There are a thousand descriptions of INFJ, but little prescription.
The meme of INFJ is that they are Ni dominant with Se inferior, so they’re fucked because Se = ability to take action, therefore, INFJ can’t act.
And a lot of this is the prevailing theme on the internet “Us poor INFJs, we just can’t live in this world…of action”
However, what I realized is that Ni should not be negatively defined as “the inability to act”, but rather, positively defined as the ability to take highly-leveraged action.
The concept of leverage explains how you can move a large quantity with a small force.
This method of action can “look” inactive for long periods of time, but this is merely the first part of the Ni method, which also comprises the bulk of its activity – seeing into things.
What is Ni looking for?
The one thing.
Ni is the principle of The One. And until it finds the one, it CANNOT ACT.
The one thing is the one thing that all other things turn or pivot on in any given situation. If Ni cannot find this, it cannot act.
We live in a world of sensors, and it is their method – action without insight – that causes INFJ to be labelled as lazy and inert.
Or worse, if an INFJ is pressed into this mode of action, they will fail, while at the same time being habituated to act in a mode that can only bring them bad results.
An INFJ shouldn’t act until they have figured out the 80/20 of any given situation.
What is 80/20?
80/20 is a natural law discovered by Vilfredo Pareto, a 19th century Italian economist, regarding the unequal distribution of wealth. In essence, what he found was that 80% of the wealth in the locales that he studied tends to be concentrated to 20% of the people.
This law was rediscovered in the later 1900’s and has been found to explain the unequal distribution of many things.
The basic principle is that 20% of the input produces 80% of the result in any given situation. And 80% of the input produces 20% of the result.
The exciting thing about this discovery is that it means most things don’t matter, yet, the things that do matter, matter a great deal.
Hitherto, the major implications of this principle have mostly been applied to the world of business and productivity.
However, I began to see the 80/20 principle as the Ni method of action – leverage – and the key to prescribing for INFJ a course of action that would work.
80/20 is the INFJ method of action
INFJ’s problem is not in taking action, but in following prescriptions of action that only work for sensor types (the 80%).
However, Ni types will exhaust themselves following sensor methods of action.
INFJ is naturally primed to think in this 80/20 way, but they are trained out of their natural mode by a ton of bad conditioning that tells them
- you can only get more with more effort
- work harder
- all opportunities are equal, therefore you should act on all opportunities that come your way
- do more in less time
- be busy (because it looks productive)
INFJ is only at a disadvantage in the world of action if they follow the common methods (which are pervasive and perpetuated by parents, teachers, media etc).
In reality, Ni types have a huge advantage over normal folks operating in the “incrementalist” mindset.
INFJ growth is exponential, non-linear, and does not follow incrementalism, but rather, the principles of chaos theory (which the book I recommend below talks about).
Most of the “great people” in this world are, or have been, Ni types.
Also, abysmal failures and “fucked up” people of infinite pathologies.
Ni is the most extreme of the cognitive functions, either extremely above or extremely below, the very rich or the very poor.
If INFJ would only discover and affirm what their correct method is, they would prosper and rule in this world.
That is what the book I’m recommending below provides – actionability for INFJ – how INFJ may take the highly-leveraged action that is implied in 80/20 thinking and methods.
I’d venture to say it’ll be similar to the “homecoming” INFJs experience when they find out there is name for what they are.
80/20 is the verb to the noun of “INFJ”.
There are a thousand forms of description of INFJ, but no prescription.
This book prescribes.
If you need help with any of the INFJ issues outlined in this article, consider consulting with me. I have been helping INFJ’s since 2015 find their way in a world not made for them.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites like Stellar Maze to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
Featured Photo Credit: Woodwalker, with a retouche by Poxnar (Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License)
Great article, Blake. Any advice for how an INFJ can discern the “one thing” in any given situation? My own experience is that you can logic out (Te or Ti) something that sounds great to other people, but you don’t actually do it because the subconscious has something else in mind. The process of finding this subconscious (Ni) answer seems akin to artistic pursuits. Is this one thing the very essence of “flow” for an INFJ?
Great article, Blake. Any advice for how an INFJ can discern the “one thing” in any given situation?
Yeah, I wrote an article on it – The 2 Keys to Success in Any Given Endeavor.
Do you like it and are you good at it?
Like it, rather than love it…
Indeed, I’m wondering how to translate that more into what actions to take in the present moment, rather than a global “what do I do”. Honestly, when I’m in the zone, it’s all about what I’d “like” to do (recognizing something meaningful, and not merely running to a distraction).
So it sounds like a simple subdivision of the 2 Keys you outline, which are marvelous. Thanks, Blake.
I find asking questions a great way to go about this.
Fantastic. Thank you.
Your response to a question a couple of articles back referring to this 80/20 principle (and debunking the notion of time) began a process of tearing through a bunch of internal nonsense for me. My creativity has begun exploding in full-on Se manner. The 80% that was going to “skill-building” and perfectionism is now doing and flowing. I can paint pretty much anytime I like. And the stuff that comes through… so much beautiful INFJ color and flow. It turns out there was never any need to strain or do something extra to make it “perfect.” It’s what you have been saying in many INFJ articles… it’s already in us.
I feel so happy.
The book is not coming up for me–can you re-list the link?
The book is not coming up for me–can you re-list the link?
I relisted it. Is it coming up now?
Your response to a question a couple of articles back referring to this 80/20 principle (and debunking the notion of time) began a process of tearing through a bunch of internal nonsense for me.
Hey now!
Thanks–it is showing now. I’m going to give it a read. Gay Hendricks’ writings might also interest you along these lines. He discusses the Zone of Excellence and the Zone of Genius. He notes that many people work very successfully in an area which is their Zone of Excellence, but when they work in their Zone of Genius, they can be ultra-successful and nearly effortless, having tapped into what they love and are naturally designed for. Learning about that idea helped me leave a decades long very successful yet very grueling career to lean toward my natural skill sets, and reading this recent set of articles (plus some other key developments in my life) has helped me approach my new calling with a lot more ease and trust.
We really aren’t meant to struggle.
That’s cool to hear
Hi Blake. Thanks for a great article. I read all his books when they first came out. They helped me focus on what I’m good at and what inspires me. But I’m still one of the “poor”!;)
I’m re-reading the one for the 80/20 Individual. Great fun. I’ve forgotten a lot of it. This will help me to create improvement with my current ideas.:)
My Fe is too loyal, cares too much about the people around me, that they’re taken care of and happy, for this to work. It’s why I’m an assistant in my 30s (and grateful to be one!) Wouldn’t this principal apply best to INTJs, who truly don’t give a f*** at least in the business sense?
OTOH, if you’re recommending INFJs capitalize on their emotional intelligence to accomplish more in the world, that’s something I can maybe get on board with. INTJs, though capable of near-sociopathy in their “leveraging” of tools i.e. people to get the most done with the least effort, can be pretty clueless when it comes to interacting with other humans (whom they don’t view as equals). With afflicted Fi in the mix, forget it — they are barely tolerable.
I am certainly inert a majority of the time, this is true. And having to train an ISFJ at work with no Ni whatsoever has made me finally see some utilitarian value in my dominant function. Your idea of The One does resonate. The thing is, I get stuck always on what might be best for the people I love, how to keep those relationships thriving, that I’m often in a limbo state and cannot DO. What hurts them hurts me. As long as I can keep creating though, I seem to be okay drifting, without perceptibly advancing any further in life. So yes, that is where my 20% efforts are going, I suppose. Into art. Results have been spiritual if not material.
Obviously, I’d like to have more to my name, like my ISFJ trainee with the house, husband, multiple cars, and bigger salary. Listening to her, about 80% of her brain definitely seems taken up with those things. Ultimately, I know they mean nothing. It’s a matter of values. If INFJs had different values I don’t think they’d have as much trouble getting on in the world, let alone making visible progress in it. Which is why I reason INTJs, assholes though they are, might be the better choice for implementing the rule in question… I will check out the book nonetheless 🙂
I don’t think we need be or can be complete focused assholes [and I am not implying INTJ’s are across the board] but we can learn from people that put themselves and their potential and their projects on their own agenda. There will always be someone that needs you and yet they don’t entirely. We need to back off and let people figure their shit out sometimes. Soon, I will watch my granddaughter and my writing during those hours will not happen. And damned right I will put her before typing my ridiculous fantasy… even though to me that is the thing I have to get right. But I think the reason INFJ is all over the spectrum and can be very affluent -went with the flow- or poor as dirt -is that we [I’d guess most of us inherently] just do not care about money over people. You are willing to be content with your work because you can have all of what you feel is fair and best for your close people, and some art for yourself. You are grateful. I am grateful. Frustrated sometimes but grateful. Part of what makes INFJ INFJ is that we see that those with too much are often affected by it [we are nothing like infallible and still human, so corruptible] and affluence can make someone who is often what looks like soft and lazy even more so… wasteful, and we see how it sets people apart… and we love people and would share. We do not need hordes to satisfy us. We are happy with sandwiches and soups much of the time.
What I see in Blake’s article however is not the drive for money or power of any sort but the need for an INFJ’s flow in this world. They flow may well make money, but that is not the ultimate goal, as I see it any way but the by product that is helpful in having more time to do produce the needed 20% of goodness they are capable of. I think we need to be selfish enough not to squander all of our hours, energy and gods forbid waste them on the 80 effort for 20 result. We are asshole [ tough love capable] enough to do this if we can get over the crippling unworthiness and self doubt. That in my experience is the largest fucking hurdle. For me, especially as a mother thinking I have to put anyone else before my needs to do it right. From their birth, we set our priorities aside, or do them in the off hours until they can wipe their own butts.
I have gleaned a bit from reading and watching and we need to give our loved one’s the space to mess up and sort themselves and be stronger for it. With that space we make for ourselves we honor ourselves with the time to do the same. Slowly, slowly I seem to be moving in this general direction. So fucking slowly.
Blake, INTJ also has Ni dominant and Se inferior–do they experience similar stagnation to INFJ or does their Te and Fi somehow help compensate?
Blake, INTJ also has Ni dominant and Se inferior–do they experience similar stagnation to INFJ or does their Te and Fi somehow help compensate?
Te helps compensate (Fi, no).
The author of this book (Richard Koch) is an INTJ, imo.
I think it is less likely that an INFJ would implement 80/20 thinking and action in their lives (than INTJ), which however doesn’t mean that they should not, or that they would not benefit immensely from it.
I think the 80/20 principle has INFJ written all over it, even more than INTJ, because of the non-linearity implied in the law. I see this as eminently suiting an Fe method (with Ni leveraging, of course).
I was just thinking about this and about to make a fresh comment but seen it being discussed. INTJ definitely make use of 80/20 thinking, maybe without even knowing that are. Think Elon Musk. INFJ needs to be more deliberate in using it
Brilliant Blake. You are onto something because this is the only approach that works for me.
Situation –
* What Do I Want Here, What’s The Ultimate? (Make It Exciting, Think Big Picture)
* What Will Make The Biggest Difference Towards This?
* What’s The 80/20 Of This Situation? (Same As Above But Reframed)
Let your intution come up with the answer. Take action
As Koch says in the book “most things don’t matter, but those things that do matter, matter a great deal”.
So you gotta find what those things are in any given situation: work, relationships, recreation, and so on. And any time spent finding those things that do matter is not only time well-spent, but critical to success and happiness.
Sensors will tend to tell you that all opportunities matter and so you gotta get busy following up on all of them. Sensors outnumber intuitives in approximately a 4:1 ratio. That’s 80/20! Since sensors outnumber intuitives by so much they set the dominant paradigm.
Which doesn’t work for intuitives. If intuitives follow sensor methods they will fail. And on top of it, feel bad for being losers and so forth.
For example, in work and career, MANY things will be a bad fit. And MOST things will be a mediocre fit. A few things will be a great fit. And one or two things you can have phenomenal success with.
Wouldn’t you want to find the things that you can have phenomenal success with? The things that come easy to you and you can do faster than anyone else?
Koch also says that the 80/20 method is “counter-intuitive”. It’s not what you would expect. I mean, many people know that all things aren’t equal but are suprised when they see how unequal they are.
For example, in business, about 20% of your customers give you 80% of your profits. Many people are shocked at how disproportionate that ratio is when they do an 80/20 analysis.
The same is true with skills and abilities. It’s usually one or two key skills and abilities that produces phenomenal success in business.
The same is true in relationships. The same is true in anything.
Now, INFJs just be virtue of their rarity have this mismatch to the general culture’s skills and abilities. Which is good for them if they capitalize on it. Why?
Because no other type can do the things that INFJ can do MUCH easier than the normal population.
The inverse is true. INFJs suck at most of the normal ways of doing things.
But they only fail when they follow that way.
They can have phenomenal success when they focus on and find their 20% spike strengths. For INFJs it’s closer to 99/1 than 80/20 (80/20 is just a benchmark. It can be more or less, but it’s rarely 50/50).
I like this book because it affirms and explains INFJ’s natural method. Ni is the most 80/20 thing there is. Ni is leveraged action.
Anyway, buy the book.
Sensors outnumber intuitives in approximately a 4:1 ratio. That’s 80/20!
Haha, another instance of the rule:D
*Sensors outnumber intuitives in approximately a 4:1 ratio. That’s 80/20!*
Whaaaat…. is this only in the US or the western world or is it generally the case everywhere?!
Whaaaat…. is this only in the US or the western world or is it generally the case everywhere?!
I’m not sure, but it’s at least true for America, and perhaps the Western world in general. I don’t know if it’s true in a place like Russia, for instance. There are certain places where I strongly suspect you are going to find more intuitives concentrated there. I have observed this non-statistically myself.
However, it seems to follow that earth is a sensor’s world, more or less. It’s their home plane. And so intuitives are living in their world. They are in the minority, almost by definition.
However, intuitives are the “20% that produce 80% of the result” as far as progress on this earth is concerned.
So, it seems to follow the 80/20 rule. More or less. Sensor = 80%. Intuitive = 20%. Roughly speaking.
Point I’m trying to make is that intuitives, especially Ni dom. types, and especially INFJ, can either be absolute failures or stellar successes because of the implications of the 80/20 principle.
Sensors, especially Si types, are by definition the middling mediocre majority. The status quo. The conventional wisdom. They will tend to be in the middle.
Why?
Because intuitives often can’t find their strengths and allow themselves to go against the grain to let them operate even if they do find them.
Sensors don’t have this problem because their strengths are the prevailing ones. However, their strengths do not produce stellar (unusual) results. They produce a minority of the result. Intuitives produce the majority of the result. They are what Koch would call “the vital few” and sensors are what he would call “the trivial many”.
The vital few are what produce most of the result in any given situation.
But if the vital few can’t allow themselves to operate according to their true strengths they will produce no result, or even a negative result.
Again, buy the book. It’s an affirmation of the intuitive method, particularly Ni. Ni is the most in the minority of any of the cognitive functions. It is partly defined this way.
It can either be a total nullity for the user of it or a stellar success beyond all imagining.
If Ni is allowed to operate correctly and honored for the way that it does operate, it can produce incredible results.
Yeah–it always seemed to me that countries like Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan, etc. may have more intuitives, or at least be more encouraging of lifestyles/practices that work well for them.
My book arrived about a week ago! but… I’ve been diddling in my orderly INFJ lists of 80% things (blah) and so haven’t read it yet. Good reminder to 20 to it 🙂
I have to say I’m skeptical, and skeptical of all general ideas/theories of how to live one’s life, how to work, how to
sleep, how to eat, how to whatever. I tend to think INFJs are no exception to obvious “rules” or “principles” in life. You have to work hard if you want to get somewhere. People with great talent with no aptitude for hard work generally don’t seem to get anywhere. Or is this my impression? Big things need to come from somewhere, and a lot of energy (stemming from genius and laborious sweat) will be needed. However, that doesn’t mean hard work will guarantee success either. You’ll need to work *smart* as well (which I guess is what you and Richard Koch is trying to get at). The middlers are those who fail to see the big picture and look at the work alone and nothing more. They don’t work smart. And they don’t adjust their input upon seeing the output; they might not care about the output at all. Those are the ones that don’t go so far.
And if you like what you’re doing, the hard work should be worth it. It may not feel like hard work at all. And joy is going to be that big leverage (and so is anger and tension, which is also why I feel hesitant to say INFJs should have the easy way out).
Anyways, all in all, I think we should work both *smart* and *hard*, although working smart alone could be sufficient to do well, just not exceedingly excellent.
I remember when a naive student asked a pre-eminent INTJ figure how she “got there,” there was a long awkward silence followed by an enormous HISSSSS of a cat. Oh yes, formidable INTJ woman was pissed and said, “I feel so awkward when people ask this question. There is no one particular way or magic trick” [Awkward Silence once again] “Ugh. JUST WORK HARD, OK? You are in this building because you are clearly smart enough and have proved your high competence. The only factor that’ll get you up there now is hard work. Don’t get distracted. FOCUS.” Talk about intimidation. But she has a point. I prefer this answer. We shouldn’t be exempt from anything. (Is my ISTJ-ness getting in the way?) I guess the factor always omitted from these basic lectures is to work correctly/smart at the same time. It’s an obvious given people always forget about.
Also, I think if people want to get maximal benefits, they’ll have to find a way to manage themselves whilst being flexible at the same time. Flexibility will help you readjust your methods to fit changing demands. There are lots of ways to get there (IMO). Finally, lying to yourself about something that isn’t working or giving you any joy probably wouldn’t do any good either. Know when to give up.
Personally, for me, going by my instinct has done me good thus far. I also like to pour my blood, sweat, and tears, (because I’m masochistic and seem to enjoy tension and pain), but it’s best for me to pour this drive into one or two general areas of focus, not like 1000s of things at the same time. My job requires multitasking, but I multitask on a set of things on an instinctive basis. I don’t make elaborate plans scheduling 5000 different things at once. Sometimes I do that, but only when necessary. Some measured procrastination helps. Push things to a given time window that’s close enough to feel the pressure but not so close that I’m royally fucked.
And I do think one needs some basic sets of skills to work competently. No INFJ or intuitive should be exempt. Si/Se/Te is important, and a basic threshold should be met; otherwise, the intuitive/INFJ should be judged like hell. That’ll motivate them. I mean, they are smart so why let their talent rot with so little understanding of how to navigate their world? I remember reading some job applications an INFJ has sent me to review. This led me to think “?????? So smart. So philosophical. So gifted. But. What. The. Fuck. Is. This?” INFJs might need some mentors to teach them a few real world skills. I encourage them to go out and find them, sooner rather than later. But this might only happen when they run into trouble, when they actually begin to care.
I have to say I’m skeptical, and skeptical of all general ideas/theories of how to live one’s life, how to work, how to
sleep, how to eat, how to whatever.
I hear you, but aren’t the cognitive functions and astrology in this category? You don’t seem skeptical about them in the way that I sensed you were using the word “skeptical”.
I tend to think INFJs are no exception to obvious “rules” or “principles” in life. You have to work hard if you want to get somewhere. People with great talent with no aptitude for hard work generally don’t seem to get anywhere. Or is this my impression?
It’s not just your impression. But no one is saying that there is no hard work. What Koch is saying is that most things you do don’t matter that much in terms of producing a result. The inputs are unequal to the outputs. Small inputs can make a huge difference in the result, while huge inputs (effort) can produce little difference.
There are some things that you (an INFJ) can do so easily that another person (a non-INFJ or a non-schloopadoo) would never be able to do, or would do with much more difficulty. What Koch is saying is that you want to find those things, whatever they may be, and leverage them. Because with all greatly successful people this is the key to their success, not hard work.
People that are greatly successful greatly enjoy what they do. Thus, it may look like “hard work” but it’s really just play. Play hard, ya know?
The upper middle class work the hardest. The rich play. It’s a difference in thinking and mindset. Huge difference.
And if you like what you’re doing, the hard work should be worth it. It may not feel like hard work at all.
Exactly, there is a mistake in thinking (by middle-class) that in order to be successful you must put all the play aside and get down to work. This is good middle-class formula for success because they don’t play. But they will never get to the highest echelons of success either. Or it will take a lot longer and be a more conservative route.
I feel hesitant to say INFJs should have the easy way out.
What I’m getting at for INFJ is more the refusal to play. That is much more problematic for them than not being able to work hard. An INFJ can often work hard and get nowhere. So, it’s not taking the easy way out, it’s taking the sensible way through.
Anyways, all in all, I think we should work both *smart* and *hard*, although working smart alone could be sufficient to do well, just not exceedingly excellent.
One of the most counter-intuitive and revolutionary things the books says is that it is those who work both smart and lazy that occupy the highest positions in the world. It is not enough to be smart and hard-working. One must learn to be lazy. Unless you want to be upper middle class, then by all means work hard and be smart. If you want to excel beyond this you need to stop working so hard. This is a profound concept to me.
Everyone always telling you (without thinking about it) to work hard. Work harder. I know Asian parents are 😉
But, I think the laziness thing can be misunderstood too. It’s about being lazy in the right ways. Smartly. Koch says (in another book he wrote) that he had to learn this lesson, as he was born with an inclination to work hard.
Now, some people like to work hard. A lot of sensors are like this. But so too I guess could be intuitives. But are they enjoying it? Like you mentioned pouring your blood, sweat and tears into something. That’s passion to me.
Working hard for the sake of working hard is not too intelligent, even if the people advocating it are. Or perhaps it’s better to say that it’s not the most efficient way.
Work hard if you like to work hard. If it makes you feel good.
Also, there is the question of what are you expected to work hard at? An INFJ (for example) could work hard at something that is not suitable for their gifts and they would get nowhere. Or if they did get somewhere it wouldn’t have been optimal. Which is fine. You will NEVER be greatly successful at something that doesn’t suit your strengths and temperament. You WILL have to work harder. You will not be as fast at it. You will not enjoy it as much as those who have the strengths.
And you won’t be GREAT at it, which means you won’t be a huge success. And any success you have will be hard-won.
Following the 80/20 principle, people that are successful are so because of one or two things that they can do WAY ABOVE average, and the closer these people are to very successful, the more this is true. It is not hard work. It may look like that, but it’s a bit of an illusion, if we take hard work to mean drudging away at something until you get it done. Even top-flight drudgers can never enter the highest levels of success, as a general rule.
Often, it’s what you don’t do that matters more than what you do. This is related to positive laziness. And this makes sense per the 80/20 principle. If most things don’t matter, then stop doing them. Or minimize them as much as possible.
And leverage the few things that you do exceptionally well. For big success. I’m not talking about just getting along in life.
And I do think one needs some basic sets of skills to work competently. No INFJ or intuitive should be exempt. Si/Se/Te is important, and a basic threshold should be met; otherwise, the intuitive/INFJ should be judged like hell. That’ll motivate them. I mean, they are smart so why let their talent rot with so little understanding of how to navigate their world?
Because that’s the way a lot of them are. If an INFJ wants to excel it can be a lot easier than they have been told by well-meaning plebs.
But yeah I guess I get your meaning, basic sufficiencies. Sure. But focusing on those is not their strength. Appeal to strengths (especially very great strengths) and to affinities. Otherwise, you will be working very hard indeed. And it will feel like Saturnian hell, which is heaven to an ISTJ.
One person’s heaven is another’s hell.
Oh my God, thank you so much, Blake. I need this so badly!
❤️❤️❤️ Hearts to you!
Wasn’t planning to really ask but another one of your articles convinced me to (oh, how it goes). Anyway, as someone who has just stumbled on this harsh and refreshingly direct call out on personalities (mainly the INFJ), it’s still quite difficult to make sense of a major portion of the bigger picture. And that’s because I can’t really understand what form?working?dynamic?thinking? (see, precisely the problem) you are referring to when you use terms like Fi id, Se, Fe, Ni…. the whole bunch. There are definitions on the web and stuff, but applying those here (not knowing how sugarcoated they are) makes it almost impossible to know where you coming from with what you are trying to tell us.
Since, I love,no, make it a point of taking away from a read worth remembering – could you please help me (& my contemporaries, if any) out here? A good reference would be great (ha) ; But understanding these functions as you see them would be 1000 times more operative, and truthfully, awesome. Also, examples/analogies of people doing everyday things that you can attribute to that certain trait could work perfectly. (..maybe, forgive me if I’m being presumptive.)
Anyway, that’s the problem for a intrepid yet cautious reader seeking to determine, if, and if, how this might just help her. Hoping you can help me out. Fingers crossed!
PS. Thanks. Every article is unique in it’s address and yet each is abrasive. And that’s good for people who don’t want to ignore slacks that need cutting and stuff that needs polishing. Irrespective of whether I agree or not, every line makes me wonder why you’re saying it. And that’s partly what keep me reading. Please, do continue.