What do you hate about INFjs?

[SLeo123083]

What do people really, really REALLY hate about INFjs? Like what do we do that just ANNOYS THE SHIT OUT OF YOU but you don't say anything...well here's your chance to spill your guts!

Please be honest!! I can take it.

(I'm just curious about what people don't like about my natural personality...)

If an INFj never annoyed you (I don't really believe that, but it could happen I guess...) than maybe state why?

[Rocky]

What have INFJs ever done to annoy me? Say shit like this...

INFj is probably the least common type. We are rare and beautiful snowflakes.

... have fun masterbating to that thought...

[FDG]

You're not one: ENTp you are.

[oyburger]

You're too sensitive (that's not a bad thing necessarily). Oddly it annoys me that you guys don't seem to think about yourselves enough

[Logos]

I hate how sensitive INFjs are to criticism. I hate how concerned INFjs are with their appearance (My INFj roommate took forever to get dressed because he was so concerned about how he'd be seen.)

No matter how well you defeat their line of reasoning or logic, they still refuse to concede defeat due to how "good" or "ethical" their ideas are. To many INFjs I've argued with, their argument essentially boils down to whether it is "good or bad" and it is right "just because."

But I'm sure that they say just about the same about INTjs.

[Joy]

I miss diana

[flower]

I hate how concerned INFjs are with their appearance

I agree

Also, INFj's have such a strong internal value system which they are very assertive with, that they can sometimes critisise and ignore input from others because it goes against their ideas of whats right or wrong. Example: an INFj I know critisised heavily and sometimes harshly another friend (ENTp i think) for a long time because she took back someone who cheated on her, because it was 'wrong' for her to do that and he wasnt suited to her anyway, in the opinion of the INFj. No amount of 'it's her decision' or, 'it's her choice' or any justificaton from other people changed the INFj's attitude at all, she thought she was right because she was right, if you know what im getting at. She sometimes does this with smaller things aswell, 'im right because im right' without having any reason as to why, and ignoring anyone who try's to make her see things from a different angle.

And you ppl dont like science type stuff

But other than that I really heart you ppl

[dreamer]

I hate how we can't deal with the physical stuff and let it bring us down.

[Typeless Wonder]

What have INFJs ever done to annoy me? Say shit like this...

SLeo123083 wrote:
INFj is probably the least common type. We are rare and beautiful snowflakes.


... have fun masterbating to that thought...

but what SLeo said is true Rocky.

I hate how we can't deal with the physical stuff and let it bring us down.

When I did a short stint working as a lab assistant I never trusted that I had done everything correctly even though on the surface it appeared that I had followed everything correctly. When an odd result occured I assumed that it had to have been something I did wrong. I wonder if this might have to do with Se not being an area of confidence.

[Kristiina]

This is a very good thread. I'll try to re-type the "INFj" I thought I knew. They share the INFj positive traits, but not the negative traits. They seem reasonable and I've never seen either of them being assertive about being right just because. They are more likely to be open-minded and reasonable than an INFp, who also seems to have a stronger value-system.

I always kinda thought that INFjs have a strong value-system, but they don't really force it on others. They have enough Ne to understand other people's point of views and Fi-program, which just makes them want to keep relations. (They know what they consider ethical, but they won't really share it with others).


IF they are INFjs, then INFjs are too damn friendly. I don't think they would tell me if something bothered them, so relations could go sour without me ever realizing something was wrong.

[science as magic]

and :| annoy me

i feel i am to blame for it and it confuses my sense of whether or not the person likes me.

[Olga]

I can not hate any type. The people do not choose their types but they have to behave in its limits as if you are are born a cat or a dog - you adopt what comes with it.

But I do not find them stimulating enough. Whenever I do create a turmoil they try to come me down or just "reflect" like a mirror so I see only myself there- no point for turmoil really .

I do like them because they can be funny and childish and innocent with a very good and other directed heart.

[Phaedrus]

What Logos and flower says about INFjs fit my view of that type perfectly. I know a real life INFj who have exactly those traits Logos describes.

[Olga]

I agree so far with everything said. I think it is a good idea to consider different perspectives on type - it will help to define a new system of interrelationship. It would be nice though if Herzy could elaborate on this relationship between ESTP and INFJ (his personal experiences). We could create later something more objective from the sum of subjective opinions.


BTW, I do not want to shock people with my thoughs but I think that INFJs men are more likely to be gays. they have that other directed sensitivity which is combined with a soft touch. ISFJs have a hard side to them and more critical. The differences between ISFJ and INFJ are - and +.

INFJ are from Delta, they like unusual people and sensational news/expereinces but their approach is individualistic. That is they prefer to work on individual level. They also prefer stability and not directed to produce change in a global sense. I would not take them to create revolution but rather to look after people (smoothers). I do feel comfortable in their company because they are good listeners, they are very considerate and caring, they understand what I am talking about or at least they are not judgemental and my ideas do not scare them off. They suit perfect to take the people -directed ideas from Gamma and implement them on individual level, adjust to the diffreent needs of individulas.

[Olga]

Do you wish to say that INFJ's are fighters? Actually, the good part of INFJ's that they say what they think because directs them to express it's values. However, they can smooth the situation where they see the conflict is growing and this what I consider inhibitary.

It is not quite about clothes they wear, it is more how they may relate to others - it is a sensitive approach and other directed - feminine approach.
At the end of the day I do not mean being gay means being not good. I believe that acceptance of being different means acceptance of diversity. Within diversity you try different things and some of them may work for you or may not - the way we find identity. God teaches people with punishments when they do something which is not good for them. He does not like it I guess but if we deserved it - He had no choice.

[pesto]

They also prefer stability and not directed to produce change in a global sense.

appears this way, but not really.


btw, if any other INFjs disagree with me or have different ideas, don't hold back but let's hear your opinion.

I agree. I want a revolution and work for it in very subtle ways... :wink: That is actually true, but I look for ways to make the world more and , which is probably lost on many oriented people. On a more down to earth level I look for and find ways for improvements of just about everything around me all the time.

[jessica129]

How indirect they are. I cannot read minds. I take things as they are but it seems as if, to them, there's always some 'deeper' meaning. They seem so afraid to hurt my feelings by creating conflict but that only creates more conflict. It's one type i'm not keen on having a relationship with.

[Rocky]

How indirect they are. I cannot read minds. I take things as they are but it seems as if, to them, there's always some 'deeper' meaning. They seem so afraid to hurt my feelings by creating conflict but that only creates more conflict. It's one type i'm not keen on having a relationship with.

So true!

My experience with them is the same.

[science as magic]

except towards those who violate their ethics. that is another thing I do not like about infjs. the smart ones realize this and cycle into despair and the less so remain ignorant. there is one more category, the coawrdly, who avoid interaction with others because of this

[pesto]

I guess the even smarter ones realize it and try their best to not let it influence their behaviour, much like any other predjudice.

[science as magic]

that is unnecessary as well. if they were neutral they would allow whatever was occuring to occur. you can't really be neutral in the absolute sense you can only dance around various paradigms

[pesto]

that is unnecessary as well. if they were neutral they would allow whatever was occuring to occur. you can't really be neutral in the absolute sense you can only dance around various paradigms

So basically INFjs are immoral for making moral judgements about other's way of reasoning?

[science as magic]

So basically INFjs are immoral for making moral judgements about other's way of reasoning?

NO. remove the idea of morality from it completely. they are foolish for acting as if the things which influence them do not

[Olga]

I elaborated today a bit on dimensions. Their creative is wich suggests that they are able to understand the person - where he comes from and what problems the person has got and etc. But they may not necessarily know what is it the person wants to achieve at the end of the day. They may not be good at forseeing future- and therefore they try no to direct people but rather wait until the person decides for himself or situations resolves itself. They probably do not like to put people under pressure. Surely there are situations where it can work for the better. Otherwise we can start to blame any type just for being themselves. ISFJ's can push whenever there is no real need for it, for example.

[pesto]

So basically INFjs are immoral for making moral judgements about other's way of reasoning?

NO. remove the idea of morality from it completely. they are foolish for acting as if the things which influence them do not

Well, I was being ironic. If I understand you correctly you are not concerned about how INFjs act, but how we reason around other's morals. I find that funny.

[science as magic]

thought is action.

[science as magic]

the question really boils down to why ahould we value equality? there is no reason to value it or not there are only reasons WHY it is valued or not

[science as magic]

i do not think we value humanity more than ahumanity, nonhumanity, beastiality, and inhumanity. people are just things to us. i cannot clarify the infj position until i turn into an infj which i do not see occuring at the present time

[jessica129]

I'd like to personally ask those infj's why they'd rather die than face conflict. I just don't understand it. I went through a horrible relationship with someone years back who refused to confront me about things that bothered him. He let it fester until one day he sprang the ' we're just friends' line on me and i was very, very shocked.

I get very bad impressions of these people. I'm not saying it's limited to one type or that a specific type acts this way, but from my experience, the ones that claim to be so 'caring' and empathetic, really turn out to be the ones who rip your heart out. At least with someone like me, I let you know flat out if i dont like you or want anything more to do with you...with these types i'm left feeling like i'm only being talked to so my feelings don't get hurt, which is b.s.

[science as magic]

nevertheless, equality is still valued. isn't this human nature? this is why your hear such negative things about Americans from people from other countries.

should the physical structure which maintains it be removed it shall not be.

how can people be looked at as just things? things and people are two different things. "things" do not have emotions, "people" do. they are altogether different.

"reactions" covers emotions quite nicely. you can write formulae after that. that is what exfjs do

@jessica: So would you prefer a loud argument over conflict avoidance? Seriously.

i would. it releases the tension. for example my other thread on killing people allowed for your admittal of anger towards someone in your life. there is something liberating in that which deescalates the conflict over the long term. it is sort of like taking the cover off a boiling pot so the water doesn't spill over

[Rocky]

@jessica: So would you prefer a loud argument over conflict avoidance? Seriously.

Seriously? Yes.

[jessica129]

@jessica: So would you prefer a loud argument over conflict avoidance? Seriously.

Seriously? Yes.

haha, us istps think alike.

I'd choose a real arugument over skirting the issue any day. How can you possibly progress anything unless you say what's on your mind? It drives me insane when people don't think i'm 'on' to them when they're avoiding conflict. JUST SAY IT. arggggh

[pesto]

thought is action.

Emotional response is not, which was what you were talking about. Recognised prejudice does not have to be acted upon if you think again.

ETA: To finish off this debate of one-liners: Yes, you can. I question my negative emotions constantly and recognise them as coming from my preconceptions every other day. Then I ignore them. It's called taking responsibility for your actions.

[science as magic]

Emotional response is not, which was what you were talking about. Recognised prejudice does not have to be acted upon if you think again.

when your brain fires off electrical discharge it acts it changes the world if only very subtly. this happens before you can "restrain" it.

how does that lessen the fact that it is human nature to value equality?

it questions whether or not there is a human nature which does. obviously some people do not value equality. applying the term human to both sets would be a misnomer as you could just as easily (and more correctly) see them as distinct groups. it is a question of perspective. HOW MUCH do we have to have in common to be "the same"? for some it is everything for some it is nothing but there are in fact trillions of intermediate forms that can work just as well. it would be silly to give one greater value then another simply because of it's location/position.

mhmm upon further consideration i realize this may not be clear enough. you can just as easily say it is not human nature to value equality but rather subset (insert function here)'s nature.

people can have emotions without reaction....INFjs do it all the time.

only because we are viewing them with insufficient angular resolution(?) (magnification?)

[science as magic]

it is all about scope fever. where things begin and end

[Olga]

ohh...why don't you give me critics? i would be very happy to know what you think? I need your


INTPs are very different to Fi types; reasoning is for them what is feeling for us. have a mercy for each other.

[science as magic]

ohh...why don't you give me critics?

who? me? i thought you were speaking to fever only so I didn't really read what you said.

@fever: to me equality is nothing more than a chemical process. remove it and it is gone, duh. so why should anything that does not have it be called human if the desire for equality is part of what constitutes humanity? humanity imo is our process of ascribing animation to various objects. once you begin realizing what YOU ARE DOING TO IT rather than thinking it is something that it HAS you can learn to DO that IT to other things as well. even rocks, the universe, sunshine, etc can be made to be "alive." the truth is those things need not be viewed as animate nor do we

[Logos]

People seem to have a hard time with the idea of people as things. So another way that may be easier to conceptualize: humans are animals. There. Look at what animals do and then look at what humans do and you'll see that we're not really different.

Emotions? Emotions are just abstract ideas given names used to categorize our mental states. Our mental states are induced by physiological responses to our environmental surroundings. These surroundings can be changed and controlled to obtain a desired result. Sad? Well just eat a parfait or some Breyer's ice cream and you'll feelt better.

But equality is not a part of human nature. Go back 500 years ago and talk about equality being a part of human nature and you'd be laughed at profusely. The desire for equality is a modern creation of our upbringing and the pursuit of economic prosperity. When the nobility and the church told people that the hierarchy on earth reflected that which was in heaven, people earnestly believed that hierarchy was the way of things. And now a new ruling class talks about the modern virtues of equality and liberty. Am I against these things? No, I'm not. But recognize it for what it is, the result of ideas brought forth by others. It is not human nature to desire for equality. It is human nature to be a product of our surroundings, and the surroundings can be changed. What we believe can be changed. How is equality a part of human nature?

[Olga]

Am I no good at confusing people or what? Yes, I meant Fever but in reality I would enjoy critics from anybody on the forum. Logical types are the most tough ones and why didn't they eat me up yet? ha-ha-ha

As you see logicals are good at playing words and concepts around because words and concepts belong to logic world - shape or form. If you change shape or form you change the content/meaning - this is what they argue about. Such thing like feelings or emotions is of no real value for them. Can you touch feelings/meanings/irratinality - no, shape or form - yes.
Change the form/shape and you change feelings/emotions which are secondary to real objective world and is so to speak a bioproduct. How can we argue against it?

I guess the advise they could give to feeling types is about mind development. If we would have an idea of a proper reasoning we would not talk rubbish in a first place.

[Olga]

I guess if we go deeper the suggested root we shall end up living with objects instead of living with people and there will be lots of meaningless forms around which will be very real but unemotional at the same time.

Can anybody explain to me one of the magics of the world: "crying stones" in Israel?