NTJ vs. NFP: Type Interaction and Comparison

I WROTE A BOOK:
Purchase the print paperback: www.amazon.com...
Purchase the ebook pdf: subjectobjectmi...
__________________
Donating to Patreon is the leading cause of awesomeness worldwide: / michaelpierce
According to my time zone, it is still technically Thursday. Here it is! I mention at the end that this is a bit ragtag in my personal opinion. For various reasons, I feel like some parts were done more last minute for my taste. Feel absolutely free to ask questions and ask me to elaborate in the comments or even in a future video.
I don't own copyright on any pictures.

[@mariajasnorzewska4786]

INTJ woman here - 4 years ago (high school :) ) I met an ENFP guy - and it was an adventure I'll never forget. We would spend hours on talking, he stayed at school longer, only to get some more time to talk to me and when we eventually had to say good bye and go back home - he would text me or send me mails anyway... It was amazing - I've never mer anyone so interesting. Texting him was like an addiction - discovering something new every day. Unfortunately, he fell in love with me - and to me he was always just a friend. Yes, it was fascination - but only on an intelectual level (again 0 it's INTJ here :) ). And yet - after 4 years - he sometimes sends me messages and he remembers things I said a few years ago... Wow, forgive me a comment this long :) Your video simply reminded me of something important I've experienced :) Thank you for that!

[@katherandefy]

I never listen to anything twice. But your vids are in-depth and thought provoking. Have listened to a few of them more than once. I have passed them onto others too. Very interesting. Thanks. ~~ENFP

[@shiftywily]

Thank you. I like your brain.

[@ConcaveEarth100]

Very intriguing video. As an INTJ, I can definitely see why an ENFP might make a great match for me. In hindsight, I can also see why there was a strong initial attraction between an INFP and myself, but over time it became clear that her and I couldn't communicate effectively enough to develop a healthy relationship. If something upset her, I would focus of what happened, why it happened, and how I can make things better (Ni/Te). This never seemed to help the situation because all she ever wanted was for me to empathize with precisely how she *felt* about what happened (Fi).

[@doormadeofwood4450]

Liam M Dem ENFPs doe, there so dang. Lel im a ENFP Heh lel

[@songofstorms2144]

Please keep producing this content. I love the MBTI and greatly value your insight

[@EngelsLawliet]

Why do I feel like I just read a fanfiction.

[@johnschultzbarnes3196]

5:30 is a great description of Ne interacting with Te. I've felt that same thing very often with my ENTJ friend

[@slmrcs]

On INFP wanting a stake to be made - on a very deep level - yes. But the thing about it is, only with regards to stuff that actually matters. It's so easy to just be jaded and not care. I've seen some bad descriptions of INFP (not from you) that they'll just throw their Fi into everything. So about INFP wanting a judgement to made (starting at about 18:10), yes, but so often the first step of subject matter being relevant, something that means something is not met. How can you want a judgement to be made over things which do not really matter? As INFP, people will see my external intuition, first, but I think also even external thinking before Fi. Fi is for stuff that matters. Perhaps this is more about where I personally am, but I do find myself so bored by dreary conversation about nonsense - I can be very detached, unemotional, b/c I simply do not care and meanwhile my inner monologue is elsewhere - condemning the external nonsense for being irrelevant to the/my human experience. I think this is a lonely perspective - b/c while I do want to connect with others very much, it's repulsive travel through the muck of irrelevancy or conformity to do so. So instead of feeling anything deep, it's so much more common to feel numb and bored at irrelevant external crap.

[@matunam250]

this is EXACTLY how i feel, i am an enfp though, but with my friends, online; when they talk about...some celebrity, or they talk about going somewhere, or when my friend akira talks to me in the game we play (aura kingdom) and so often she seems to be talking about irrelevant crap, like having her butt kicked in some dungeon, or a new loot wheel..or something in game that has no...relevance to it, were all; you can do is say something catchy, but it cant go anywhere. all those things..i actually wish i could care more about but i don't; anything that i cant interact with or make judgements about...is irrelevant to me. but i don't want to say this to her or anyone for fear of the reaction. is this how you feel to?

[@matunam250]

Ilona Randall yes! yes! exactly!! thats exactly how i feel, its good to know i can relate with someone. you a man or woman, also i notice the types are VASTLY different per gender, which is very interesting. i find that my Fi is almost dominating or my Ne...perhaps it's because i live an introverted life, then i recoil into my introverted judgements. thanks for sharing your thoughts, it means something to me.

[@MichaelPiercePhilosophy]

slmrcs Thanks -- that's very useful to help me understand Fi better, and matches up better with what I've seen of Fi users. I had written an article for CelebrityTypes a while back, and the edited version says, "That which is not acceptable to the overall framework of Ti or Fi is simply @blog/2014/05/inferior-te-in-infps-and-isfps/." At the time I thought that was an odd way to put it, and I don't think the typical introverted judger shuts the world out completely or ignores important things as a rule, but as an exception when their own personality gets the better of them. Basically everything you said. For instance: a passage from Kierkegaard's writings where he talks about trying to figure out how to endure the sheer boredom of listening to this one older man ramble on about useless things, and discovering that if he arbitrarily focused on the sweat that formed on his brow while talking, he noticed it would slide down onto the tip of his nose and form a fascinating little globule, and he found this fascinating enough that he could endure the man's chatter just to watch how the droplets formed. I don't know if that in any way resonates with you or any other Fi users here...?

[@Komatik_]

Michael Pierce To a point. I don't know if I've ever gotten as exasperated as Kierkegaard did, but people do go on for ages about such trifling things sometimes...

[@slmrcs]

Komatik It's being challenged to use Te, for nonsense that is draining. Such as my "literally" mentally retarded friend asking for minute details of locations I've been to. Such discussion is more mentally taxing than anything else - worse than learning calculus, or medical or taking exams. The use of Te for meaningful things - isn't. But for nonsense is.

[@yueyihe3630]

Gender matters too. If u r a female INTJ with high standards, male ENFPs often piss u off due to incompetence and all over the place

[@mattr2961]

Yueyi He Lol that’s a very good point. I’m male enfp and i get the sense that I might disgust a female INTJ

[@c.k.g.]

I really enjoyed the the comparison in narrative form, I hope you do more like this

[@chantalx388]

I wish there was a continuation of these characters into a full-fledged series. I'm really fascinated by the different takes of Kirkegaard and Hegel, and how one draws strong examples from philosophy to demonstrate different thinking styles. Its quite fascinating and I hope there are more to come!!

[@elizabethsmith9624]

It's definitely interesting in theory, but I just don't think ENTJ-INFP is comparable to ENFP-INTJ in practice. ENFP-INTJ is probably the strongest/most common real-life relationship trend in MBTI, is most often described in superlatives.... ENTJ-INFP, while not uncommon is definitely not a super strong relationship trend and in practice seems to be incredibly difficult to make work. it takes markedly well developed people of the respective types. i see way more INFPs with INTJs than INFPs with ENTJs, but INTJs overwhelmingly seem to prefer and are with (and RAVE about) ENFPs. dom-judgers just don't seem to have the electric, super common matches that dom-intuitives do, especially when the dom-judger is dom-Fi! We INFPs may like people who make judgments, but I think even more than that we want someone who understands and can support our Fi, and since INTJs have it higher in the stack they're more accessible (yet can also give us structure and a different kind of stability). I guess this reflects the socionics dynamic between the INFP and INTJ mbti types (letters are different in socionics), where the INTJ is the benefactor and has the advantage over and is less interested in the INFP. I think because INFPs are perhaps in the top two most withdrawn types (INFPs and INTPs tend to be deepest inside themselves most often), all relationships tend to be reallly hard in a specific way it isn't exactly for most others. And we are perhaps less appealing for this reason as well. And then on top of this, we tend to have very private, very volatile, often depressive feelings which can make longterm relationships quite difficult to sustain

[@brianchandler3346]

ENFP here. Loved the video. Totally going to have to see who I might know that's an INTJ. ;)

[@andrewcamarillo5728]

I really enjoyed this video along with the NTP and NFJ relational video! Michael, could you perhaps one day make a video that is similar in style that discusses the NTPs and NFPs relational dynamics? Thank you for all the great videos!

[@questionthingss]

I'm exteremly drawn and attracted to INTJ's in a way that I don't feel with any other type (I'm an ENFP). There seems to be a magnetic nature between both types that's really unexplainable. I have an INTJ best friend whom I think understands and sees me so clearly more than anyone I ever met. We went through a couple of ups and downs but we always end up finding some common ground. I've found we are most likely to end up to the same conclusions but we come at it from different ways which makes the dynamic so interesting. I do think the pair is so complementary and really fills up what the other person is lacking. I have yet to meet an INTJ male though and I've been trying to find one for a while now haha.

[@ThePastAnalysis]

This video was great. I'm wondering though, will you do a second video on NFP and NTJ? You did two for NFJ and NTP, and in the first part of it, you focused on the general differences between the two and then made a video similar to this one, using philosophers to explain types feelings of each other. Either or, I'm loving what you're making.

[@MichaelPiercePhilosophy]

Past Analysis I was thinking about that. I split the original NFJ NTP video into two parts because it was getting way too long with me trying to fit all of that in, and I still feel its a bit over-long. I don't know how much more I have to say, except to elaborate more on the ENTJ INFP relationship, and I don't like having asymmetry, but I'll probably leave it as is for now. I'm glad you liked them! Thanks for the support!

[@matunam250]

Michael Pierce well for the NTP NFJ relations you talk directly about how the functions would interact with each other, and went more into the auxiliary too, it was very informative and to be honest it think it was even more informational than the story vid (although that one was great) i think more could be gleaned from you making a part 2, were it is like the part one of the NTP NFJ one. but nonetheless thanks a lot for this video, i anticipated it largely, it was not disappointing.

[@andrewbailey2337]

Kudos for the hard work you put into each of these videos, it is greatly appreciated, I love your work. I like this Video as it has helped me know how I work(INTJ) a bit more. I can relate to the part where you said that the INTJ would listen while the ENFP would do the talking. I can relate to that in this way, My GF is an INTP and I am an INTJ, I like to listen to her talk and it is very interesting and stimulating and we compliment each other well. However I have to work a bit more than your INTJ friend had to as I have an introverted abstract thinking GF and he had a extroverted abstract thinking GF, but I do however so many similarities there as well. ENFPs and INTPs are both very abstract in my experience and a bit spontaneous thinkers/doers. That being said it would be interesting and entertaining to see an NTJ vs NTP video. Though I can understand that perhaps you don't know anyone with a relationship like this and therefore have no experience to work off of, though I don't know if this would stop you, but it seems as though you draw mostly from experience. Just a dream, or reality I would like. I really love your videos and enjoy watching new ones each week, keep up the good work, sir.

[@goldwhining]

could you do a NFP - NTP comparison like this?

[@MichaelPiercePhilosophy]

SarcasmSunshine I am definitely planning on it! Can't say when though, but not too far in the future.

[@johnturner218]

@@MichaelPiercePhilosophy eight years later...I'm just giving you flak. Your content is great!

[@marqiparty9401]

I love your videos

[@chantalx388]

This is my life story!! 😍

[@DaFithGospel]

I really really REALLY love this series! Here's my one critique. I feel that your conclusion here regarding ENTJ and INFP is inconsistent with your last video on the INTP and ENFJ. Shouldn't both of these relationships struggle with the repressed/dominant function factor? I feel that since INTP and ENFJ didn't have quite the happy ending, ENTJ and INFP shouldn't either - just based on your previous theory. Here's what I'd like to see you flesh out in another video of this kind: maybe the INFP and INTP would be the strongest match for each other since they are both judging dominants with no conflicting dominant/repressed functions, same with ENTJ and ENFJ (I actually think the better matches may be INTP with ENTJ and INFP with ENFJ, but I'd like to continue the NT and NF pairings for balance). I'd love to get your thoughts on this. Keep up the good work!

[@MichaelPiercePhilosophy]

Rhema B I think you're absolutely right, as the lack of consistency is bothering me more than I thought it would. I'm just having trouble fleshing out a set compatibility theory that I think really seems to reflect what I've seen. I personally believe that the judging axis has a more crucial role in relationships (Raja Burrows has a good article on type relationships and holds essentially the same view: www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2014/12/dating-and-type/). I don't believe there is any actual "ideal" relationship period, but I think there are a number of different typical relationships, of which some are more built for romantic and some for work and so on. But this is something I've been exploring much more recently. I definitely think I am going to correct or redo the ENTJ INFP relationship. Originally, my idea was that the ideal relationship was to have the same dominant function in different attitudes and then the same auxiliary axis as it is for INFJ ENTP and INTJ ENFP. That would mean the ideal match for INTP is actually ESTJ. But honestly, I currently think ENTJ works much better with INTP as you suggested. The problem I'm running into is I think having the same judging axis really helps the relationship, but that doesn't carry over as well to the dominant judging types. I don't know if the INTP and ENTJ would actually play off each other very well as the INFJ ENTP tends to. That was a bit of a rant, and not very enlightening, but the long and short of it is I'm thinking about it, and any suggestions are always welcomed. Thanks for your own suggestions and for the support!

[@DaFithGospel]

Michael Pierce that's an interesting point about different kinds of relationships. I usually think of the Ti and Te partnership as primarily work related. INTPs and ENTJs make excellent work partners. One brings novel ideas and systems the other brings efficient and forward thinking application. However, characters like Sherlock and Irene Adler (INTP and ENTJ) do come to mind as excellent romantic matches, although more of a strategic and aggressive romance than classic ones. I had never thought of the INTP ESTJ pair or the ESFJ INFP pair etc, those fit your theory perfectly and would be interesting to examine. People usually don't consider S and N to be good matches, but maybe since these aren't N or S doms they are more flexible with who they can pair with. All interesting stuff to consider.

[@Komatik_]

Michael Pierce Rhema B Sometimes it's useful to consider if trying to force symmetry on things is a lost cause ^^ That said, I think there's a lot to be said about actual compatibility and the naturalness of communication - INTP xNTJ can get along very well: similar interests, complementary strengths and all, but the communication is sometimes a bit tortured and laborious because the way of thinking may lead to the same place but is fundamentally different. It's so very much worth it and very satisfying, but it lacks ease. With xNFPs and INFJs that ease is there, whether it's because of shared Ni or Te/Fi axis. There's a connection which makes communication "lightweight", but the natural focus on entirely different things can be a pretty big barrier in itself.

[@Hari-kx2er]

@@DaFithGospel According to Michael Pierce, Sherlock of BBC is an INTJ.

[@peregrination3643]

Whoa, that was fun to listen to. I got pulled in like a real story.

[@lopt]

this was a remarkably entertaining video. your picture at about 9:17, where he's thinking of everything BUT the object, i laughed out loud at that picture, can really relate to that. a few foods for thought, of course: 1. after listening to your video, i've come to wonder your take on the idea of introversion extroversion more as a means of... like you say relationship to objects within the external and internal worlds of a person. what would you then think of the idea that an extroverted oriented person be less of a malleable person than an introvert? i mean in the sense of say being more true to their inner selfs code, as in they do not want "objects" to reflect on their inner world and instead interact with them externally? 2. would you say that, perhaps, at their core, intjs are just as capable of being subjective to a version of wanderlust just as much as the more free spirited types you described? perhaps not in the usually thought of way of wanderlust where one yearns to see the world in such a way it presents as nostalgia, but rather like, they yearn to seek the understanding and truths of their desires in a very similar fashion? from what i get from this, intjs quite possibly can come off just as "adventurous" and "dreamer" like as the others but approach such a feeling from a quite different angle of thought? these are just points i've thought of as i watched and wanted to hear your take on them. i think that after refining a bit, they could have some viability in a way? i've been thinking maybe other good ideas for videos might be, in case you were running out of ideas, your take on what the functions actually are and misconceptions that are presented about them.

[@MichaelPiercePhilosophy]

jessaruh I'm glad you enjoyed the video! Thanks! I enjoyed your two points: 1) I talk more about the basics of Jungian introversion and extroversion in one of my very first videos (kzbin.info/www/bejne/Zp7ccouleL2Da5o). I also have a quote here from Jung's Psychological Types that I think helps answer your first question, though its a difficult passage, so what I'm posting here is a sort of translation I've made to put Jung into more plain, understandable language, so you can let me know if it actually helps: "Obviously, everyone is affected by data provided by the outer world; I do not mean to imply by my description of introversion and extroversion that half of the population is cut off from reality. What I do mean to imply is that for the introvert the data provided by the outer world is considered secondary to other factors. For instance, if it is cold outside, one man wears a coat, while another deliberately leaves his at home so that he can become hardened to the cold; one man admires a singer because the rest of the world admires him, while another refuses to admire him, not because he doesn't like the singer, but because he doesn't want to align with the crowd; one man accepts a current state of affairs because he has never seen anything otherwise, while another man is absolutely convinced that, although a thousand attempts to change things have failed, the thousand and first time will be different. In summary, the first man, representing the extrovert, is oriented by objective, outside data, while the second man, representing the introvert, is oriented by a subjective view, a reservation if you will, interposed between himself and the objective world." So, extroversion by definition means it adapts itself to objective, outside circumstances, and from that perspective, certainly more malleable than introversion. However, Jung does later say (and this is another 'translation' of mine): "Man is not a machine that can simply be deconstructed and then reconstructed differently, on different grounds, to serve different ends, much less whenever outside circumstances demand it, and then expect the man to proceed to function, in a totally different way, just as normally as he did before!" In other words, the extrovert does adapt to general, outside conditions, but that does not mean that if there is a sudden, radical shift that they will smoothly transition with it, or that they always go immediately with the crowd, or don't have subjective convictions of their own. In fact, if they are used to a certain outside state of affairs, then if that radically changes they will likely fight against it *because* its the state of outside affairs they are used to, in which case they are less malleable. But generally, introversion is the less malleable of the two. 2) I really like this point of yours, and think it is true of INTJs. I know one very well and his tertiary Fi does still give him a certain aura of detachment or dreaminess that is not normally associated with INTJs. I think they do have that free-spirit sense in them in their pursuit of knowledge. They certainly are independent. And many famous historic INTJs, while the fact that they are searching for cold knowledge causes people to assume they are pragmatic scientists, have upon further examination of their personal life been revealed to be very concerned with the mystical and prophetic, and had that sense of "dreaminess" associated with INFPs, for instance, Isaac Newton who was fascinated by alchemy and called "the last of the magicians", or Karl Marx, who later commentators have said was more of a "prophet" than anything else. I don't know if that helps at all?

[@lopt]

Michael Pierce I'm actually laughing right now, I WOULD go a completely different direction of thought from what was intended. Aha, that is so very me. O:) Yes, I understand you perfectly, loud and clear, no issues. I had it a bit backwards, it seems! I was under the impression that an introvert, because of their main function being so personal, is more open to allowing things to connect into it to expand their inner universe while an extrovert is more likely to expand to the outer universe, so to speak. Or maybe, rather than backwards, I must have grasped it and then went left when you all went right. I am glad you liked my second point! I think that the functions allow for such a big world of possibilities to explore the mind that a stereotype or boxing of them seems like not giving credit to the adaptability of the human mind even when in regards to how it views/interacts with the world (ie the functions!) As a side note, I think you will appreciate this particular reddit thread: www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/2touks/how_serious_is_mbti_to_you/co0zs4o

[@MichaelPiercePhilosophy]

jessaruh I do really appreciate that thread -- Thank you! I don't really know what to say...:)

[@laurarawrrr]

what is the enfp's philosopher? i could not make out the name through the mispronunciation. :x

[@yeghor]

Niza = Nietzche? Derida = en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida ?

[@laurarawrrr]

yeghor Thanks!! I knew the others--Nietzsche, Camus, and Aristotle. :)

[@MichaelPiercePhilosophy]

laurarawrrr yeghor Thanks yeghor! Yeah, ENFP is Derrida, and you got all the rest right too.

[@matunam250]

Michael Pierce hey i was wondering, can i ask why you used derrida for the enfp?

[@MichaelPiercePhilosophy]

Matuvo Namiikaze Oh, not any deep reason; just because I thought his name is cool, fun to say, and because I like him as a philosopher: from what I understand about him he represents important aspects of the ENFP, for instance, his work with "deconstructionism" is all about never settling in a set, "right" interpretation of a text or an idea, but always going back and reading it again and reinterpreting it, which seems to represent Ne's tendency to search for more and more ideas, not wanting to settle and stagnate, and also Fi focusing on individuals, and how each individual can get their own personal value, judgment, or interpretation from the text. If you want, here's a lecture about it: if anything its entertaining, he was a funny guy: kzbin.info/www/bejne/o3immqSniZ6opZo

[@SnehaBalaa]

Do you develop Ni? I'm an INTJ and I'm still confused about the way my head works.... Is there any way to verify this (Ni) cause my Te strongly demands this (ugh)!

[@andrewosegueda2283]

Sneha Balaa i wouldnt know much as i dont have the function but i have read that it is impressionistic

[@PeterMcLoughlinStargazer1877]

any good books on MBTI and functional stack I could pick up?

[@MichaelPiercePhilosophy]

Peter McLoughlin Well, the sources that I am personally familiar with are Jung's "Psychological Types" and von Franz's "Lectures on Jung's Typology", of which my videos are a hobbyist's interpretation (a.k.a. my 'emergency video'). You can find links to both of those in the About tab of my channel: a link to a free script of Jung's work and one to Amazon to purchase a copy of von Franz's if you'd like. Jung is very dense, while von Franz is easier to read, but neither directly advocated the "functional stack" that we're familiar with today. That was an organization by Isabel Myers, who laid out her ideas in "Gifts Differing". The other work considered a part of the Jungian Typology canon is van der Hoop's "Character and the Unconscious". For my own reasons, I have not read either of these works myself yet. Another resource, that might help you is: shawnhuckabay.info/2015/02/01/jungian-typology-for-absolute-beginners/ which just runs through the basics of Jungian Typology and the way a functional stack is built. He does reference me as a source, though. Let me know if you have any questions of concerns!

[@PeterMcLoughlinStargazer1877]

Michael Pierce Thanks I will look into it.

[@fintanwatson2791]

Why is Camus a her and Virginia Woolf..?

[@lukewyman1]

A question on judging vs. perceiving types. As an INFP, I understand myself to be a perceiving type. I drink objectively from the outside world, and then I'm aggressive to my inner experience, shaping my personal values. But in this video, as in the how to type yourself video, you seem to classify INFP as a judging type because our primary function is a judging one, even though its attitude is introverted. Now, I will admit that as a software engineer, I am known to passionately champion my design ideas and development approaches, thus flaunting my primary Fi, but I must still say that I most identify with being quietly observant while privately organizing the treasures in my intricate system of caverns and caves. How to nail this understanding down?...

[@MichaelPiercePhilosophy]

Luke Wyman Reading your comment, I recall a quote from Psychological Types by Jung, who said concerning introverted feeling: "Their outward demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a sympathetic parallelism, which has no desire to affect others, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way." (371). So, the INFP is an introverted judger as you said, meaning it is primarily interested in organizing or forming a definite judgment of some kind on a thing, in Fi's case, on whether it meets certain personally, privately derived criteria of value. But it is privately derived, and especially in Fi's case, while beneath it is indeed interested in forming judgment of some sort, this does not often show on the surface. All that arises is the extraverted perception Ne. So in one sense the INFP is an observer, they watch and learn quite a bit, being receptive to the outside world, but the material they assimilate into themselves undergoes organization, as it were. I don't know if that helps?

[@lukewyman1]

Michael Pierce That is indeed a helpful response. Since posting this question, I viewed John Barnes' video "E vs I: an alternate method," and that'll probably make me ponder all this some more. The idea of INFP being a judging type is interesting, however, because it makes me wonder if ESTJ is a closer cousin than I may have thought. We're both movers and shakers in a sense. INFPs are well known for being creative, their Fi driving the creation internally, their Ne going out and collecting the raw material to build it, and their tertiary Si weaving it all together with detail and coherence, and voila, "The Lord of the Rings!" ESTJs might not be any less creative though. Te to move objects, driving the creation externally, Si providing the ideas of how things should be from their inner subjective impressions, and tertiary Ne to give the thing sweeping scope and expansion, and voila, Ford Motors! I might just spend some time mapping out how the other paired opposites play out this way...

[@Komatik_]

Luke Wyman The J/P is just which one of your primary functions is extraverted, ie. interested in the outside world of objects and people. It doesn't say which one of your primary functions you prefer. It's best to just think in terms of function stacks and use the type codes as a shorthand for deriving the stack.

[@lukewyman1]

Komatik That was my original understanding and still is. My primary function is Fi and thus a judging function. BUT it's my perception function, Ne, that is is extroverted, thus making me a perceiving type. If you watch each of the 16 type videos, ALL the types that end in J are called judging types - that they drink from their subjective impression, and are aggressive to the outside world, and ALL the types that end in P are called perceiving types - that they drink objectively from the outside world and are aggressive to their inner experience. By that definition, INFP is a perceiving type. But then this video and the how to type yourself video call it a judging type when the primary function is judging, regardless of it's I/E attitude. So I guess this is an attempt to clear up nomenclature/vobulary-mapping so that it's consistent. That said, my preference in understanding is that the Ps are perceivers and the Js are judgers.

[@Komatik_]

The P/J in the type code has an unambiguous meaning - J = Pi Je, P = Pe Ji. "Judging type" and "perceiving type" are annoyingly vague for my tastes though, but it's usually clear from context whether the speaker is talking about the dominant function or the orientations of the primary functions.

[@analystbigfatpurse6339]

Michael Pierce do you have any good books to recommend in understanding personal type?

[@MichaelPiercePhilosophy]

I do, they're all on my channel "About" page: kzbin.info/door/mDcT_Pujk8vOcxk_IcnxtQabout I would add to that list Juan Sandoval's recent work "Cognitive Type", particularly the introductory parts on Jungian Theory in general -- you can read some of those here: cognitivetype.com/theory/

[@waykee33]

Which among the INxx types is most interested to "type" other [people]?

[@WisdomOver50]

As Spock would say..."Fascinating..."

[@PeterMcLoughlinStargazer1877]

I thought the part of the video where you talked about Hegel and Kierkegaard was really interesting. I have read Hegel and detest his philosophy so much that it is part of the reason I reject Marxism even though I am on the left. Besides his language being cloaked in impenetrable unreadable jargon Hegelianism is way too instrumental about his conclusions everything is a means in his thesis antithesis synthesis pattern. I haven't read Kierkegaard and I don't like his religious leap but I love Orwell and Camus two INFPs I'm told I felt a resonance with them early in life I really like Louis CK too. I get INFP pretty consistently on Meyers-Briggs. What are your thoughts on this?

[@Komatik_]

Peter McLoughlin When you read people of the same type (or at least functional stack, ie. xNFP for you), the way they reason just seems natural. ie. I can read Marx or Krugman, and though I severely disagree with them, there is *something* in the way they present themselves that is alluring and just plain right. Meanwhile I can read statements from non-NTJs and agree with them on substance/point and see that the argument is good and sound, but there's something unfamiliar in the style of presentation, and there's little that's alluring in the people of these types I severely disagree with. It's why reading lots of stuff from people whose type you know can actually be a pretty useful typing method if you're at least somewhere near the correct ballpark. It's especially useful for dissolving doubt over which side of the J/P divide you stand on (J/P here meaning "which of the two primary functions is extroverted", with no relation to MBTI J/P dimension) because different function axes result in dramatically different communication styles.

[@PeterMcLoughlinStargazer1877]

Komatik It is only lately that I have been seriously looking at meyers-briggs. I took a test a long time ago (mid 90s I think) and got INFP once or twice I got ENFP but for the most part I get INFP. I am just begining to look at the functional stack. Actually my favorite philosopher these days is Bertrand Russell but I am pretty sure his type was guessed as something different from INFP although Orwell and Camus and Tom Paine are intellectual heros of mine. Forgive me for being a bit of a newbie to the typology thing I am still soaking it in.

[@MichaelPiercePhilosophy]

Komatik Peter McLoughlin I second Komatik; somehow he's literally said everything I would have said. I have experienced the same thing that he described. I am INFJ, and while I love Kierkegaard, I've found I just have a much easier and more enjoyable time reading Wittgenstein and Wollstonecraft, and even Jung seems more familiar to me. Nietzsche is also more preferable to me than most of Kierkegaard, though its still got a sense of foreignness. But this is all just personal hunches and feelings. I don't know if you were looking for more of an analysis of their actual philosophies compared to the personality?

[@PeterMcLoughlinStargazer1877]

Michael Pierce BTW I took the actual mbti online and I got a moderate I a strong N was weakest in F and very strongly P. I mean as far as the test scores went I was clearly N and P but more weakly I and F. Does this factor in at all. Just curious I know the scores are not directly related to the stack but does this have indirect indications for Te and Extraversion.

[@Komatik_]

Peter McLoughlin The best thing to remember then: The MBTI is a test that measures you on four scales. It has roots in Jung's ideas, but is nowadays more similar to the Big 5 style personality tests than functions theory. MBTI and Big 5 measure behavior more than cognition, functions focus more on cognition than behavior. Both styles touch on the other a bit, but they are different. Because they share the same roots, functions models and MBTI share the same terminology, so it's easy to confuse the two and most people do confuse the two. MBTI as a stack assignment tool is pretty much horseshit. But if you type yourself functionally and let MBTI results stand on their own instead of trying to force the type codes to match, both can be useful tools in understanding yourself. As far as learning the functions approach? This is pretty much the best channel on the Internet to begin with. There are some other decent channels on youtube but they tend to assume familiarity with the material, and Pierce's videos are excellent for learning it. Celebritytypes also has a bunch of good functions-oriented articles if you're so inclined - a lot of the good stuff is behind a (rather cheap for what you get) paywall.

[@yeghor]

Lol @9:58

[@lasseskoulindstad8047]

Dude, that is not Derrida, that is Judith Butler.

[@lasseskoulindstad8047]

Nvm, I get it.

[@tylerdonhardt7031]

Nietzsche and Salome, perhaps?

[@matunam250]

0:38 th...thats a woman..? sorry x.x

[@MichaelPiercePhilosophy]

Matuvo Namiikaze Yep -- sorry, she is kind of boyish in appearance. It's Judith Butler the philosopher and gender theorist.

[@matunam250]

Michael Pierce hm, funny and ironic o: