts, placing two sticks in an area barren of sticks will always result in two sticks, regardless what we think about it or if we're even aware it happened.

As surprising as you might find it, I am not debating that "1+1=3" is true or false. In the objective system of mathematics, 1+1=/=3. We are at an understanding.

In, however, a purely subjective system, such as morals, everyone's own perspective is, for all intent, objective to them. A person who accepts his morals as an interpretation of something purely objective, and then accepting other's as the same.

I will modify my previous statement to make this distinction: The concepts of 'moral right' and 'moral wrong' are subjective.

Better?

 

[SpaceYeti]

Much. I would have done some words differently, but the idea is agreeable.

 

[Black Rose]

INFP

(Fi) Subjective morality
(Ne) Possibility's of external changes
(Si) Sensory data is correlated with memories of past experience
(Te) Empirical validation

My subjective morality (Fi) is empirical validated (Te) by my actions

I am good by my efforts to be good and to perfect myself.

I know how the world can be changed in order to become moral (Ne) because I have remember when I was in good moral situations (Si)

INFJ

(Ni) Possibility's of personal changes
(Fe) Objective morality
(Ti) Theoretical validation
(Se) Sensory data evoke's reaction of instinct to current situations

People are only objectively moral (Fe) by the theoretical validation (Ti) I adherer to.

People are good by the standard of which good is so defined.

I know what I must do to a become objectively moral (Ni) and I can do so by adjusting my instinctual reactions accordingly (Se)