Jesus Christ INFJ/XXXX Analysis
It’s been said that anyone who’s “visionary and compassionate” gets types as INFJ. I discussed this here, for yet another common famous example of this: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/stevie-wonder-infjistp-analysis and others commonly mentioned, ranging from very “good” to very “evil”, are Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Hitler. So Jesus Christ also gets included here.
The Christian theorists I first learned temperament theory from, Tim LaHaye and the Arno’s, don’t seem to mention a type for Jesus, and I’m pretty sure, as conservative evangelicals, the reason they don’t is the same reason I don’t believe in doing so. We believe Jesus is God, and as temperament is apart of the created order (animals have simple versions of the temperaments as well, as Pavlov determined), and are caused by various “needs” connected with our limited existence.
While the factors that make up temperament likely stem from “sensitivity” to stimuli in the brain, they also come out as traits such as fears.
Introversion/extroversion (expressed Inclusion), can be linked to fear of rejection. Expressed Control might similarly be tied to fear of failure.
The wanted (“responsive”) scales deal in fear of intrusion or control by others.
The positive poles of these scales (i.e. the high scores, which indicates a move “toward” people and thus may seem less “neurotic”) wind up associated with either needs of some sort of acknowledgement or recognition.
The one temperament that’s “neutral” in these factors; the moderate Phlegmatic, ends up having a low energy reserve, precisely from not being driven in those areas.
Jesus was not motivated by fears or needs of recognition, and neither had any problem with low energy (and the resultant sluggishness, etc).
People also try to type God (i.e. the Father), usually with an opposite result, such as ESTJ, ESTP or ENTJ (all Choleric types), since He’s so “controlling”. But they’re looking at Him through the lens of human imperfections.
And of course, I believe “type” theory connects directly to temperament through the Keirseyan and Interaction Style goups.
If Jesus seems so iNtuitive and Feeling, then perhaps it’s simply reflecting the one-sidedness of the people he was dealing with.
God’s perspective would be undivided reality (possibly the perspective Jungians would associate with what they call “the [larger] Self”, and the “transcendant function”); unlike limited (and “fallen”) human egos, which divide reality into opposite poles, and then usually choose one pole over another.
So in taking on human flesh, the Son of God immersed Himself into at least four of those poles: the dimensions of space and time. Yet He was totally free of the other poles man fell into; representing their fallen state; such as political and even religious and moralistic divisions.
So likewise, the cognitive divisions; Israel of that day and age seemed very STJ; much like conservative “Christian America”. They were “Guardians” of tradition (internalized comprehension of point by point experience; like their meticulous breakdown of the Law), and the efficient, impersonal means of achieving what they thought would bring in the Kingdom. (Rules, procedures, punishments, political dealings, etc.; often highly “technical”, that often ignored true “personal” or “humane” concerns).
So an NiFe perspective would be suppressed to the deepest Shadow. Hence, Jesus speaking in parables regarding future meanings (Ni sort of products) knowing this would hide the meanings from them. And focusing on human souls more than a self-serving agenda.
Hence, in filling in their STJ blind spots, he came off as an NFJ.
One could obviously find all of the other functional products in his dealings. As Creator; He obvioulsy can deal with the impersonal (T) properties of the universe, as much as the personal (F), and of course, the tangible (S) as much as the symbolic, parabolic (N). And both attitudes of each function as well! Neither the Father or Son would have any reason to prefer any pole to the other. again, if they seem to, in their dealings with man, it is reflecting the one-sidedness of the people being dealt with.
If one must assign Him a temperament, I would create a sixth temperament. Where would we place this? I would take the e/w matrix and curl it into an object called a “Clifford torus” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_torus), which is actually the true hypothetical shape of a 2D video game field like Asteroids. You take the square 0-9 matrix, curl it so that w=0 (the bottom) meets w=9 (the top). Now, if you try to join e=0 (left) to e=9 (right) to make a familiar “donut” torus shape, you’ll crunch one side (into a hyperbolic shape) while stretching the other (into a sphere-like shape).
This step must be done in 4D, where it’s still “flat” like it was when we started, and thus the dimensions won’t be distorted.
All four corners, which are the most energized areas of the temperament (compulsive), will come together at a new common point, or we could add in a new pair of scores; e=10 and w=10; and e/w=10 is where the new temperament would be. Perhaps the missing “Phlegmatic Compulsive”? It like Phlegmatic would be “neutral” to the various needs, not having a preference for any of them, yet have maximum energy.
I’m not really being serious here; but it shows that He does not fit on the human temperament scales.