# Please, explain us - how do INFP's exactly have to understand ''you're cute.''



## Polk3456 (Aug 2, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> Most of you _are_​ childish and unattractive.


I fucking love this guy.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

I love me too :laughing:.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

The_Wanderer said:


> Considering it's Jungian origins, I'd say it does outside of the Enneagram forum. Enneagram and Jungian stuff really aren't linked, aside from both being personality typing systems. As to Socionics, it could easily be seen as a more fleshed-out, arguably academic, version of MBTI, which is what spurred my interest in it in the first place; the need for something _more_, something _substantial_. It also has academic backing and that, for me, is enough to answer: yes.
> 
> 
> 
> They have the same level of psychological and/or scientific backing. When I learned the Enneagram, the words _spiritual _and even _esoteric_ came across too often for me, personally.


Enneagram isn't scientific at all, but neither is Socionics or Jung. All of them are spiritual in that they deal with non-tangible aspects of human psychology (the aspects which cannot be observed as they are not physical), and these aspects exist outside of what science is capable of studying. Science is limited, so it's silly to use it as the only measure of what is valid. Enneagram is a pretty new philosophy; it just took an old symbol to create a new framework. It's not more or less esoteric than Jung or Socionics - all use jargon that has to be learned to understand and discuss it.

So enneagram is about understanding human psychology using a framework created for that purpose, not about people being fated to be and live a certain way due to movements of planets. Astrology involves predicting how someone is and will be based on something pretty unrelated to personality, whereas enneagram is used to explain how people work emotionally, and it's based on observations of people and grasp of human emotions. Enneagram is not meant to predict behaviors nor is it arbitrary. The placement of the types are based on how the ego passions connect - ie. 5 avarice exists between 4 envy and 6 cowardice. In that way it's much more like Jung, and it does include Jungian concepts of self-actualization and the ego. 

Enneagram is much more similar to Jungian typology than astrology, then, but it addresses the ego from an emotional perspective more than a cognitive one. It's helpful when you realize that this accounts for many differences within the same Jungian type and similarities between different Jungian types, differences & similarities that show patterns instead of just being chalked up to "individuals are all different". 

Many of the INFP stereotypes don't hold true for INFPs when you bring enneagram into account - it begins to show that it's a more specific type of INFP, not the FiNe preference in and of itself.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

OrangeAppled said:


> Enneagram isn't scientific at all, but neither is Socionics or Jung. All of them are spiritual in that they deal with non-tangible aspects of human psychology (the aspects which cannot be observed as they are not physical), and these aspects exist outside of what science is capable of studying. Science is limited, so it's silly to use it as the only measure of what is valid. Enneagram is a pretty new philosophy; it just took an old symbol to create a new framework. It's not more or less esoteric than Jung or Socionics - all use jargon that has to be learned to understand and discuss it.
> 
> So enneagram is about understanding human psychology using a framework created for that purpose, not about people being fated to be and live a certain way due to movements of planets. Astrology involves predicting how someone is and will be based on something pretty unrelated to personality, whereas enneagram is used to explain how people work emotionally, and it's based on observations of people and grasp of human emotions. Enneagram is not meant to predict behaviors nor is it arbitrary. The placement of the types are based on how the ego passions connect - ie. 5 avarice exists between 4 envy and 6 cowardice. In that way it's much more like Jung, and it does include Jungian concepts of self-actualization and the ego.
> 
> ...


I was thinking that Astrology is true metaphorically, like Alchemy is. The planets do tell us how to behave:

"Astrology represents the summation of all the psychological knowledge of antiquity."

-Jung

Planets are bodies, or people. They all influence each other through gravity. The Moon is putting a force on us now. The Sun is. They control us, and move us around. Do you feel them? Do they oppress you? So all these bodies have their own path, and work perfectly. But never collide. We are moving very fast, and cannot feel a thing. Immense force on us from all over. But we still move freely. The Zodiac is a legit concept in astronomy. Bodies do move through those areas, and have mystical associations. It is an interesting subject, that could influence man psychologically. It already has.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I was thinking that Astrology is true metaphorically, like Alchemy is. The planets do tell us how to behave:
> 
> "Astrology represents the summation of all the psychological knowledge of antiquity."
> 
> ...


Pretty much everything in the physical world can be taken metaphorically to help us grasp spiritual concepts. It's a big reason I perceive there is a God.

But the way astrology is used as a personality system is pretty silly, IMO. I actually find socionics goes too far in a similar way - it takes what is supposed to be internal dynamics within a person and tries to apply it to external social dynamics (ie. the quadras - blech).


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

OrangeAppled said:


> Pretty much everything in the physical world can be taken metaphorically to help us grasp spiritual concepts. It's a big reason I perceive there is a God.
> 
> But the way astrology is used as a personality system is pretty silly, IMO. I actually find socionics goes too far in a similar way - it takes what is supposed to be internal dynamics within a person and tries to apply it to external social dynamics (ie. the quadras - blech).


Yeah, it shows us oneness and individuality in harmony, in the heavens. It gives us an example to follow. It is all there.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

OrangeAppled said:


> But the way astrology is used as a personality system is pretty silly, IMO. I actually find socionics goes too far in a similar way - it takes what is supposed to be internal dynamics within a person and tries to apply it to external social dynamics (ie. the quadras - blech).


I was going to write a simple "cool story bro" comment regarding your post. But then I realized that you're not stupid or delusional, and we're simply in a disagreement. My opinion regarding enneagram hasn't and won't change; it still has no academic backing. As to your comment about Socionics, it has always been about social dynamics; it's a system created to understand how people gather information, make decisions and _most importantly_ interact with one another. 



OrangeAppled said:


> Enneagram isn't scientific at all, but neither is Socionics or Jung. All of them are spiritual in that they deal with non-tangible aspects of human psychology (the aspects which cannot be observed as they are not physical), and these aspects exist outside of what science is capable of studying.


I'd like to see how you came to the conclusion that Jungian stuff is _spiritual_ instead of arguing it _theoretical_. I don't actually believe that MBTI, Keirsey or Socionics makes much mentions of souls or anything along those lines. Jung had a sort of mystic side to himself, but Jung also had a lot of inconsistencies, even when it came to identifying his own type. That he had some understanding of the framework doesn't mean he had _any_ ability to apply it practically or consistently. Assuming that Jung is always right on the topic - simply because he discovered it - is in a way similar to acting like Newton was the "God of Gravity" who could never be proven wrong; Jung is no "God of Cognitive Functions", simply the discoverer. 

But yes, to an extent the cognitive functions, types and their interpersonal relations _can_ be observed through behavior, temperament, decision-making processes and *shudder* external social dynamics. _That is why these systems exist in the first place_​.


----------



## Summery (Mar 29, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> Hey. INFPs and ENFPs aren't as much alike as stereotype would make you believe. But I guess some people would find INFPs attractive... they probably have a thing for childishness though, which is... eyebrow raising.


You don't know us. The childishness stems from an Ne- extravert-function. And like it's said. ENFP's look exact, sometimes even worser, the same on the outside. Our extraverted sides is just a way we deal with the outer - world. That's all. It doesn't stems away with our inner-core at all. 
You're looking in a very superficial way. That you don't find INFP's attractive, your cause. But mind, we're not like that at our insides at all, even we appear that mask to the world. Our core is feeling + sensation. Our shadow is ESTJ, so that's an integral part of us, that we try to hide, because we don't feel the need because act like that all the way, doesn't mean we're not able to, or that we don't feel like a Te. We're perfectly confident, perfectly serious, and perfectly able to give our opinion we know our stuff. Threat me like a child and you will kick the other - side out of me. People don't know me, and don't have to know me. But my truth self differs strongly from my public self, and I think that's the reason why I can act like that, and don't even give a damn about it. They don't have to know me. They can think of me what they want. That's their matter. If they think I'm childish, fine. I'm not like that. It's just one of the cards. INFP's have 
more cards than you think we have. You should look closer to people, in general.


----------



## Summery (Mar 29, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> I was going to write a simple "cool story bro" comment regarding your post. But then I realized that you're not stupid or delusional, and we're simply in a disagreement. My opinion regarding enneagram hasn't and won't change; it still has no academic backing. As to your comment about Socionics, it has always been about social dynamics; it's a system created to understand how people gather information, make decisions and _most importantly_ interact with one another.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Btw, you're probably stuck in an Ne - Te loop. Develop your introverted - analytical side and you will see more. Thanks.


----------



## Summery (Mar 29, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> I was going to write a simple "cool story bro" comment regarding your post. But then I realized that you're not stupid or delusional, and we're simply in a disagreement. My opinion regarding enneagram hasn't and won't change; it still has no academic backing. As to your comment about Socionics, it has always been about social dynamics; it's a system created to understand how people gather information, make decisions and _most importantly_ interact with one another.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Btw, you're probably stuck in an Ne - Te loop. I get ESTJ -vibes. Develop your introverted - analytical side and you will see more. Thanks. 
A type who can't stand his own shared functions in the flipped order, is probably mistyped, which means you're Te - Si comes before your Ne - Fi. Wherever you look at any type, you will see them having a kind of aversion for The 3th, and especially the 4th function. 
Or it may mean you're ENFP, but on you're shadow-side yourself. This means it works the other way around. You're ''down''-functions will kick in, and you will more behave like one of the opposites xSTJ. It's just how it works. Aversion of Ne has always something to do with the own Ne - that's somewhat bothering you, because you're shadow Si doing it's work. 
You sound kinda loathed, so it may be good to have a look inside yourself about this. 

When a type has an aversion of another type, it will always be a part of themselves.

ISFJ's can't stand Ne. They see it as daydreaming. This is because their Ne is underdeveloped. ISFJ's experience Ne as negative. Because it's not developed inside themselves, so they can't see the truth worth of it. It translate themselves in 'worst-case'' - scenarios. They only see the negatives of that function. They mostly have conflict - relations with ENTP's.

ISTJ's have a huge aversion for ENFP's, but all of them have that secret, hidden, badass, crazy side where they're ashamed of. ENFP's can't stand ISTJ's narrow- mindedness and detailed-oriented nature, but in stress, they can become like that themselves. Freaking out about details that doesn't even matter.

INTJ's hate ESFP's a lot and the other way around. But INTJ's themselves can have sexual, alcoholic - sensations every know and then and ESFP's have a kind of issue because they're not smart enough. They tend to have a secret soft spot about intellectual big figures. At the same time, they can't stand those figures, which they tend to see as arrogant and not fun.

ENFJ's see ISTP's sometimes as hard and selfish, and ISTP's see ENFJ's as softies, but they have each other shadow- side. ENFJ's have an evil side against other people when they get a bit dark, opposite to their truth nature.

ESFJ's and INTP's have also that natural conflict - relation. ESFJ see INTP as overcritical, anoying, insensitive smartasses. While INTP gets annoyed by the ESFJ's simpleness, smalltalkness, ect...
Interestingly enough. Some ESFJ's have issues about not being intelligent enough, autorothy enough. Which translate when they get into the unhealthy stage, they will behave like ''the big guy'', the smart guy''. (Ne - Ti) will kick in. To gain acceptance.

All ESTJ's that where loathed against my Fi as INFP... tended to be totally emotionally fucked up themselves, and had suicidal -issues, because Fi manifested itself unhealthy.
I only had those problems with unhealthy ESTJ's. Tells a lot about them...

ect.... for other types. There's always a reason for why you can't stand someone. Sometimes people hate each other, for reasons that others mostly can't grasp.

So I wouldn't generalize; the whole population, has something against Ne. 
I think you have some personal issues in relation towards Ne. You're projecting personal things.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Summery said:


> Btw, you're probably stuck in an Ne - Te loop. I get ESTJ -vibes. Develop your introverted - analytical side and you will see more. Thanks.


Will take it on board. Thanks for much self improvements.


----------

