#infpfilly

Don’t know the source for this but it’s interesting nonetheless.

Anyone else been mistyped like in this chart?

Hey guys!

As usual this is based all on my own personal experience and observations and is not backed up by any empirical evidence.

I think most would agree that one thing that INFPs and ISFPs have in common is their love--dare I say hunger--for all things aesthetically pleasing. However occasionally I will stumble upon the thoughts of others claiming that ISFPs are more artistic (because, you know, senses) and more connected to nature (again with the senses) I’m an INFP. But suddenly I’m also the kid on the playground shouting that their shirt is the bluest. 

No! INFPs are more artistic! INFPs are definitely the MOST connected to nature! It’s impossible to more connected to nature than an INFP!

Okay, first things first: those are just stereotypes. Remember, MBTI is about cognition, that is how your brain processes information (to put it simply). And what do aesthetics have to do with processing information? Not much. Even if that weren’t the case, if you look at the function stacks for both types they have the same dominant and inferior function--Fi and Te--so very similar. But I’m getting sidetracked.

What I actually want to do is feed the stereotypes and talk about my relationship with my own aesthetic and what I think it might be for a stereotypical ISFP. 

I love pretty things. My aesthetic is basically anything covered in floral prints or anything to do with wildflowers. Very forest nymphish. Also everything that Anthropologie sells. Throw in some industrial bricks and pipes and bare light bulbs and gosh I’m getting tingly just thinking about it. As you can probably imagine, I collect of pictures of such on Tumblr, Pinterest, etc. And I imagine these impossibly beautiful scenes a lot. Did I say impossibly? Yes. That’s the problem. I can’t really recreate any of this. I could imagine myself having a picnic in a beautiful field of wildflowers, laying in the grass in some off-white cottony dress. But were I actually to do that, I don’t think it would be as satisfying. I think I’m just always far too much in my head to every truly appreciate my actual surroundings. 

I feel that ISFPs are probably more into actually being surrounded by these things. Their imagination might not be enough for them if they were in a grey cubicle, for example (unless minimalist office settings are their aesthetic). Maybe that shows more to other people. They may go to great lengths to beautify their surroundings. But I would too. But when I do it it’s because those things that I’m collecting are a window into the even more beautiful landscape I’ve created in my mind. 

Maybe they create art because it’s beautiful, maybe I create art because I’m trying to capture and pin down something that’s for the most part intangible. 

(for myself haha)

Yesterday I made a post about my musing over P and J and how it relates to the function stack. A comment for that post prompted me to do some research (that’s for another post!) and I realized I had been reinventing the wheel a little bit. However, according to general MBTI theory I was spot on! Or at least according to Wikipedia article I read. I just find that when I theorize first and then confirm it with research, it makes me feel more confident about the validity of the theory. But here’s the wiki paragraph:

“Lifestyle preferences: judging/perception

Myers and Briggs added another dimension to Jung's typological model by identifying that people also have a preference for using either the judging function (thinking or feeling) or their perceiving function (sensing or intuition) when relating to the outside world (extraversion).

Myers and Briggs held that types with a preference for judging show the world their preferred judging function (thinking or feeling). So, TJ types tend to appear to the world as logical and FJ types as empathetic. According to Myers,[1]:75 judging types like to "have matters settled".

Those types who prefer perception show the world their preferred perceiving function (sensing or intuition). So, SP types tend to appear to the world as concrete and NP types as abstract. According to Myers,[1]:75 perceptive types prefer to "keep decisions open".

For extraverts, the J or P indicates their dominant function; for introverts, the J or P indicates their auxiliary function[citation needed]. Introverts tend to show their dominant function outwardly only in matters "important to their inner worlds".[1]:13 For example:

Because the ENTJ type is extraverted, the J indicates that the dominant function is the preferred judging function (extraverted thinking). The ENTJ type introverts the auxiliary perceiving function (introverted intuition). The tertiary function is sensing and the inferior function is introverted feeling.

“The way I see it Myers and Briggs took the theory Carl Jung made of cognitive functions and and created a test based on it. The only thing they added was the judging/perceiving. Basically what I’m saying is the test was originally, as said before, a simplified version of Jung’s theory so that the wider population could use it as well. Maybe in the past people ignored the functions, but they were always there as the bases for it. Though most of us would agree that the mbti test itself is lacking, the dichotomy is quite useful in terms of organizing the functions and being an identifier for the function stacks.

And as time goes on it’s being even more fleshed out. And further research is always being done.”