Basic human aim

So which one am I? Drawing upon Keirsey’s nicknames, am I the healer or the architect? When reading his descriptions, I feel quite certain that I’m the INFP, but definitely with a strong rational edge. I do find myself able to act and behave against my emotions based on what seems rational. I’ve said no to temptations I expect that true NFs would/could not.

However, I think the theory is somewhat fragile, and I guess I’m a bit influenced by Freudian thinking that all humans aim for simple pleasure, even though they walk some rather complex paths to get there sometimes. The NFs are simply going for the short term pleasure whereas the NTs are thinking long term. But they all want the same, basically. That’s pretty much my own interpretation, by the way.

Temptation and sanctification

I also need to pay attention to my Christian view that all humans have the power to act and behave against their feelings to some extent. That’s why we’re all responsible for our sins, because we have the power not to sin, but yet we sin. We deliberately fall into temptation. Except none of us have complete power since we all end up doing things we’d rather not do. So all of us have the power of the will, but nobody completely. It’s a paradox, however this is how the bible describes the sinful state.

I guess it makes great sense that sanctification leads NFs towards the NTs, but part of me objects that it only makes sense to the NTs. The NTs can do what they know to be right even when facing temptations. The poor NFs feel that the wrong things are right and–seeing that their choices are guided by their emotions–they just sin. This is way too simplified, though. Even the strongest NTs fall into temptation, and even the strongest NFs die as marthyrs.

My strongest objection towards the ’sanctified to be NT’-thought is the idea that you are cured when you stop doing. Even if you may choose not to sin, but still feel like sinning, you are essentially bad. Your heart is still drawn towards sin. You are no better than the ones actually doing what your heart wants to do because your hearts are the same. And you are certainly not sanctified, though you may be on your way.

“Not good or bad, just you”

As pointed out by an NF friend, a basic principle of the Myers-Briggs personality theory is that there are no rights or wrongs, “you’re not good or bad, you’re just you”. This would be the humanistic, scientific presupposition. “If there is no God, there are no objective moral values.” The logical conclusion would be adopting some sort of nihilism (Viktor Frankl, an Austrian psychiatrist, called it nothingbutness), though most science folks probably go with some humanistic relativism.

Consequently, “we’re not offenders against any moral law, we’re just acting in accordance with nature”. Again, a basic presumption I simply cannot grasp as a Christian, nor as a simple observant of this messed up world. (Another NF friend attacked the view by asking if this included the acts of pedophiles. If all adults abused children sexually, would pedophilia be acceptable ethically speaking?)

There are indeed moral differences in psychological weaknesses, and some weaknesses are definitely worse than others, objectively speaking. Note that ’subjective to God’ would be ‘objective to us’ because he is the Creator. But in the end, all human individuals are (equally) sinful since all of them have lost the glory of God. ENTJs, for instance, are not spiritually superior to ISFPs. ENTJs are simply weak in some aspects, ISFPs in others.

Closer to an answer

Now, all these thoughts and discussions about being NT compared to being NF has brought me nowhere closer to an answer on which one I am. Although, this blog post strikes me as being the work of a rational. Yet, I find myself reading Keirsey, and I can strongly relate to the INFP, not so much the INTP who bores me. Though few funny details stick out and give me hints that I might be on my way to become the INTP.

A Christian counsellor told me that the Feelings know that they are Feeling whereas the Thinkings often think they might be Feeling, but they are Thinking. If true, I’m a Thinking who has learned to feel. I just sense it’s the other way around. I think I used to be Feeling, but my rational mind has gained quite a bit of power over the last few years making me able to reflect rationally over the feelings that drive me.

The characteristics

I look at the set of values that characterises the different types, and I try to place myself accordingly. It makes me rational (NT) that I am usually calm, not enthusiastic; that I generally trust reason, not intuition. On the other hand, it makes me idealistic (NF) that I yearn for romance, not achievement; that I seek identity, not knowledge; that I prize recognition, not deference. Looking down the lists I jump from the one to the other, never really feeling doubtful about my preferences.

In a few years from now, I might be somewhere else. Perhaps, the obvious question is what do I really want to be? Actually, I feel quite content being where I am. I wish I were more in control of my feelings (especially in the present), but sometimes I envy the passion of the feeling (when they feel something positive, that is). I think I’ll try to explain some of my NT traits later.