[AnnieeBubble]

I'm pretty relaxed, almost dead, the majority of the time. However, if someone acts or says something completely out of order, (according to my values) then my inner spark will ignite... Not particularly aggressively, (because I'm a mellow yellow) but I will make my opinion clear nonetheless. Also, I find no trouble in debating with people in order to convert them to the right belief (my one ;) )

So, to answer your question, maybe because INFP's have a more strongly felt value system. Also, I feel that INFP's care less about what people think about them and strive to just stay true to themselves, which could lead to more arguments.. Though overall, you will find both INFJ's and INFP's to be rarely confrontational and reasonably calm and collected characters!

[ethylester]

I know three INFJs and two of them are quite outspoken on their facebook profiles. In person, not as much. But in writing, they can be fiery, opinionated and not let up. They will initiate controversial conversations with people fearlessly online. On the other hand, the INFPs I know are more low key and will go along with things generally unless you really get under their skin in a personal way.

I think the infp is more likely to explode unexpectedly in anger than an infj, but an infj is more likely to show their anger without being prompted and be clearer about it.

Why? maybe because infps go around holding their values within but in more of a vague, personal way??? And infjs go around holding their values in more of an apparent & obvious way. So you don't really know if you are about to set off an INFP, but you know all the sore spots on the INFJ to avoid before you open your mouth. And these are mainly just because I know them, its not always obvious from the beginning. You end up learning it gradually about them.

[IcarusDreams]

Deleted-browser bug.

[amethyst_butterfly]

I agree with most of the answers here. I think that since we have Fi, we hold our anger for a long time until we explode. We do not like confrontations but also don't like to be disrespected or being taken advantage of. Most of the time when I am angry I don't say it but my eyes are very expressive and you can easily tell when I am furious. I can be a calm person but when someone is abusing my rights I become a piranha.

[jd_]

one of the situations I got explosive was when I was younger, I had been getting picked on all day by one kid, not saying much, then we were at this function, getting some juice out of a bowl, and he pushed me a bit in line and I got a little juice on my shirt... That set me off, I remained calm for about a sec, refilled my juice, then turned around and threw it allover his shirt then punched him in the face. I think I freaked everybody out.

[WardRhiannon]

I tend to sway between passive-aggressive and explosively angry.

I tap into my passive-aggressive side when I'm trying to get under someone's skin. One example is from when I was a senior in high school. I sat on the end of a row of chairs for a school Mass. (I went to a Catholic high school.) One girl who didn't like me told me to move down a few seats to make room for the teachers. I thought it was a reasonable request, so I complied. But no teachers sat in that row. Then she told me to move.

Well, I was one of those girls who was always to move to make room for someone else, so I thought, "Screw it," and continued to sit there. She huffed and puffed and whined and told me that nobody liked me. When we had to hold hands during prayer, she barely touched mine and then wiped her hand on her pants. After Communion, she moved to another spot.

Another time I'm passive-aggressive is I'm trying to avoid conflict and so want to give vague hints to someone without starting a fight.

I tend to explode when things build up or someone threatens my values. Other than that, I'm pretty easygoing.

[Aelthwyn]

I wouldn't say we are more agressive, but that we may perhaps deal with conflict (when we have to) more openly/directly. There is a big difference between avoiding conflict and engaging in it indirectly. I also don't think either approach (direct or indirect) is more noble than the other.

I have a bit of a theory about passive-agressiveness. I think it stems from an expectation, or ideal, that people should be able to 'read minds' or rather that they should be able to take a hint and know what you mean by it without saying anything directly. Passive-agressive is different from avoiding conflict - because it is a form of conflict. I think you can be direct and out in the open while still attempting to avoid conflict. But I see passive-agressive-ness as being agressive without clarity, without everyone necessarily knowing what's going on. Passive-agressive moves are based on many assumptions, such as:
the other person knows that they are upsetting you
they know exactly why you are upset
they are choosing to upset you anyways
they should know how you feel without being told directly
they recognize your counter-attack as a counter-attack - that it's directed at them, it's been provoked, not just you having a bad day
they are able to properly infer your demands from the nature of your counter-attack and other indirect cues you may be giving them
they should make ammends without discussing the issue directly
they should understand you have accepted the peace offering without you having to tell them directly
It's all based on both people seeing and interpreting their indirect cues in the same way. To me, this seems most fitted to Ni+Fe. I say this because I think Ni is about underlying meaning, if I understand correctly, and Fe seems to be about being tuned in to other's feelings and in a sense operating on a mutual set of values (more than an internal individual set). Thus the expectations follow: we should be aware of eachother's feelings and be on the same page as far as values, and we should be able to infer the subtext we're each sending. I strikes me that often those who opt for a passive-agressive approch view bringing the issue into the open as overkill, as making a bigger deal than needs to be made, and perhaps as an attempt to overpower someone using unfair advantages. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong or 'low' about passive-agressive-ness - it's just one way of dealing with interpersonal issues. And I think it can actually work out beautifully - when both people are able to do this. However, unfortunately, not everyone understands cues to mean the same thing, not everyone is good at picking up on others feelings, and thus quite frequently passive-agressive-ness becomes a rather sloppy form of conflict because we're not all opperating on the same information.

I would also like to mention that I don't think confronting someone is writing is 'passive-agressive' as opposed to speaking to them in person, as long as the writing is open and direct.

Now, personally, although confrontation is uncomfortable and scary, I really dislike being in a state of not knowing exactly where I stand with someone, so much of the time I will opt for getting things out in the open even if it's not fun.

I would also venture to say that it is my impression (though that is hardly good evidence) that an INFJ would be more likely to actively face conflict - but in a more controlled or understated way, while I think an INFP would be more likely to avoid it completely, but be more theatrical about it when they actually do engage in it. Does that make sense?

[Tread Softly]

I was just thinking today that INFPs are really not that calm in real life when they're being greatly bothered by something/someone for a long time. I definitely have had numerous confrontations in the past, and currently I am going through one right now because I finally confronted a family member about something. The thing is that we're not being aggressive; typically the true aggressor has been bugging us for a long time until we can't take it anymore and turn the tables on them. But the people on the sidelines don't usually see this and label us as the "aggressive" ones.

Hey, all I can say is that I don't like people messing with me. Nothing teaches people better to stop their BS than to fling it into their face.

I'm going through this now with some people, too. But I feel as though I'm stuck in this mode. But then again, there are several people that must be dealt with.

To answer the OP's question: I can only answer for myself as I cannot pretend to know all INFPs or INFJs (I don't). I don't tend to shy away from confrontation unless it is unnecessary. When it is necessary, it would be cowardly and counter-productive to the maintenance of my state of inner peace to avoid it. So I face it head on. I'm not mean, rude, or "aggressive", although I can be to-the-point and factual. I can get somewhat aggressive if I've been pushed for so long (and I'm a very patient person) and I just snap. I then deal with people as they must be dealt with, even if that means being cold and somewhat ruthless.

[lirica]

I was just thinking today that INFPs are really not that calm in real life when they're being greatly bothered by something/someone for a long time. I definitely have had numerous confrontations in the past, and currently I am going through one right now because I finally confronted a family member about something. The thing is that we're not being aggressive; typically the true aggressor has been bugging us for a long time until we can't take it anymore and turn the tables on them. But the people on the sidelines don't usually see this and label us as the "aggressive" ones.

Hey, all I can say is that I don't like people messing with me. Nothing teaches people better to stop their BS than to fling it into their face.

Wow. This so much. Thank you for writing all of this. I went through something similar days ago when I almost beat up my older sister who has been mistreating me for years (with me just passively taking it all in). Everyone was so surprised and thought that I was the guilty one. Little do they know. But I was even surprised at my own self when that happened. I yelled like I never did before and it felt like a devil has possessed me or something.

[Master Wolf]

I have a friend who is possibly INFJ, and he explodes quite often-in fact, way more often than I do. :{P He doesn't lashes out at people violently, but shows his temper quite easily, and doesn't hide it well. I am generally more laidback, and it seems it's easier for people to rub his Jness (as in a need for order and things to get done "properly" by others) the wrong way than it is for me to get upset-I generally ignore "offenders" (he is quite tolerant and nice, so I hope I am not portraying him-nor INFJs-the wrong way).

Perhaps another answer that has been implied in many of the replies to this thread is that it just seems that we are "more aggressive than INFJs", but it probably is perceived aggression. I don't doubt INFJs will also lash out at anybody who attacks anything or anyone they love. We can be aggressive if its warranted somehow, but are we really any more aggressive than an INFJ would be in a similar situation?

Perhaps I don't know enough INFPs-INFJs in my life. :{P Both very appealing personality types to me.

Lol I'm not attacking anyone, and I agree with your points. It is perceived aggression, but not really aggression.

I think that INFP's tend to be more dependant on people though, despite INFJ's having Fe, the dominant Ni seems to ground them, where as our dominant Fi seems to... hmm