I don't believe that you racist chuds are INFPs. I'm a true OG INFP and I loathe people suffering, hatred, racism and in my ideal world everyone should get along together while farting glittering rainbows from their assholes.Instead you chuds hate everyone who isn't you, how can you be INFPs? I know that I'm a feminine weak beta faggot but I don't care, that's what I am and I don't want to appear different because I'm that, a little gay pixie
>>84166008>it's another nu-male astrology thread
>>84166008I fucking hate INFPs so much I hope you all kill yourselfs thank god
>>84166052What have we done to you?
i want a bookworm infj gf instered in history with round glasses wearing earth color clothes including sweaters and dresses with wavy hair ideally red and cute but not sexy face that is very sexually attracted to me and cuddly but also a bit depressed and disillusioned about society>>84166070i'm intp feeling judging types need to be removed out of gene pool
>>84166077i'm infpI don't want everyone to die or kill themselves or be removed from the gene pool. Everyone should be happy and breed
>>84166008I'm infp and I touch myself to animals
>>84166008for INTPs the image is the same except the distraction is a david lynch movie or minecraft, could be a cat too but less likely>>84166016yes>>84166077you're retarded>>84166177gross
>>84166008Both are valid forms of introverted feeloding. It's not about good or bad feeling, it's about being introverted and having feeling as the main function. Differentiation is about nuance, control, ability to make sense of it in your head and not be "taken" by it at best, not about specific holding values or having more or less empathy.Keep the thread up, I have some fancy and colorful Jap Jungism bombs ready in store... oh yes we are doing some real science here. Different patterns of function differentiation and a more common one. Kino incoming.
>>84166008Why do you think people here are infp? Isnt majority of 4chan intp/intj?
i love the world and i also hate it and i love people and God. im also a repressing troon obviously. so i should kill myself and make the world better ideally
I used to test INFP when i was feeling all lovey dovey crushing on a girl so i would answer the questions more F oriented, and the online test are useless for I/E if youre not a party animal. I was relieved to confirm im not INFP and am actually ENTP.
>>84166008Idk if I'm INTP or INFP but I fucking hate that smug bastard fucking nodding his head at me like "yep that's what I expected from you" like fuck you you stupid bitch. Why the fuck do you think you're so much better than me. You make minimum wage too you asshole. But noooo I'm the loser? Fucking nodding your head at me all smug. You people are all the same. I fucking hate everyone
kek im an infp 4w5 but i'm also a psychopath narcissist. my values are that people should be brutally anally buttgaped and murdered
>>84167441>also a psychopath narcissist.Oh so you're 14 and want to stand out, or maybe want an excuse as to why you have no friends Get a grip, faggot
>>84167589cope seethe. i am a psychopath, i've done terrible things. things you'd never dare to do. little pussy ass bitch
>>84167613I don't give a fuck faggotNow go back to getting groomed on your 764 discord server you little edgelord
>>84167671i dont use discord, im a lone wolfpeople dissapoint meand i enjoy hurting themand they suss me outthere are no discord servers that i have ever entered that i havent sabotaged
>>84167671you're such a copey little retard xdxd
>>84166008INFPs are weird anyway, ENTPs are way cooler and better anyway
>>84167158Reminds me how I tested as INTP or INTJ when I was in a thinkoid phase. Maybe I'd get INFP now, due to switching to a feely persona and posting cute things left and right.But if I fell for such a mistake after all the Jungism, I'd be an utter fool, not recognizing how the auxiliary functions can be swapped around and not recognizing which part of the "personality" has stayed static and dominant (and inferior on the opposite end)Also yes holy shit the criteria for extraversion is retarded in the tests. Our kind is not too social, they can speak with others when they feel like it and that's it. We can attract orbiters but without any intention to commit, and in fact that forces more introverted behaviors to avoid misunderstandings.
>>84168011>>84166008Can you still be infp if you fucking hate all humans?
>>84168049Sure you can. Types are mainly about your "metaphysical framework" and degree of refinement/commitment to it, not specific values, ideas or behaviors.You orient yourself mainly through the Feeling function, and draw libido away from external objects? Both of those are habitual throughout all your life and you would need some degree of conscious effort to not feeloid around or act in a more outward way? Yep, it's a IxFP. INFP if they also have auxiliary intuition developed to some degree.Also, two modes of introversion are noted here:
>>84168049Making a sweeping moral judgement on all of humanity is a very INFP thing yes
>>84166207(me)Anyway, dropping it raw first: https://yourcalling.net/differentiation/ (you may use Google translate, it's not too complex)Some Jap Jungian had figured out various patterns of differentiation, and the one posted in the previous reply is the more common one.All examples assume the PoV of a Thinking main with auxiliary Intuition, though it would be more simple to see it as:>Cyan = main function(translates to Thinking in this case)>Green = auxiliary function(translates to Intuition)>Yellow = tertiary/lower auxiliary function(translates to Sensation)>Orange = inferior function(translates to Feeling)This site also has a lot of neat articles specifically based on Jung and Von Franz.
Also, the guy is so savage. MBTIsissies in shambles.
Anons used to be >70% INTP. Retards and women/weak men like yourself infected tge board, and now everything is gay.
I think what's "INTP" on 4chan would be the culture itself.Though having an "INTP culture" does not imply all, or even most people who browse the site are INTPs at all points in time.Much like you can claim Japan is peak Si-groid country, but for what's worth you will find an equal number of Ne-groid japs, probably feeling very at odds with the whole thing but still existing around.
>INFP thread>can't even survive 30 posts in, literally speedrunning suicide>requires an hyperactive ENTP to shove random theories around to stay afloatSounds about right.
NO PLEASE NOT ANOTHER MBTI THREAD NOOOOOO
The MBTI threads will continue until you individuate.
I know a chick that's really interested in mbti and all that personality tests crapI think it's because she doesn't understand herself very well and lacks a sense of identity so she wants to latch onto an archetype that's dictated to her via these tests, or something
Crying over a girl I met on bumble that was everything I wanted (we spoke for 30 mins on the phone but she said she can't do another LDR)
>>84166008I think i should start using opiates Cuz I feel like it'll be a stronger version of the nostalgia I feel looking at pic relatedI feel like it'll teleport me back to my childhoodThoughts?
>>84166008>I don't believe that you racist chuds are INFPsMostly, Chuds in general are INTPs. INFPs are usually lgbt.> I loathe people suffering, hatred, racismNo, you don't. You want white cis men to suffer and experience hatred and racism.>my ideal world everyone should get along together while farting glittering rainbows from their assholes. No it's not. Never is. All people who feel the need to proclaim to the world they hate racism ever want is revenge on a specific race.>Instead you chuds hate everyone who isn't you,And there it is. I didn't even have to provoke it out of you. Chud isn't a race, but we all know what race Chud is and which races of people you're saying are the only ones Chuds don't hate.>I know that I'm a feminine weak beta faggot but I don't care, that's what I am and I don't want to appear different because I'm that, a little gay pixieIt's doubtful you're actually weak or feminine, you snake. INFPs are at they're best when they're Gay, not when they're gay. Accept your lack of ethics and move on to more human matters than ethics already. We all know that INTPs are the most ethical, and it harms them since living in society is not nearly as absurd as actually following an ethical standard.
>>84169344>INTPs are the most ethicalDefine "most ethical".If you are thinking about somebody who knows how they feel about any moral conundrum and could give you answers more nuanced than "uuhh... happy people good?", LOL.If you are thinking about somebody who has a very formulaic approach to ethics to the point of being completely absurdly overcompensated and strict, then yes.If you are thinking about your typical Church person stereotype who seems to 100% derive their morality from [current moral system] yet they do so by embodying it almost too perfectly and seem to genuinely feel in function of said system with actual warmth and just enough nuance to consider slighly complex situations at times, that is an extraverted feeling type.
Kokoro does not approve of this site.Can't believe I didn't read it as much last time, there is both good stuff and some quality memes.And others that are VERY questionable(trying to read your palm lines to determine if you are S or N wtf? Also I literally have BOTH patterns depending on which hand you choose? huh?)
>>84166089this is why societies ruled by intuitive thinkers have succeeded over you>>84166200>thinking>empathyif anything it's irritation
>>84169466>If you are thinking about somebody who knows how they feel about any moral conundrum and could give you answers more nuanced than "uuhh... happy people good?", LOL. Aka somebody who has no principles and defers to emotions, yes.>If you are thinking about somebody who has a very formulaic approach to ethics to the point of being completely absurdly overcompensated and strict, then yes. Formulaic is another word for consistent, which is what we should expect from things that exist objectively. They shouldn't change, and neither should our approach change, unless we actually have a reason to make exceptions. You're discounting an entire field of philosophy here, with scholarship dating back to before Plato wrote about Socrates. >If you are thinking about typical Church person stereotype who seems to 100% derive their morality from [current moral system] yet they do so by embodying it too perfectly and genuinely feel in function of said system with actual warmth and to consider slighly complex situations, that is an extraverted feeling type.These people are slightly better, or maybe worse, than INFPs at ethics because they pretend to be principled, when they really just have no principles. I mean. You're the one saying racism is bad. Why don't you tell me why? Otherwise, I can conclude you're just putting your feelings above other people's, which is arrogance at its finest, or you answer and we just conclude you're having an extraverted streak. And I mean that genuinely. An arrogant INFP is capable of much more than most. The arrogant INFP, and not the hublebragging or virtue signaling kind, is superior to us all. The only thing standing in your way with this personality type is that you, somewhere along the line growing up, decided that you need your feelings to have to do with objects. You've been made to believe you're a fag, and you are, but there was a time before this fact had a say over who you are. You could give yourself to better things.
>>84170459>Aka somebody who has no principles and defers to emotions, yes.Not sure which part of the sentence you are answering to here, butThe nuanced one would be the Feeling type there, while the one doing "uuhh... happy people good?" is somebody who does not use this function much, if at all.>Formulaic is another word for consistentMade sure to specify, I mean it as literally trying to solve ethics as some sort of equation. That would also show inferior Feeling and attempt to colonize its territory with Thinking. You kinda cannot formulate Feeling judgements, they very strongly relies on contextual information, cultural background, and whatnot.> they pretend to be principled, when they really just have no principles.Actually no, Fe-ggots by default they don't pretend, that's the joke. The truth is much more tragic, and sort of cute at times: they barely see the subjective side of Feeling and when they do, they just force it into objective conditions instead: what they feel returns to "what [current role and context I'm in] should be feeling", we are talking about "that's just what a true believer would do"-tier of logic, almost as if they didn't even choose the role in question. (though if you probe hard enough for answers, you notice it returns to "because I noticed this thing makes people happy once so I must be the thing"-tier of logic, refer to the useful pic rel).
>>84170610>Not sure which part of the sentence you are answering to hereI was responding to the "nuanced" character you were refering to that you favored.>The nuanced one would be the Feeling type there, while the one doing "uuhh... happy people good?" is somebody who does not use this function much, if at all. I'm saying that the feeling type isn't suited for ethics. "Happy people good" is a viable ethical princple one might use. Simple as it may seem, exploring the ramifications of hedonism helps to make decisions about stuff like city planning and law.>Made sure to specify, I mean it as literally trying to solve ethics as some sort of equationEthics are a sort of equation. They're literally standards to follow to determine what's right and wrong.>That would also show inferior Feeling and attempt to colonize its territory with Thinking.The territory of Ethics wasn't colonized. It originally belonged to Thinking.>You kinda cannot formulate Feeling judgements, they very strongly relies on contextual information, cultural background, and whatnot. Ethics aren't Feeling judgements, unless you're nihilistic or a cultural relativist. >Actually no, Fe-ggots by default they don't pretend, that's the joke. You're saying they actually think they're being ethical?>they barely see the subjective side of Feeling and when they do, they just force it into objective conditions instead: what they feel returns to "what [current role and context I'm in] should be feeling",>we are talking about "that's just what a true believer would do"-tier of logic, almost as if they didn't even choose the role in question.Pretty much. The feeling is its own evidence for these people. There's no standard beyond it.>(though if you probe hard enough for answers, you notice it returns to "because I noticed this thing makes people happy once so I must be the thing"-tier of logic, refer to the useful pic rel).Right, which is what makes Feelers so great if they realize themselves.
>>84170918>I'm saying that the feeling type isn't suited for ethicsOn the contrary, it's their main domain, and specifically because they don't understand it as a formula.>They're literally standards to follow to determine what's right and wrong.But it would be misguided to claim they could be static as a real equation that removes any context/culture/etc. It breaks apart instantly as soon there is any attempt to describe a morally good or a morally bad that's eternally true.>It originally belonged to Thinking.Thinking types certainly like to fap about it.What is Thinking again? A "static image", which is to say, the same as a math equation that will always be 100% predicable, it has a very well-defined "correct" answer, and everything else is a "incorrect" one.What is an ethical problem again? A question that is never quite possible to answer in a formulaic way, and could never be reduced to "correct" and "incorrect" no matter how hard one tries. Unless you are being completely blind to, or dishonest about a Feeling judgement.>or a cultural relativistGuess that applies in my case, though I might be just relativist in general terms because I'm not OP, my main function is intuition and this function cannot possibly conceive anything that just exists on its own, it must always speak of a spacetime relationship with other objects, one way or the otherIt returns to the problem of your type being effectively closer to a metaphysical framework AND commitment.>You're saying they actually think they're being ethical?They certainly """"""think"""""". Oh well, the answer from their PoV would probably be something like "yes because I'm very good at following [role]". To even question whether the role is actually ethical in terms of "universals" or even "the subjective factor"(as per Joong) would bring a Fe-ggot out of their entire realm. Though they are receptive enough to the latter if a Fi-ggot really tries to make them see it that way.
Forgot the funny pic......
This has to be simultaneously the most hilarious way to apply the theory I could possibly conceive(and making it write it by Clod is part of the funny), but also the most accurate explanation for this terminal condition that people of our type might end up developing. And thirdly, a self-demonstrating example of how you can make Type Theory work on things that would appear to be completely unrelated and seem to defy explanation.The inferior Si-groidism dimension is important because we can easily observe how the subjects in question, on the sensory side of the condition, appear to be very childlike/primitive/quite literally watch magical girl shows.
>>84171034>But it would be misguided to claim they could be static as a real equation that removes any context/culture/etc.Any claim that's not static is no claim at all. It just makes you a hypocrite. >It breaks apart instantly as soon there is any attempt to describe a morally good or a morally bad that's eternally true. So you're a nihilist, not a moral realist. What evidence do you have that there are no objective ethical principles? How do you dismantle utilitarianism, for example, that we should always make choices to make the most people happy and make the least people suffer? I mean, you're not just beefing with me here. You're beefing with every utilitarian, Kant, Loche, Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, William Clifford, Aristotle, nearly every religion, and even fucking Socrates himself who may or may not have even existed he was so powerful.>What is an ethical problem again? A question that is never quite possible to answer in a formulaic way, and could never be reduced to "correct" and "incorrect" no matter how hard one triesWhy do you believe we can't answer ethical problems with reason, again? Like, you try, and you fail, but that doesn't mean ethics can't be proven or even that other people haven't already succeeded >Unless you are being completely blind to, or dishonest about a Feeling judgement. Well, no. I just don't see why it needs to be ethical. Emotions pass for me like how sensations do. Right and wrong, if it's not just taste, shouldn't change depending on how I feel. >Guess that applies in my caseI mispoke. I meant ethical relativist. Either way, you get the concept for subjectivism, which is fine too. >They certainly """"""think"""""".I meant believe. It's just a way of talking.>To even question whether the role is actually ethical in terms of "universals" or even "the subjective factor"(as per Joong) would bring a Fe-ggot out of their entire realmIt would, but it would be temporary and do them tremendous good.
>>84166008Evil people are the cause of much of the worlds suffering, I want them to be euthanized so the good people cam inherit the world.
