Skip to content

Jesus Christ INFJ/XXXX Analysis

September 6, 2014

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.

Advertisements
2 Comments
  1. To address more what could be seen as the total opposite of Jesus (evil incarnate instead of God incarnate), the debates continue in the type community, of Hitler’s type. Most people follow the standard “anyone ‘enigmatic’ and ‘visionary’ and focusing on ‘the wellbeing of society’ must be be INFJ”.
    I’ve always said Hitler was likely ENTJ, because in “classic temperament”; he is held as the worst extreme example of the “pure Choleric” (which likely corresponds to ENJ+NT; expressive, directive, utilitarian and structure focused).

    But then people start saying “oh, but he knew how to appeal or show concern to the people, and that was Fe”. But one thing taught in classic temperament is that the Choleric will undertake any behavior necessary to achieve his goals. F is basically “personal”, while T is “impersonal”.
    Clearly, he regarded people as [impersonal] things; one group, to eliminate for reasons of efficiency to the nation, and then the people of the nation were just pawns to be manipulated in that way into following him, and ultimately, they did not do well from his plans. (So if it was Fe, it seems more “demonic”, to use Beebe’s theory, though Beebe himself has said demonic Ni [making him an Si dom. or ISJ], but I’ve never heard his rationale for that).

    It’s pointed out that he operated through “modern Western humanism”, but then that was “nurture” (societal influences), not “nature” (type). Anybody can go along with that, and it says nothing about where their “Fe” falls. The type stack is determined by the ego-states (read “archetypal complexes”) in relation to the ego structure. In order to be IFJ, Fe would have to be in the “supporting” or “Parental” state, and I don’t think that would go along with slaughtering millions just to help the people in the nation. That sounds like pure overdominating Te, with both F attitudes suppressed out of any mitigating use, except in very “primitive” forms to manipulate others.

    Somebody mentioned “eugenics” as some sort of “proof” of Fe (due to its “cultural” considerations), but still, when you mention a “science” like that, you’re looking at T, not F. “cultural” is not necesarily about the “F”, it’s about the “e”, and what that seems to show, is a culturally-driven impersonal decision process, which is by definition, Te. The “people” involved are “culture”, yes, but the course of action is totally impersonal, because it regarded some of the people as things to be disposed of. Neither attitude of F will do that.

    His larger ideal, was said to be to create a culturally and politically united Germany. But “harmony” that is purely “culture” and “politics” is not a product of F, it is T “efficiency”.
    The “functions” are divisions of reality, which in undivided form contain the same elements that one functional perspective or the other will focus on. So both T and F will deal with “culture”, and by extension, “politics”, but F is clearly focused on the people themselves (so it would be more about a SOCIAL unity). T will focus more on the dynamics of the groups (the “technical” units that are impersonal, even though they happen to consist of “people”. This is what “politics” is).

    Also, I see mention of him being very “private”, but that does not necessarily indicate introversion. I/E is expressiveness, and the other classic factor is responsiveness, or people vs task focus (Which loosely ties to T, J, F, and P), and low responsives (T and/or J; task focus, “directive” and/or “structure”), are the ones who tend to be “private”, even if expressive (E), for (as Keirsey even said), they tend to “define the relationship” in interactions, and want to control how much they let others in. As FIRO describes it, they have an “exclusive club mentality”, with a motto of “don’t call me; I’ll call you”.

    Then, they say his military strategy was messed up, so he couldn’t prefer Te. But that could be a combination of the other people involved with him, and just him being so messed up (in fact, Jung reportedly considered him untypeable). Since type and function preference is about ego-states, he could have been “in the grip” of just about anything, which would affect which functions he appeared to “use” or screw up with.

    All of the scheming to get what he wanted that people describe (and then retribution when it didn’t work) is Te, not Fe. Again, T/F is just a rational division of reality, looking at the same things. So people can become “objects” to just manipulate, by trying to “court” and “charm”, through stuff like “understanding their motivations”.
    Emotion is not F. So one can’t say T’s cannot emotionally manipulate. I would say instead, they are the ones more likely to use it in such a “primitive” form, precisely because of its unpreferred and less developed state. (We often see F’s as “emotionally manipulative”, and that’s likely often the T projecting his own negative experience of F onto them).

    Then, understanding their motivations “without feeling much compassion for them” is attributed to Ti, and this is in fact T, only it seems to be running the show, not supporting (reflecting in a less developed fashion, like the tertiary or “child” archetype) any real F consideration. (For a Te dom. Ti is its “backup” or shadow).

    Being “sloppy and unconventional” as was mentioned” is more of an N thing, not a non-Te thing. NTJ’s aren’t as much into physical “order” as STJ’s. Some are, but that’s a side issue to their main drives. NTJ’s will be more about conceptual “order”, but when it comes to the practical matter of playing it out in the real world, it may come off as disorderly, for that is more the S domain.

    The other argument was that when young, he was so “artsy” (and from that, some suggest ISFP). But this isn’t a clear indicator either. Also mentioned is “sentimentality”, but that is not a type specific thing. Any type can be sentimental, and the T is more likely to get caught “in the grip” of a primitive F like that.

  2. Hitler debate is till going on (It’s at 105 pages of ten posts per page, and almost six years old!). Today, someone says “Guys, just because someone appears to be completely insane…it doesn’t make them a thinker. Not all villains are thinkers.”

    To me, it’s not simply being a “villain”; it’s the impersonal goal orientation that defines T.

    So he was impersonal, which seems T, and yet he appealed to “personal/interpersonal” concerns, which seems F. Obviously, one was the true preference, and the other, a false illusion. We have to look at which one was more natural, and which was pathological (not his real personality, but either a mask, or a shadow function).
    It seems to me, that the impersonal goal was what he was really all about, and the personal considerations was the shadow, that came up to achieve his goals (you have to sway people in order to achieve the goal. That’s why I believe 9-11 conspiracies are highly unlikely, because so many people would have to be involved, and either swayed into believing in the cause, or payed off, extorted into silence, etc., and even then, people still leak things out).

    What about Feeling with shadow Thinking derailing the “good cause” [as others try to argue it]? I don’t think so, because normal shadow Thinking is probably not going to take hold that long, for something that dire. The preferred perspective would eventually come back to the front. What about him being out of his mind keeping shadow Thinking in control? Even though people talk about how bad his military decisions were, I still don’t think he would have been able to maintain that amount of command over people in that state. Clearly, it looked like he was operating off of a Thinking perspective, and it’s easier to say that all the “feeling” people point out was what was shadow and totally deceptive and off kilter (especially with it supporting such a genocidal agenda, rather than the genocide supporting any otherwise truly “good”, “caring” agenda).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: