# INTP vs INFP



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

INTP: Universal truth and morality exists.
INFP: Truth and morality is subjective/personal.

INTP: Calculate possible emotional responses to keep harmony (harmony means people won't annoy me).
INFP: Try not to upset people, because nobody likes feeling upset.

INTP: If somebody is ignorant (and therefore annoying) I'll tell them. They'll probably thank me for the insight, nobody likes being stupid after all.
INFP: If somebody is ignorant (and I think they are willing to listen) I'll tell them. But if they don't agree that's fine, everybody should be free to be themselves.

INTP: take external feelings and turns them into logical information.
INFP: takes information and turns them into feelings.


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

So what's your question?

I found a few, almost all of these false, especially in terms of every situation ever.


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

My point is, there is no need to wonder if you are INTP or INFP, it's not confusing. "You be you" is INFP philosophy. Therefore there can be no absolute morality or truth, everybody is "right" when they feel they are right. The fact you are only 58% F, and all of these are wrong to you, suggests you're an INTP leaning on your inferior function too much because of stress. I was very emotion filled when it came to my singing/songwriting when I was young. "You be you" was my philosophy when I was young because I didn't care if people were living a lie. It was part of that nihilism that INTP's experience when depressed.


----------



## MadinCheshire (Jun 25, 2017)

knifey said:


> INTP: Universal truth and morality exists.
> INFP: Truth and morality is subjective/personal.
> 
> INTP: Calculate possible emotional responses to keep harmony (harmony means people won't annoy me).
> ...


for me its quite different:
1)Universal truth exist , but morality is subjective
2) Calculate possible emotional responses - because nobody likes feeling upset
3) mostly agree with "INFP" part - freedom is most important - they will do whatever they want with the info i give them
4) mostly agree with "INTP" part - yet i often see hidden feelings in information

edit : ops, italian got in the way ( morale - moral )


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

my telling somebody they are ignorant I really mean... offering the true version of whatever fallacy they are reciting. And yes we can see emotion/feeling behind information but that makes us think of the state of mind of the person writing it. We go "oh there's feeling", "now let's break down into logical bits to work out why"

edit: morale is not the plural of moral btw.


----------



## MadinCheshire (Jun 25, 2017)

knifey said:


> my telling somebody they are ignorant I really mean... offering the true version of whatever fallacy they are reciting. And yes we can see emotion/feeling behind information but that makes us think of the state of mind of the person writing it. We go "oh there's feeling", "now let's break down into logical bits to work out why"


all right, probaly i've changed my view on things by integrating my Fe therefor i became i bit more similar to INFP ( :kitteh: )


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

MadinCheshire said:


> all right, probaly i've changed my view on things by integrating my Fe therefor i became i bit more similar to INFP ( :kitteh: )


lol not many INTP reeeeeeeeally have as little Fe than me. I think my lowest extreme in every category that makes up INTP was 75-80%. But yes... every emotion has a solution. In fact the Fe is really just there to let me know emotions are happening around me! Which I'm very good at! as it's HIGHLY DEVELOPED! lol... well in my eyes it is.


----------



## MadinCheshire (Jun 25, 2017)

Golden Candle said:


> So what's your question?
> 
> I found a few, almost all of these false, especially in terms of every situation ever.



pleeeease
could you rather rewrite those statements from your point of view ? (as INFP)


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

MadinCheshire said:


> pleeeease
> could you rather rewrite those statements from your point of view ? (as INFP)


No, sorry. I could but that would also just be a work of fiction - because I don't think there is just one statement that either of the types might definitely 100% think/believe.
Basically for me, I related to a lot of the INTP ones, doesn't really matter which...I just found it too stereotypical and inaccurate. I just don't even get the point in it (maybe even here I sound like a stereotypical "T" hahaha)


----------



## MadinCheshire (Jun 25, 2017)

Golden Candle said:


> No, sorry. I could but that would also just be a work of fiction - because I don't think there is just one statement that either of the types might definitely 100% think/believe.
> Basically for me, I related to a lot of the INTP ones, doesn't really matter which...I just found it too stereotypical and inaccurate. I just don't even get the point in it (maybe even here I sound like a stereotypical "T" hahaha)


yeah , reason why i specify which i say is from "my point of view"


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

MadinCheshire said:


> yeah , reason why i specify which i say is from "my point of view"


Well my point of view is that my opinion changes all the time... But okaaaay fineeeeeee I'll give it a go then. :laughing: However I will only speak for myself, not for an INTP because that would be fruitless, assumption based and most likely inaccurate, since I could never truly be in the exact mindset of an INTP let alone another individual in general.

Me (INFP): Truth and morality is subjective/personal sometimes, depending on the situation. However I also believe that there are universal truths are morals. It isn't black and white.

Me: Again, *both* of the two options in the *dichotomy*: Try not to upset people, because I don't want to hurt their feelings because I know how it feels to have hurt feelings. But other times I'm in a cold/more detached/self serving mood and I calculate my answers to keep harmony so that I don't need to deal with them (they won't annoy me) and we won't waste time arguing considering I already know they won't understand my view or they do not have the capacity to.

Me: If somebody is ignorant (and I think they are willing to listen) I'll tell them (yes). But if they don't agree that's fine, everybody should be free to be themselves. *WITHIN REASON, as long as they are not harming others/themselves because of it*.

Me: Takes _logical_ information as logical information. Takes _emotions_ as emotions.


----------



## MadinCheshire (Jun 25, 2017)

Golden Candle said:


> Me: If somebody is ignorant (and I think they are willing to listen) I'll tell them (yes). But if they don't agree that's fine, everybody should be free to be themselves. *WITHIN REASON, as long as they are not harming others/themselves because of it*.


totaly agree on this: you can't help someone who don't want to be helped, but you can protect others from spreading ignorance (or at least try to)


> Takes emotions as emotions.


to get along with "emotions" i still have to "disassemble" them and then reasemble them "logicaly" to get a good result ( or else its a garanteed disaster )
edit:


> But okaaaay fineeeeeee I'll give it a go then.


 <3


----------



## MadinCheshire (Jun 25, 2017)

i consider my emotions like something "outside" from "inner _me_" that influence me ( thats why Fe XD )

do you have something similar about Te ?


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

Golden Candle said:


> Well my point of view is that my opinion changes all the time... But okaaaay fineeeeeee I'll give it a go then. :laughing: However I will only speak for myself, not for an INTP because that would be fruitless, assumption based and most likely inaccurate, since I could never truly be in the exact mindset of an INTP let alone another individual in general.
> 
> Me (INFP): Truth and morality is subjective/personal sometimes, depending on the situation. However I also believe that there are universal truths are morals. It isn't black and white.
> 
> ...


Thank you for giving it a go. I'm INTP... so... most of what comes out of my mouth is not fully formed ideas. I present my wonderings (falsely) as fact to illicit response. I don't mean to. I want to be disagreed with because it's the best way to make people explain things I want explained. You see... this is how an INTP would best get information from an INTP. INTP's love correcting misinformation. trololol... it doesn't come from a malicious place.

edit: If you disagree with an INTP without explaining why, it's a huge insult. just fyi.


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

knifey said:


> Thank you for giving it a go. I'm INTP... so... most of what comes out of my mouth is not fully formed ideas. I present my wonderings (falsely) as fact to illicit response. I don't mean to. I want to be disagreed with because it's the best way to make people explain things I want explained.


Ooooh do you mean to say you play devil's advocate? I do that too :wink::tongue:
To get to the ultimate truth in a situation/topic that is...

I guess sometimes online it is hard to differentiate between those who are being rigid and not open minded and just stating black and white views and those who could potentially be playing devil's advocate. Perhaps to avoid that, you could write something at the end of the post like "tell me what you think?" (Just a suggestion, it's up to you whatever you wanna do)



knifey said:


> edit: If you disagree with an INTP without explaining why, it's a huge insult. just fyi.


Oh, sorry, my bad :laughing: 

I think when I first replied I was tired and just went straight to sleep after hahaha.


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)




----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

Golden Candle said:


>


INTP's are actually so flexible we always believe everything we say as truth even when it seems likely it will be proven wrong. It's like... well I haven't done much research but maybe I'll be lucky and just fluke something amazing, I'll believe it now and not mind if it's wrong. We just have no feelings to be hurt by being wrong. Think of it like the embodiment of "Science". I'm not saying it's not insane... it's just...


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

knifey said:


> INTP's are actually so flexible we always believe everything we say as truth even when it seems likely it will be proven wrong. It's like... well I haven't done much research but maybe I'll be lucky and just fluke something amazing, I'll believe it now and not mind if it's wrong. We just have no feelings to be hurt by being wrong. Think of it like the embodiment of "Science". I'm not saying it's not insane... it's just...


...that meme...was just...a joke hahaha. Thanks for the info anyway?
It's all well and good that you "have no feelings" to be hurt (I highly doubt you have none, that would just make you a sociopath), but even if things didn't really get to you, please be aware of the affects certain words could have on _others_ (I'm not talking about anything you've said here, you have not been offensive in any way, I just mean in general, and I really don't want to have a debate about that haha - I used to have 2 hour long debates with an INTP over the phone, and I am capable of it but he could just keep going and I could too but at the same time my heart was physically beginning to hurt because of the drain and I was trying to be just logical but honestly some things were hurting me/upsetting me undeniably).

Oh well. P.S I replied your other bit above, not sure if you saw though because the picture took up a lot of space.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

_INTP: Universal truth and morality exists.
INFP: Truth and morality is subjective/personal._

But on what grounds do you make this assertion? These ideas are not mentioned by Jung - I think they even run counter to his descriptions-, and it's unlikely that INFPs and INTPs (typed through other and especially standard methods) will nicely divide into these beliefs. Any INFP you ask "is it objectively true that 2+2=4?" is likely to say yes and thus have some belief in universal truth, and furthermore it is common to hold the opinion that truth has, although always being experienced by an observer, a form of existence while morality has humanly created axioms. 

_INTP: Calculate possible emotional responses to keep harmony (harmony means people won't annoy me).
INFP: Try not to upset people, because nobody likes feeling upset._

INFPs usually don't like to upset people, but everybody has some form of prospect about emotional responses which they act on depending on what they want done. An INTP, being a thinker, is less consciously affected by upsetting others although it's still rare for them to simply not care at all. Besides, "not upsetting anyone" is a subset of "keeping harmony", which makes distinguishing hard. Many kinds of behaviour can easily be interpreted as keeping the harmony, and especially since doing so is a Feeling item in the current MBTI, one would (when not using your definitions) expect INFPs to do both things and even more so than INTPs, and so this is inconsistent with current paradigms.

_INTP: If somebody is ignorant (and therefore annoying) I'll tell them. They'll probably thank me for the insight, nobody likes being stupid after all.
INFP: If somebody is ignorant (and I think they are willing to listen) I'll tell them. But if they don't agree that's fine, everybody should be free to be themselves._

That's in line with typical descriptions of INTPs and INFPs. I agree that this is very often a distinguishing factor. There are, however, limits to both those reasonings. INFPs do think you're wrong if you don't apply logic correctly and may certainly note it. 

_INTP: take external feelings and turns them into logical information.
INFP: takes information and turns them into feelings._

I would prefer a more predicative statement. I don't have a clue about how to actually assess whether these statements hold true for an individual let alone myself. 



knifey said:


> My point is, there is no need to wonder if you are INTP or INFP, it's not confusing. "You be you" is INFP philosophy. Therefore there can be no absolute morality or truth, everybody is "right" when they feel they are right. The fact you are only 58% F, and all of these are wrong to you, suggests you're an INTP leaning on your inferior function too much because of stress. I was very emotion filled when it came to my singing/songwriting when I was young. "You be you" was my philosophy when I was young because I didn't care if people were living a lie. It was part of that nihilism that INTP's experience when depressed.


It's only not confusing if your definitions are consistent with real people and make easy-to-understand distinctions between the modes of thought the types use. I'm sorry, but I don't think your ideas satisfy either of those demands. 
I think perhaps instead you should leave out the metaphysics(which most people don't have much of an opinion on) and conjure up possible distinctions based on actual people rather than your subjective interpretation of the functions, which will require less box-thinking. Sadly the thinking and feeling preferences are currently a mess, so I think it's great that people try to come up with more crispy ideas to shed new light on the subject.


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

@UnicornRainbowLove

Yessssssssssssss


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

Golden Candle said:


> @UnicornRainbowLove
> 
> Yessssssssssssss


Hah, thank you. Not the answer I expected here xD Wait a minute. Do you think I'm a nerd with glasses and big front teeth now?


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

Hahaha @UnicornRainbowLove

No. But I do think your answer is very intelligent, aware, well-thought out and clearly communicated. Which got me all passionate inside reading it. I was like: yes! YES! YESSSSS!!! EXACTLY! YES!!!!!!! You better worded (and added to) my own chaotic, scattered thoughts. (High IQ INFPs for the win!)


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

Golden Candle said:


> (High IQ INFPs for the win!)


Tsch, I think that's all of us


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

Golden Candle said:


> It's all well and good that you "have no feelings" to be hurt (I highly doubt you have none, that would just make you a sociopath)


ohhhhhh I didn't say that! I said I have no feelings to be hurt by being wrong. Just like a scientist publishes a paper that is then proved wrong, they have no feeling attached to it and are happy that science is progressing! My lack of feelings were contextualized and therefore compartmentalized to that area.


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

knifey said:


> ohhhhhh I didn't say that! I said I have no feelings to be hurt by being wrong. Just like a scientist publishes a paper that is then proved wrong, they have no feeling attached to it and are happy that science is progressing! My lack of feelings were contextualized and therefore compartmentalized to that area.


phew, good to know :laughing: lol hehe


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> _But on what grounds do you make this assertion? These ideas are not mentioned by Jung - I think they even run counter to his descriptions-, and it's unlikely that INFPs and INTPs (typed through other and especially standard methods) will nicely divide into these beliefs. Any INFP you ask "is it objectively true that 2+2=4?" is likely to say yes and thus have some belief in universal truth, and furthermore it is common to hold the opinion that truth has, although always being experienced by an observer, a form of existence while morality has humanly created axioms._


I'm not talking about Maths, when I say truth I am talking only about what you would call subjective.

religious INTP - morality is absolute and God given and you're going to hell or adopt.

non-religious INTP - morality is abstract nonsense. We only conform where necessary to create a 

harmonious environment (Fe). That usually extends to "These are the things we need for harmony, and these things we do not." *eats dog meat on visit to china*

Logical absolutes abound. Morality = Subset of Truth and Logic.

religious INFP - God looks at the heart. By grace He judges you on how well you live up to your own moral compass. (This is my best guess as to this thought process, it's very hard to understand for me)

_INFPs usually don't like to upset people, but everybody has some form of prospect about emotional responses which they act on depending on what they want done. An INTP, being a thinker, is less consciously affected by upsetting others although it's still rare for them to simply not care at all. Besides, "not upsetting anyone" is a subset of "keeping harmony", which makes distinguishing hard. Many kinds of behaviour can easily be interpreted as keeping the harmony, and especially since doing so is a Feeling item in the current MBTI, one would (when not using your definitions) expect INFPs to do both things and even more so than INTPs, and so this is inconsistent with current paradigms._

Maybe I can elaborate on the thought process to clarify, let me know if this helps.
"I don't want to upset this person." Fi thinks about what is going to go on inside of that person. Fe thinks about how they (the other person) will display that feeling. How much they are going to display that emotion has a massive impact on the follow decision. "How wrong are they" + "How they will react" = weather I will correct them. Very wrong+little negative (or any degree of positive) emotional observable reaction=always correct them.

_I would prefer a more predicative statement. I don't have a clue about how to actually assess whether these statements hold true for an individual let alone myself. _

Okay so INTP take external observed feelings and analyses them with logic (to understand cause, and therefore take away cause of sadness or exacerbate cause if they are happy, to make them more happy).
INFP take the world around them (information), and generate feelings to understand it, and understand how it makes them feel. Because they are pushed to action by F and not T.

Is that easier for you to grasp what I'm trying to say, so as to evaluate if it's true?


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

knifey said:


> I'm not talking about Maths, when I say truth I am talking only about what you would call subjective.
> 
> religious INTP - morality is absolute and God given and you're going to hell or adopt.
> 
> ...


I don't understand. It doesn't seem to me that the non-religious INTP thinks that morality is objective when he describes them as "abstract nonsense". The morality of them seems to be to keep the harmony, which I think you would attribute to Fe, but how come they see Fe-values as objective (in the colloquial sense of the word)?

I saw a statistic some time ago, and of course I know not to trust MB information too much(I don't know how trustworthy truity.com is), but it showed that INTPs and INFP were actually some of the most likely types to not be (very) religious. The NPs seemed the least religious of all the types, at least in the US. If I may dare to make an intensity matching here, one would expect that the INxPs have relatively similar numbers as well when it comes to not being religious at all. This isn't an argument for anything, but I just want to point out that probably INFPs are non-religious about as often as INTPs (by going with types as found through the MBTI).



> Maybe I can elaborate on the thought process to clarify, let me know if this helps.
> "I don't want to upset this person." Fi thinks about what is going to go on inside of that person. Fe thinks about how they (the other person) will display that feeling. How much they are going to display that emotion has a massive impact on the follow decision. "How wrong are they" + "How they will react" = weather I will correct them. Very wrong+little negative (or any degree of positive) emotional observable reaction=always correct them.


I think what you've written here is still too easy to mix up since both are about preventing and/or acting on the emotional impact you'll have on a person. I think what you're describing is that Fi cares about what goes on in a person internally and doesn't want to disturb the peace in there. Fe on the other hand cares about what goes on externally (do they outwardly start crying or shouting) with a person and acts to keep the outside peace. In conjunction with this Fe also reprimands others for disturbing this peace when it's possible and appropriate. 
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but this is how I interpret your idea. I still don't agree with it since I don't think that this divide exists between FPs and FJs (FJs certainly care about how others are feeling inside, and FPs also display a care for external peace as well), but at least it's two opposing qualities, which I didn't think the first two statements about this were. 



> Okay so INTP take external observed feelings and analyses them with logic (to understand cause, and therefore take away cause of sadness or exacerbate cause if they are happy, to make them more happy).
> INFP take the world around them (information), and generate feelings to understand it, and understand how it makes them feel. Because they are pushed to action by F and not T.
> 
> Is that easier for you to grasp what I'm trying to say, so as to evaluate if it's true?


I understand that INTPs theorize and categorize emotions and act in accordance with their currently best system to maintain harmony. But how would you actually check whether a person does this or not? If he has hand-written theories and calculations on the matter in his drawers it's easy to verify, but you're referring to (I believe you mean) conscious thoughts that often take place. The question really is what counts as analysing feelings.
If I saw kid who dropped his toy, it broke, and he started crying, I would instantly know that he is sad because he has lost something that he liked. That pattern is ubiquitous within the emotional realm and anyone who isn't an autist would intuitively know this. Does that count as analysing emotions?
Now imagine that you have a friend and you are both in love with the same girl. She has now chosen to be with you, and your friend doesn't know yet. As his friend you have to tell him. If you pick your words, occasion, location and body language with great care to mitigate the negative impact, does it not count as analysing and applying some form of logic to the situation? Where do you set the line between analysing emotions and just think hard about them? Feelers think a lot about how to convey a message in the best way, so it seems reasonable to me that they might even analyse emotions even more than thinkers do. 
You can add other examples if they are more illuminating.

I think I need an example of the whole generating feelings out of information idea. I still don't understand it.


----------



## MadinCheshire (Jun 25, 2017)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> .....
> Now imagine that you have a friend and you are both in love with the same girl. She has now chosen to be with you, and your friend doesn't know yet. As his friend you have to tell him. If you pick your words, occasion, location and body language with great care to mitigate the negative impact, does it not count as analysing and applying some form of logic to the situation? Where do you set the line between analysing emotions and just think hard about them? Feelers think a lot about how to convey a message in the best way, so it seems reasonable to me that they might even analyse emotions even more than thinkers do.
> You can add other examples if they are more illuminating.
> 
> I think I need an example of the whole generating feelings out of information idea. I still don't understand it.


maybe this can help : 

maybe on the outside i may appear emotional ( Fe) - it's because i choose to appear so (Ti)

even if it will hurt me or someone ( F ) - I'll still make my decision ultimately on logic (T)
(and my feeling is just an extra value in the equation) 
ex: me and another guy both like a girl - she is confused and can't decide - i think: 
1) i like her so i wish better for her ->
2) i think that other guy is a better match for her ( he is funnyer , richer, more sensible, whatever) (Ti) ->
3) i'll choose him for and instead of her even if it hurts -> (maybe) ill play a "drama" and go away (Fe)


correct me if im confused on T and F

edit: also its not like i have no feelings i just see the whole emotional drama as a "way of comunication"


----------



## NipNip (Apr 16, 2015)

INFP craves profound understanding about himself, and others, as a person (individual).
INTP craves profound understanding about himself, and others, as a concept (humanity).


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

MadinCheshire said:


> maybe this can help :
> 
> maybe on the outside i may appear emotional ( Fe) - it's because i choose to appear so (Ti)
> 
> ...


You don't seem confused about T and F here. In this example you made a decision based on a principle that is detached from your own and others' emotions, which is, at least in theory, what one expects a thinker to do. But I think the OP is trying out theories about how to distinguish between Fi and Fe. 

I am uncertain about whether it adds some confirmation to what knifey hypothesizes or not. You use a principle/theory _about emotions_ to make your decision, but the question relates more to how you act around others. Would you say you analyse emotions, predict how others will react and use that to orchestrate a preferred social outcome?


----------



## MadinCheshire (Jun 25, 2017)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> , but the question relates more to how you act around others. Would you say you analyse emotions, predict how others will react and use that to orchestrate a preferred social outcome?


tricky, 
i do not spend time to predict how others will react usualy , staying true to yourself lead to a genuine future relationship (nice and easy) + some drama as an embellishment, to relate wider and more in-deep.
"preferred social outcome" is automatic because it's "true".

the way you put it comes kinda hard, predicting how others will react mean:
i know them very well
or it's just a basic reaction you can expect from anyone (standard social model)

people allways know that you lie , they just choose to trust or play along


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

MadinCheshire said:


> tricky,
> i do not spend time to predict how others will react usualy , staying true to yourself lead to a genuine future relationship (nice and easy) + some drama as an embellishment, to relate wider and more in-deep.
> "preferred social outcome" is automatic because it's "true".
> 
> ...


Yes predicting peoples emotions ONLY come from them. You must experiment on them, experiments on them are usually based on somebody you already know who you are guessing is similar. I would never treat anybody based on how I would feel in their situation. But there is also an element of "I need to treat you like a person I would like, If you react badly that's fine because I haven't offended anybody that could be a potential friend". I think that's what you mean by being true to yourself. That all doesn't seem very Fi to me.

Also in one of the above stories from somebody else, if the child was crying because of a broken toy I would only comfort them before trying to fix the toy if my initial assessment of the toy was that it was broken beyond a quick repair. If it was easily fixed I would offer soothing words to calm them (and my surroundings) while fixing the toy as quickly as possible so I could show them there is logical evidence they should stop crying. This is the T, fixing the horrible situation interpreted by Fe in the most efficient manner possible.

Once again my action is driven by T, and not F.


----------



## knifey (Jun 25, 2017)

Distinguishing INFP and INTP this was interesting


----------

