• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

What's worse: INTJ or INFJ?

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 13:57
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,885
#1
Both are lead Ni, which is just pure idealism, connected to inferior Se, so they just look at something and "see what's missing", then desire it more. TJ has Fi, which is basically just doing something to prove you can do it, even if you don't even really need to (if they're your friend they can help you not be "lazy", at least). FJ is auxiliary Fe, which is basically annoying either way to INTP, or at least me, because inferior Fe. Not to mention that combined with lead Ni, and not enough Ti, so they want it their way and not yours.

You do need balance. So they can help you relate more to people - if anything. Whether that means they're smarter, or know what's better for you, is up for debate. Aux/tert Ne-Si puts you in a unique place in time. Aux/tert Fe-Ti anchors you to people practicality. It makes you think everyone is an extrovert. Sure, there can be dumb lead T's or dumb INTJs (or you can do the Office joke where you depict ENFP as normal and ENTP as too awkward to be relatable). But what you really have is something too cerebral to understand or be of practical significance in the personality. So if it doesn't make money, it's useless, and Fe tries to peel layers of information back to relate it to people to make them happy. It takes work to integrate ideas and concepts into reality.
 

Animekitty

(ISFP)-(E)(N)(T)(P)
Local time
Today, 14:57
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,783
Location
subjective
#2
Ni is future-oriented, "where will this lead".
Te is "how do I get stuff done".
Fe is "I observed how people act, this is the way they are".

INTJ's play things out on every contingency that could happen to affect their goals.
INFJ's come up with all the ways people could be and what they will do, from all their experience with people.

Not sure what is meant by worse. All types are simply people.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow, 06:27
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,157
#3
Question seems a bit loaded?

Also... INFJ is definitely worse, unless compared to an INTJ who spends too much time on internet. Internet INTJs are the worst.
 
Local time
Today, 21:57
Joined
Jan 9, 2016
Messages
106
#4
In my experience all most Ni doms are good for is sex that makes you feel like a god because they're so ridiculously incompetent and outside of the bed so far up their own asses it's no wonder they constantly trip over the air between their feet.

INFJs are fun to mess with because they're the easiest to drive insane. It's also fun to make them realize how all their moralizing mystic bullshit is bullshit.

INTJs are fun to mess with because they're assholes who almost never actually crontribute anything substantial in real life so you never feel bad about it.

Neither are really better, they both just offer something different.
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 13:57
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,885
#5
Ni is future-oriented, "where will this lead".
Te is "how do I get stuff done".
Fe is "I observed how people act, this is the way they are".

INTJ's play things out on every contingency that could happen to affect their goals.
INFJ's come up with all the ways people could be and what they will do, from all their experience with people.

Not sure what is meant by worse. All types are simply people.
This was posted in the INTP sub forum because it's meant to ponder which is worse for them to interact with, basically.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 07:57
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
2,811
#6
Ni is future-oriented, "where will this lead".
Te is "how do I get stuff done".
Fe is "I observed how people act, this is the way they are".

INTJ's play things out on every contingency that could happen to affect their goals.
INFJ's come up with all the ways people could be and what they will do, from all their experience with people.

Not sure what is meant by worse. All types are simply people.
This was posted in the INTP sub forum because it's meant to ponder which is worse for them to interact with, basically.
INTJ is one of the best for the INTP to interact with. INFJ is average.

The way intertype relations work is basically this:

(for Ti)
Ti is weakly attracted to Ti and strongly attracted to Te (like covalent and ionic bonds)
Ti is weakly repelled by Fi and strongly repelled by Fe

So INTP + INTJ is strongly attractive on both counts. The INTP becomes more extroverted/NF and the INTJ becomes more extroverted/ST.

INTP + INFJ is partly strongly attractive and partly strongly repellant. The INTP becomes more extroverted/NF and the INFJ becomes more introverted/T.

(I'm ignoring there that fact that the unconscious functions are being activated because I'm not too clear on how that works)
 

Lagomorph

Philosorabbit
Local time
Today, 16:57
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
551
Location
Down the hole with Alice
#7
I dislike INTJs for the bureaucratic mazes they've created exclusively for their own benefit.

I dislike the immature, postmodern, idealist, hippie sort of INFJ; the non-empiricists and unhealthy conspiracy theorists.
Pizzabeak said:
TJ has Fi, which is basically just doing something to prove you can do it, even if you don't even really need to (if they're your friend they can help you not be "lazy", at least). FJ is auxiliary Fe, which is basically annoying either way to INTP, or at least me, because inferior Fe. Not to mention that combined with lead Ni, and not enough Ti, so they want it their way and not yours.
I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. What you're calling Fi describes Te (identifying process and procedure) and Se (taking action), and it looks like you're misinterpreting Fe. Not sure how Ni has anything to do with someone wanting it their way. Ni is primarily extrapolation from pattern recognition.

I can kinda talk about "getting it my way" though. I feel compelled to stand up for my species in the face of overgeneralizations. :D My "shoulds" are based on what to do to maintain harmony in other people, not morals. 95% of the time, I don't actually care what someone does, I just want to make sure they've considered the implications in other spheres. I know this is misinterpreted, but I can't really control that. Telling an INTP that most of the time I don't care has no effect because Ni feels belittling to them on an unconscious level.

However, I dislike it when INTPs:

1) Complain about a problem, ask for advice, and a week later complain to me about the exact same problem having never tried to solve it.

2) Ask me for advice, deem it bad advice without ever trying it, and then paradoxically continue asking me for advice in the future.

There are certain special assholes out there who manage to combine the two.
In my experience all most Ni doms are good for is sex that makes you feel like a god because they're so ridiculously incompetent and outside of the bed so far up their own asses it's no wonder they constantly trip over the air between their feet.
Sex can be pretty hit or miss depending on what I know about the other person and how much I can plan ahead. I have few if any experiential limits, but inferior Se doesn't exactly foster natural physicality. Enough Fe development and we're comfortable giving you the freedom to meet your sexual needs elsewhere, if not arranging it ourselves.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 15:57
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,733
Location
...
#8
As @reckful can probably attest to (something I found out without his in-depth knowledge of Jung), The top two functions in a functional stack are usually the same in terms of E/I. Why this matters is that it's not a difference of Fe vs Te, but a difference of Fi vs Ti.

If you actually read Jung I just do not understand how you can come to the conclusion that the CF alternate in terms of I/E.
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 13:57
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,885
#9
That's just the popular MBTI system that has it laid out that way, and a few other systems don't even use the CFs, like Keirsey's.

From what I remember of the Jung that I've read, people only really use the first function, which is either E or I, defining their version. Then the other functions are pretty much undifferentiated, and used, if barely at all. That's how you'd conclude a Ti dominant is Fe inferior, basically. I may have left something out, such as additional information.
 

Animekitty

(ISFP)-(E)(N)(T)(P)
Local time
Today, 14:57
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,783
Location
subjective
#10
A striking analogy I came up with for function orientation is that:

Extraversion is a feedforward process.
Introversion is a recurrent process.

You get caught in a network system cycle (perception and judgment) and you become a type. It is conditioning from inside and outside with a basic initiation point.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow, 06:27
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,157
#11
Is there really an argument over whether the second function alternates extroversion with the first or maintains it? That seems completely insane.

How is that not verifiable?
 

Lagomorph

Philosorabbit
Local time
Today, 16:57
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
551
Location
Down the hole with Alice
#12
From what I remember of the Jung that I've read, people only really use the first function, which is either E or I, defining their version. Then the other functions are pretty much undifferentiated, and used, if barely at all. That's how you'd conclude a Ti dominant is Fe inferior, basically. I may have left something out, such as additional information.
So that's why... The shadow plays just as prominent of a role. I recommend the Beebe model as an extension of Jung: http://www.erictb.info/archetypes.html

You'll likely find that a lot of your observations are more intricate. (Note that I'm well aware this is unsolicited :D)
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 07:57
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
2,811
#13
As @reckful can probably attest to (something I found out without his in-depth knowledge of Jung), The top two functions in a functional stack are usually the same in terms of E/I. Why this matters is that it's not a difference of Fe vs Te, but a difference of Fi vs Ti.

If you actually read Jung I just do not understand how you can come to the conclusion that the CF alternate in terms of I/E.
Jung may have been a pioneer, but he didn't get everything right.

Through observation of posting style and my cognition, I have concluded that the function order which is NiFeTiSeNeFiTeSi for INFJ is the correct function order. Other orderings are possible too, but that is the default.

(that is the order from most conscious to least conscious)
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 15:57
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,733
Location
...
#14
That's just the popular MBTI system that has it laid out that way, and a few other systems don't even use the CFs, like Keirsey's.

From what I remember of the Jung that I've read, people only really use the first function, which is either E or I, defining their version. Then the other functions are pretty much undifferentiated, and used, if barely at all. That's how you'd conclude a Ti dominant is Fe inferior, basically. I may have left something out, such as additional information.
Is there really an argument over whether the second function alternates extroversion with the first or maintains it? That seems completely insane.

How is that not verifiable?
Like I said, if you actually read and understand Jung, it's pretty apparent that someone can have 2 main dominant CF's that are the same in terms of I/E. The way to understand this is in how Jung always talks about how if someone is consciously an I, then unconsciously they are an E.

Pizza is also correct in that someone can have just one conscious dominant CF and the others are the opposite in terms of I/E. It really depends on the individual. Jung himself said he was Ti/Ni as his Dominants because his persona was Introverted in a pretty clear way.

In this clip, Jung types himself as a T/N Dominant.


Dominants:
Characterized by thinking = T (You could argue this was his persona)
A great deal of intuition too = N (Assists T and together make up Jung's ego)

Unconscious:
A difficulty with feeling = F (Jung didn't do things for the aesthetic, but given his Typology system is fairly asthetic, it shows this is somewhere in his unconscious)
Relation to reality wasn't brilliant = S (As T is associated with I and S is associated with E, the T in Jung was so strong that it literally choked out Jung's ability to observe the concrete details of everyday life)

So if we take what Jung says in Chapter V of Psychological Types, we can draw the conclusion that a person naturally has a persona that is expressed to the world in terms of I/E and this is how one see's him or herself which is the makeup of the conscious mind. What's more is that we can tell in Psychological Types from earlier (Chapter IV), that an Introvert is better at picking up the unconscious mind of the Extrovert (because it is introverted) and the Extrovert is better at picking up the unconscious mind of the Introvert (because it is extroverted). This is illustrated very very strongly in the fact that when Jung critiques the types of Jordan and what Jordan has to say about "The Introverted Man" it is apparent that because Jordan was an Introvert himself that he had little to say about the unconscious of the "Introverted Man" and had much to say about the Extroverted Man and Extroverted Women because as Jung puts it, it is very difficult to "see" the unconscious in oneself.

But even in that little clip, I shared earlier, it alludes to how one is able to know what one's unconscious functions are and how to recognize them in an explicit way. The way I was able to determine my unconscious CF's from a Jungian Typology perspective was in analyzing my actual behaviors. More precisely, this is more about looking at your behaviors and seeing what is NOT there rather than looking at what is there.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 15:57
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,733
Location
...
#15
As @reckful can probably attest to (something I found out without his in-depth knowledge of Jung), The top two functions in a functional stack are usually the same in terms of E/I. Why this matters is that it's not a difference of Fe vs Te, but a difference of Fi vs Ti.

If you actually read Jung I just do not understand how you can come to the conclusion that the CF alternate in terms of I/E.
Jung may have been a pioneer, but he didn't get everything right.

Through observation of posting style and my cognition, I have concluded that the function order which is NiFeTiSeNeFiTeSi for INFJ is the correct function order. Other orderings are possible too, but that is the default.

(that is the order from most conscious to least conscious)
My position on this is pretty damn clear: Unless you have actually read Jung, you don't know enough to critique his system.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow, 06:27
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,157
#16
Okay, QT. So why doesn't everyone else know this?

To be clear, I'm not saying I disagree - I don't have an opinion. What I want to know is how it's possible for the typology community to be divided on something so fundamental?

It seems like a really clear claim, that should be testable.

From your position, with your understanding, do you see everyone who thinks the extroversion of the top two functions alternates as misled? Or is there some nuance I'm unaware of that makes both positions plausible at once?
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 15:57
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,733
Location
...
#17
Okay, QT. So why doesn't everyone else know this?

To be clear, I'm not saying I disagree - I don't have an opinion. What I want to know is how it's possible for the typology community to be divided on something so fundamental?

It seems like a really clear claim, that should be testable.

From your position, with your understanding, do you see everyone who thinks the extroversion of the top two functions alternates as misled? Or is there some nuance I'm unaware of that makes both positions plausible at once?
There is more to Jung than simply CF's or the dichotomies used in MBTI. So what does MBTI do? The MBTI grossly simplifies and misconstrue Jung's Typology because they are trying to fit a complex system in a simple one. It's like saying "Here, I have 2,000 apples. You can have them, but you have to take them all at once right now or none at all" when you are nowhere near prepared to haul a truck full of apples anywhere because you are driving a used Geo Metro. Why MBTI tries to simplify Jung's Typology in the first place should be the first thing that should raise a few eyebrows. But MBTI has to account for the persona, the ego, the shadow, and the anima all in one system in something that is just a binary output of 4 choices. It is heuristics to the extreme. It's not that the experts don't know about Jung, it's that they want to keep the MBTI accessible to the masses. You can't market Jung because it's not for the normies... It actually takes some brain power to figure out.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 07:57
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
2,811
#18
As @reckful can probably attest to (something I found out without his in-depth knowledge of Jung), The top two functions in a functional stack are usually the same in terms of E/I. Why this matters is that it's not a difference of Fe vs Te, but a difference of Fi vs Ti.

If you actually read Jung I just do not understand how you can come to the conclusion that the CF alternate in terms of I/E.
Jung may have been a pioneer, but he didn't get everything right.

Through observation of posting style and my cognition, I have concluded that the function order which is NiFeTiSeNeFiTeSi for INFJ is the correct function order. Other orderings are possible too, but that is the default.

(that is the order from most conscious to least conscious)
My position on this is pretty damn clear: Unless you have actually read Jung, you don't know enough to critique his system.
I've studied type enough to be quite sure that what I said is valid. Maybe Jung's model of it is valid too in a different way, but I've seen what I've seen.
 
Top Bottom