Chryssie,Originally Posted by Chryssie
If you are truly ISFp, you share much with INFp but differ in that you should be:
- more focused on specific physical detail rather than relationship
- more inclined to share observations with others
- unable to be a true chameleon - more intransigent
- more compatible with a philosopher than a knight
- more practical and realistic
- less optimistic and trusting, and more cautious
- less able to predict consequence
a.k.a. I/O
Regarding the chameleon statement
... I'm actually quite good at appearing as if I'm on someone's side, even though I may be in disagreement with the morality/legitimacy of their reaction to a situation or their stance on an argument... I don't even plainly disagree in my own head as I could see how they could have gotten to their conclusion. The only time I've gone on a rant about something being morally wrong was when the topic was censorship of the internet, and anything that aims to limit free speech for the purpose of "minimizing lies and offensive remarks." Where I can annoy people and sorta create and a bit of discomfort (unintentional) is my almost instinctive need to point out flaws in people's plans and jokes and... well anywhere I can find themI mostly do it out of humour or harmless ridicule rather than to be constructive and harsh.
Chryssie,
I think there may be a subtle difference between you pretending to support someone and INFps who can take on roles like professional actors and actually adopt entire personas. For example, not only can they play a bigot, they can become one for the required time. I'm not suggesting that ISFps can't make excellent actors but there seems to be an innate, automatic ability in INFps that is chameleon. It would be interesting to hear from some as to whether or not my perception has any substance.......
a.k.a. I/O
@Aylen
@Persephone
@Starfall @summerprincess @BulletsAndDoves
Who else are our INFp?
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I like the philosopher/knight description for entp/estp..do you have others for the other types?
Sorry, I have made several such posts but I don't know how to easily find them.
a.k.a. I/O
Ah cool. I’ve read some of your other ‘descriptions’ (like the infp one above) for the other types too..just wondered if you have them all in one place somewhere? I really like them, I don’t really know how to explain why-I just know I’ll read them again when I’m feeling confused about people.. Did you write one for every type?
I have likely written several of every type but I didn't keep them; most were written with several specific people in mind as mental notes for me dealing with them or their partnerships - most were for a work environment. They weren't meant as publications and the ones on this site are ones that I found on floppy disks, which speaks of their age. I started putting some articles and descriptions on the socionics.com site until it ceased operation - the early articles weren't written well because I tried to frame my understanding in Socionics speak - somewhat like trying to write in ancient Sumerian.
a.k.a. I/O
Stratiyevskaya seems to be expert at this. I have no idea how she does it.I have likely written several of every type but I didn't keep them; most were written with several specific people in mind as mental notes for me dealing with them or their partnerships - most were for a work environment. They weren't meant as publications and the ones on this site are ones that I found on floppy disks, which speaks of their age. I started putting some articles and descriptions on the socionics.com site until it ceased operation - the early articles weren't written well because I tried to frame my understanding in Socionics speak - somewhat like trying to write in ancient Sumerian.
a.k.a. I/O
Ah cool. They are interesting though. I haven't actually read loads of socionics articles but I've read enough to know what you mean by Socionics speak. There is definitely something about those articles (partly content, partly style) that I can't stomach to read myself haha, at least at the moment. I prefer just reading what people discuss on here (that got me into hot water at first though lol) and I also just like learning from what I observe in people. I like the writing style of your posts and your articles though, and the content- well, the more simple stuff anyway. The descriptions feel sort of like a description of a character in a tv show or something..a well-written character. I've read a few and there is enough in them that feels quite accurate.I have likely written several of every type but I didn't keep them; most were written with several specific people in mind as mental notes for me dealing with them or their partnerships - most were for a work environment. They weren't meant as publications and the ones on this site are ones that I found on floppy disks, which speaks of their age. I started putting some articles and descriptions on the socionics.com site until it ceased operation - the early articles weren't written well because I tried to frame my understanding in Socionics speak - somewhat like trying to write in ancient Sumerian.
a.k.a. I/O
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
