From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Amended the descriptions of type dynamics (hierarchy) to reflect my understanding of current thinking on MBTI (does this carry over to Keirsey and Socionics also?):

  • there is no general agreement about the attitude of the tertiary function (Te or Ti)
  • amended the description of type development to indicate that the tertiary tends to become more evident in midlife
  • likewise, the inferior usually develops in maturity and is often in evidence under stress (in the grip)

The article is still somewhat unsatisfactory. I think it would be worth reintroducing some (referenced) data on prevalence of the type plus some more useful description of its understood characteristics in MBTI, Keirsey, Socionics.

There is potentially some redundancy in the description of type dynamics also, as this is covered generically in the main article on Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

I have not looked at the other type descriptions. Potentially, it would be useful to come up with a set template for all 16 types, does anyone fancy making this a collective project? Wee Paddy 11:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

On the tertiary function, it is indicated by several sources, including the one by the Tiegers cited in the article, that the tertiary function has the same focus(inwards or outwards) as tbe first. The confusion often comes from the "shadow"; that is, the traits of the opposite type that a person displays during times of stress: ESTP for INFJs, and ESFJ for INTPs such as myself.
On the rest, I agree, there should be a template for the personality type pages, and a collective project could be just the thing these pages need. I would also suggest that anyone intersted check out the INTP talk page, as there is an ongoing discussion on suggested improvements.--User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should avoid mixing Keirsey and Socionics into this article. They have their own articles, which are referenced here.
Disagreement exists over the orientation of the tertiary. Jung suggested that it was the opposite of the dominant, but most MBTI-related sources seem to hold that it's the same as the dominant. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Percentage of INFJs?[edit]

From the article: "The small number of this type (1 percent) is regrettable..."

I have seen the figure listed both as 1 and 2 percent. Off the top of my head, I know [1] has the figure at "little more than 2 percent." Does someone have a source showing 1 percent? Thanks. --Square pear 02:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

One percent is definitely wrong. MBTI guesses 1-3% [2], Socionics much more [3]. Of course it differs from the point of view and the definition of INFJs. --Gronau 08:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The books by Keirsey usually say "1%". I have read others that say 1%. But some sites do say 1-2%. -- Andrew Parodi 17:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it listed as 1-2% for males and 1-3% for females. Wrad 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Best to give a range, I think, since exact numbers vary. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Type Descriptions[edit]

I just deleted the descriptions on all of these personality types. A lot of them were copyvios from different sources, several of them being from , where they may or may not have been copied from other locations. Nonetheless, the three theories of MBTI, Keirsey Temperaments, and Socionics are quite different and require different descriptions of types, functions, relations, and other concepts. Socionics especially differs from the other two. The three theories should all be expanded upon in Wikipedia, but it is impossible to do this while there is a conglomeration of these three theories and they are treated as one and the same. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a new subheading for the characteristics sourced from the Dolphin Cove website that had been incorrectly listed under Keirsey Characteristics. I question the reliability of the information on the Dolphin Cove website, however; it's a members-only e-mail list, not a scholarly resource. Ajwenger 05:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Famous/Notable INFJs[edit]

That whole section is total bollocks. Unattributed speculation. Fictional characters (Worf????). What an embarrassment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, it's a little ridiculous. It seems like whoever added that section just picked a bunch of "nice" people concerned with human rights and gave them this personality type. --LakeHMM 06:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It too was copied from another site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Removed it. I really didn't see any way to save it or any reason to keep it. Zoffoperskof 05:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone added a list again. I removed it. The only source I have any confidence in whatsoever is, who believes there are no famous INFJs throughout history. But even then, nobody's speculations can be proven unless typology is proven through some sort of genetic analysis - which is currently unavailable, obviously. _Anon_ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's still there, and it's still ridiculous. (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't still there, actually, it's back again. It's an endless cycle of one editor removing it and another editor adding it. ThreeOfCups (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Keirsey Characteristics[edit]

I was unable to find the following information on the website cited, nor is it consistent with anything of Keirsey's that I've read. Can someone provide a more specific citation? Otherwise, I think it should be deleted: "According to Keirsey, the INFJ is magnetically drawn to the ESTP and especially to the ENTP personality types because they see their complement in these types. The INFJ and ENTP might not get along as friends because of the insensitive nature of the ENTP and overly sensitive nature of the INFJ, but are a great match for intimate relationships because of the ENTP's willingness to be sensitive and concede their stubborn ways to the INFJ in relationships." Ajwenger (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A reply: I think Keirsey mentioned something about types being attracted to their opposites in Please Understand Me II - but I don't have that book on hand. At any rate, I think it's ridiculous to generalize about what "types" of people other "types" are attracted to; there is no quantifiable evidence to support such claims, except "personal experience," which is purely individualistic. I score INFJ on all the tests, and my partner scores INTP, but I am not going to claim that INTP is the ideal for the entire INFJ type just because of my own personal success with an INTP. _Anon_ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Seemed to violate NPOV. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cognitive functions[edit]

Agree with Ontologicos that these are not strictly MBTI functions. Myers and Briggs adapted them from Jung's Psychological Types. The text that follows the heading is not specific to MBTI. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


I created templates for text that's the same across all 16 type articles to eliminate the hours of work it takes to update the same text 16 times. This is a recommended use for templates according to Wikipedia policy WM:TEMP.

To edit the templates, follow the URL on the Edit page. Make sure that the changes you make to the templates are appropriate for all 16 type articles! (INFP, ESTJ, etc.) ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of Extraversion[edit]

The MBTI, Keirsey Temperament Sorter, and related Jung Typology assessments use the original spelling, Extraversion, rather than the modern corruption, Extroversion. In this context, Extraversion is jargon and should be thus spelled. ThreeOfCups (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Tattoo photo[edit]

Does anyone find the tattoo photo instructive? I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You've found it instructive enough to be editing it. The tattoos are an example of the type's propensity for the intensely symbolic.kencf0618 (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't edit the caption because I found the tattoo instructive. I edited the caption because I found it misleading. ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It strikes me as unacademic as well. (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
If you have other examples of INFJ symbolism-qua-symbolism, put 'em up! kencf0618 (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't but there's no need to feature an illustration of that point in an encyclopedia article. It would suffice to just state it. Or allude to the Divine Comedy. (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Same for me. (edit: 3 vs. 1) Merely stating "the INFJs have tendency for abstract expression" could suffice. Twipley (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I've just removed the tattoo image (until one argues back it contributes to understanding or else): Twipley (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
These tattoos (a winged book, the anarcho-capitalist symbol Ama-gi, and the Latin Annuit Coeptis) exemplify the INFJ tendency for abstract expression.

Logo and border color[edit]

For a discussion about the logo and border color, see Talk:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator#Remove or keep the fancy logos from the articles?. Please don't make a significant change to the logo or border color without discussing it there first. ThreeOfCups (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Links to blogs and personal websites[edit]

The following links are to be avoided according to Wikipedia policy WP:ELNO #11: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)"

Unless you're a notable person in the field of Jungian personality types, the inclusion of your blog or website in the "External links" section is considered linkspam, and it will be removed. ThreeOfCups (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hitler as an INFJ[edit]

There is a long discussion in a forum here: in which the general concensus is that Hitler is an INFJ, especially a very convincing post by 'little linguist' on this page and another by someone else a while back. I don't know whether this would be enough to put the suggestion on the page, but I think I should just put it out here in case. I personally think it would be quite accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


LOL how come Wikipedia treats this ridiculous pseudoscience like serious? What's next? "Moon Landing Hoax" as a serious theory? Or "The Earth is only 6,000 years old"? Please give the academic critics a voice, too! (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)