User Tag List

First 78910 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 97

  1. #81
    Senior Member the state i am in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    If you try, but fail to evaluate your past behaviors, then you will remain, unknowingly, in a stalemate, with the false hope that you've missed the solution to your problem. You would carry hope because it gives you shelter in the solving of the problem itself. Not only would this seem to lift you up above clarity and knowledge, it would also seem to drag you below it. Being unwilling to being wrong pains you because you are in a tangle, unable to see where you fit in to what is "right". You grasp for straws, using one diction or another as a crutch. Until you realize that you're better than the struggle to carry that ill-fitted crutch, you don't grow. If you should decide that you're better than the struggle, then that crutch becomes an unused relic. Though it remains, you see it and know that it is less than your full potential.
    i like this. it feels very holy mountain to me.

    what's tricky to me are the parts of us that are difficult to observe as behaviors. to recognize those without being guided to them in part by the crutch of understanding, to me, seems improbable. we still have to aim for the summit, even as we let go of our need to reach it.

  2. #82
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    I have to read more of the thread

    But uh



    Got an interpersonal conflict? Get all the facts* out there. Truly excavate those suckers. Your interlocur might have some to offer that you were missing, and vicea versey--and see how the two of you had woven them into your own narratives. Form a narrative together. Bam; there it is.

    Most of the conflicts that have stuck out in my mind, where I've been wrong, have been a result of my misremembering of facts. In those cases, we were working from completely different premises. When we cleared those up, we interpreted them the same way--we just naturally understood one another's perspective and often wound up just naturally agreeing.

    Fine; I was missing some information. Not exactly a blow to my ego. Even better, we both walk away with a better understanding than we had before.


    *In a very broad sense of the word. Doesn't just include the external stuff you see around you, but also that one held some particular state of mind or feeling in a given situation, and many other near-intangibles.

  3. #83
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the state i am in View Post
    where i struggle, however, is that a big part of me desires feeling connected. sharing more than infrastructure. my default is to feel that everything is shared, every part of us, which is partly why i think i have struggled with boundary issues in the past. at times, for this e5, this sense of feeling like everything is shared can also colocate a kind of ghostly paranoia, when you feel like you can see more than you can and struggle to ground yourself in your own version of reality in a way that is still but only semi-permeable to those of others.
    Right. I see this in Fe. The INFPs and ENFPs don't want to connect that way, either. They want to feel connected, but not "connected with a sense of purpose." They want to feel connected with another person, period. Actions, choosing what to do or not to do, that's all Te, and it's negotiated partly on Fi (what I want to do, what they want to do), but mostly it's Te, what we can do, even if Ne wants to go bounding off with unicorns and rainbows. The feeling of connection is not derived from this extroverted side of things.

    one of the things we want to share in our sense of consensus is sharing the good in ourselves and seeing that in each other, helping connect to that in a way that brings it into focus. when that doesn't happen for me, i don't feel heard. all that middle territory between my needs and the exact specifics between what is said and done feels empty. where we can simply like each other and our weird musicalities (which i think the infps i know totally get too, and why i have so many awkward, quirky writer friends). at times, to me, without this middle range of who we are, empathy feels reduced to a function that can be used to accomplish a specific thing rather than a process that is itself enough, that is simply part of the process of constructively sharing and enjoying the process of characterizing ourselves together.
    Similarly, if you cannot articulate your desires in a logistical way, *I* don't feel heard. Both Fe and Te navigate realms of possible things to do (especially with Ni!), but there are particular kinds of logistical considerations that just don't seem to be heard. At best they're emulated, and when it's emulated, it sounds like what you say here, where it's all about sharing in a consensus.

    Te doesn't do "consensus." Te/Fi recognizes that we all want different things, but the Te result is anything but a "consensus", and more of a "best deal you can get at the time."

    The interesting thing is that Te does this largely without sharing. Simple business transactions are like this. When you go to the store, you can just go in, take what you want, and even check it out yourself if they have some self-check-out aisles. The "agreements" have already been made long before you decide to buy anything. The agreements have no personal values attached to them. At best, the agreements are arrived at as a "happiest solution in practical terms", giving the greatest amount of return, and least amount of trouble, for all parties involved. If I go to the store, and I want a prime steak, I don't have to argue with the guy behind the meat counter whether I deserve a steak; he doesn't tell me I should go get some chicken instead, because it would be better for me. I don't have to haggle on the price for the steak. I don't get a special deal because the guy is my friend. If the store doesn't have what I want, I don't go argue with the store, I just go look in other stores.

    Beyond that "store" example, all Te interactions are kind of like that. Others either have what I need or not. They can do what I want or not. There is, to some degree, an objective, resource-based price for getting things done.

    By analogy, Fe is good at dealing with the "personal costs", while Te is good at dealing with the "objective costs."

    this feels right to me. the part of Te i have struggled with is that it feels like the negotiations about the negotiations behind the negotiations don't start from a sense of common ground.
    There is no "common ground" in Fe terms because there is no need to create the "human connection" that Fe craves.

    bolded feels e5/head type to me more than an inherent Fe quality. just focusing on mentation, identifying with information quality rather than the force of it, but having the force of it be sublimated by a lack of connection to ourselves and how we use it and it uses us. it certainly wouldn't seem to characterize an e8 etj accurately.

    in my class, i am extremely open to student feedback. i pride myself in choosing what feels true to me, and that attempt to honor the truth is as central to me as a person as anyone i've ever known. i don't think i'm just biasing against certain types. at times, the models i have of individuals may create some needless construction traffic, and i knowingly admit this, but i choose to still employ models in general because it at times allows me to see so much further into the truth i would not be able to see solely through my own perspective. it's what allows me to share myself in the way that i do. it's what allows me to listen to others, which isn't always perfect, but in my tangible real-life relationships, is as big a part of who i am there, with others, as any other.

    to me, this Fe quality, this way of organizing thinking based on embodied meanings/models, is not an inherent problem. the inherent problem is not checking in with myself to try to fully own the rest of me, so that i don't unknowingly create the perfect conditions for my biases to cross-multiply. so that i can have some T accountability to recognize the story of what is happening and how the story of what i am bringing to this moment can define how to walk the tightrope without losing my balance.
    There is nothing wrong with starting with the Fe approach, and it is not an inherent problem.

    The way to handle your biases, in my opinion, is to really listen to the other person. If you're hearing that rude Te approach, then you need to put up certain walls and boundaries (so as not to be offended), remind yourself of the "impersonal criteria" Te tends to use, and steel yourself to interact with someone without making a connection that you can truly feel.


    (even now, when you've written a series of very balanced posts, i still am working on not taking things personally.
    I find it remarkable that both you and Z Buck have said similar things in this regard - you can TELL I'm being balanced (based on, perhaps, objective factors?), but your "personal" reading of what I say ends up feeling remarkably abusive to you.

    Even we Te types have to learn this lesson - the difference is that we learn it when fairly young. You have an elder say to you, "You're wrong." It hurts. It's like the end of the world. You can't figure out what you're wrong about. But if you keep interacting, you end up noting the consistency: the reason "you're wrong" is not because of you, per se, but because of what you're talking about. If you express knowledge about a topic, it is either correct or incorrect (or a mix, depending on how extensive the expression of your understanding is). You eventually figure out that "being wrong" has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with checking "what you know" against "the truth", and realizing that it's an iterative process. The elder isn't right because he's the smartest person around, it isn't about any of his personal qualities, he's right precisely because what he says matches reality on an objective basis. Being right is measured against reality, not against personal qualities.

    This is, btw, where INTPs start annoying INTJs. They'll say, "you're wrong", but not mean it the way a Te type would. Rather, there is one tiny fact that is out of place (this is important to Ti), and therefore the whole thing is wrong. (Just like true/false tests: to be true, the statement must be entirely true.) Te in this case would be more specific, "You have most of it correct, but you made the following errors ..." There's something about Ti (and all introverted functions, not just Ti) that doesn't want to explicate reasoning: things just "are", and explanations seem almost irrelevant to introverted functions.

    that's just because a need of mine is to feel proud of who i am. i am acutely sensitive of this, so it drives my behavior even when i lose awareness of it. i know what it's like to feel the drops that are associated with having to grieve your own limitations. i have searched endlessly for a way out of having limitations, of having to come to terms with being a finite, fallible being. i've experienced the pitiableness of being, of selfhood, and have to work really hard to find acceptance for that. that's also why i think, in some of the previous infj/infp threads, with so many e4s and critical e1 energies falling backwards into us and watching the pile up that ensues and wanting to blame to avoid feeling what we feel, the need for compassion is so high but so hard to actually create enough space within ourselves for. i say this simply because this is a part of me that wants to feel heard, and also because i believe it provides more evidence that in some respects, i think we were both on the right track in pointing out the perhaps greater relevance of the enneagram's psychosocial factors than jung's socio-cognitive ones).
    Agreed on Enneagram vs Jung. Jung points out in a very general way the topics of concern, the specific issues being process. Enneagram brings the personal issues into direct play.

    Interesting how you use the words "psychosocial" and "socio-cognitive". From a Te point of view, if you want to sound like you're making deep statements without really saying anything constructive at all, combine the word "social" with a word or two that describes what you're talking about, whether "social justice" or "social contract" or social whatever ... it mutates and transforms into the opinion of the person speaking, whatever that is, and nothing objective that both sides (or several sides) can agree upon. I would have said "psychological" instead of "psychosocial", and "cognitive" instead of "socio-cognitive."

    The takeaway for Fe: not everything is "social." Not everything is personal.
    The takeaway for Te: not everything is objective. Not everything is without personal considerations.

    But, in both cases, some things are. Some things are entirely objective. Some things are entirely personal. We just need to put our usual assumptions aside when we're entering unfamiliar territory.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  4. #84
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    But, in both cases, some things are. Some things are entirely objective. Some things are entirely personal. We just need to put our usual assumptions aside when we're entering unfamiliar territory.
    And all education to eliminate the objective part as well
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  5. #85
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Even we Te types have to learn this lesson - the difference is that we learn it when fairly young. You have an elder say to you, "You're wrong." It hurts. It's like the end of the world. You can't figure out what you're wrong about. But if you keep interacting, you end up noting the consistency: the reason "you're wrong" is not because of you, per se, but because of what you're talking about. If you express knowledge about a topic, it is either correct or incorrect (or a mix, depending on how extensive the expression of your understanding is). You eventually figure out that "being wrong" has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with checking "what you know" against "the truth", and realizing that it's an iterative process. The elder isn't right because he's the smartest person around, it isn't about any of his personal qualities, he's right precisely because what he says matches reality on an objective basis. Being right is measured against reality, not against personal qualities.
    This is just how it happens. My parents couldn't do it for me, but my friend's dad did. I remember, starting when I was 9 or 10 or so, we would talk about all kinds of things - politics, history, school, the cost of grapes, etc. Sometimes he would give me things to read. He would question me, and prod me to defend my statements, and that's largely how I learned how. I could tell I was learning by leaps and bounds, and in a way I would not have just through school. (Sadly, he died far too young, but that's another story.)
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  6. #86
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I find it remarkable that both you and Z Buck have said similar things in this regard - you can TELL I'm being balanced (based on, perhaps, objective factors?), but your "personal" reading of what I say ends up feeling remarkably abusive to you.

    Actually, my assumption that you were being balanced was based on past interaction with you, not anything about immediate ‘objectivity/subjectivity’. [Let this be one for the books where NiFe ‘remembering stuff and applying it to the present moment’ actually works in someone’s favor. If my experience of someone is that they usually make an effort to be fair- then for immediate situations in which they don’t sound fair, the assumption is that I’m probably not understanding them correctly.]

    And I’m not sure I’d say “remarkably abusive”- more like what you were saying seemed remarkably short-sighted (in a way that you usually aren’t).

    I still get the impression I'm not entirely understanding what your point was, and I still also get the impression you're lumping a big stinky chunk of *something something* in with Fe (regarding 'being wrong') that I'm not sure belongs there. I'm not sure it's worth trying to iron out the communication misfire- if that's even what's happening- because if that isn't what's happening it's totally available to disagree about it anyway.

    eta: Actually, I'm just not convinced we're all on the same page regarding 'being wrong'- I think we might be considering different criteria.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  7. #87
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    And I’m not sure I’d say “remarkably abusive”- more like what you were saying seemed remarkably short-sighted (in a way that you usually aren’t).
    This is often the nub of it.

    In my experience, Fe types are extremely "short-sighted" as you put it. Why? They aren't considering the things that *I* am considering. This is completely reversible: the Te types appear to be extremely short-sighted to Fe types, because each type is considering different aspects of the same problems.

    The key here that I am trying to help point out for all to see (in my 9-ish trying-to-see-all-perspectives approach), is that if someone else, and I mean ANY someone else, no matter the person's type, appears to be remarkably short-sighted, there are three possibilities.
    1. The other person is stupid.
    2. The other person is evil.
    3. The other person knows something that you don't know ... and not only something you don't know, but something that is outside enough of your experience to be difficult to conceive.


    I would strongly suggest to anyone in this discussion that if you're tempted to conclude (1) or (2) and take your leave, that you should very seriously consider the possibility of (3).

    (3) is the only possibility from which you have a chance to learn anything.



    I still get the impression I'm not entirely understanding what your point was, and I still also get the impression you're lumping a big stinky chunk of *something something* in with Fe (regarding 'being wrong') that I'm not sure belongs there. I'm not sure it's worth trying to iron out the communication misfire- if that's even what's happening- because if that isn't what's happening it's totally available to disagree about it anyway.

    eta: Actually, I'm just not convinced we're all on the same page regarding 'being wrong'- I think we might be considering different criteria.
    You're asking the right questions. I'm just not sure how to answer them. I'm certainly not lumping stinky things with Fe.

    Perhaps I should explain my options (1) and (2), above. (1) and (2) are the pitfalls of Ni. Ni is used to understanding everything, and being uncannily correct almost all of the time. But sometimes Ni is wrong.

    There are two really big clues that Ni types can use to determine if their reasoning is complete bullshit. Those clues are (1) and (2). Ni habitually dismisses things it doesn't understand as either evil or stupid. Evil and stupid are non-explanations: they don't mean anything other than that you don't understand. You're still allowed to NOT LIKE those things you perceive as evil or stupid, but that doesn't mean you should allow yourself to stay in the ignorance of not trying to figure out (3).

    In my opinion, the purpose of typology isn't to exacerbate misunderstandings, but to point out that (3) is a very real possibility. A fish isn't short-sighted because it cannot climb the tree you're in, and you aren't short-sighted because you can't swim 200 ft under the water. But you can inform the fish what your tree is like, and the fish can inform you what the water is like.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  8. #88
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    The key here that I am trying to help point out for all to see (in my 9-ish trying-to-see-all-perspectives approach), is that if someone else, and I mean ANY someone else, no matter the person's type, appears to be remarkably short-sighted, there are three possibilities.
    1. The other person is stupid.
    2. The other person is evil.
    3. The other person knows something that you don't know ... and not only something you don't know, but something that is outside enough of your experience to be difficult to conceive.



    Perhaps I should explain my options (1) and (2), above. (1) and (2) are the pitfalls of Ni. Ni is used to understanding everything, and being uncannily correct almost all of the time. But sometimes Ni is wrong.

    There are two really big clues that Ni types can use to determine if their reasoning is complete bullshit. Those clues are (1) and (2). Ni habitually dismisses things it doesn't understand as either evil or stupid. Evil and stupid are non-explanations: they don't mean anything other than that you don't understand. You're still allowed to NOT LIKE those things you perceive as evil or stupid, but that doesn't mean you should allow yourself to stay in the ignorance of not trying to figure out (3).

    In my opinion, the purpose of typology isn't to exacerbate misunderstandings, but to point out that (3) is a very real possibility. A fish isn't short-sighted because it cannot climb the tree you're in, and you aren't short-sighted because you can't swim 200 ft under the water. But you can inform the fish what your tree is like, and the fish can inform you what the water is like.
    I’m not sure this is even relevant- I’ve been thinking about it (didn’t want to respond immediately, to see if it still seemed true a couple days later), and I don’t think NiFe uses the stupid or evil assessment. I think, to NiFe (and I think I can generalize here) it’s about dismissing information that just doesn’t add up or make sense. I’ll agree that Ni does instantly pick up on *something* telling us it isn’t adding up more than other types, though.

    And this is precisely why, I believe, INFJs have that ‘tier mechanism’. People are actually extraordinarily consistent where judgment is concerned. The ‘boy who cried wolf’ factor is pretty big for us because working through the kinks immediately is our Achille’s heel. We can’t just stop to open the door to check for the wolf, we have to walk two miles to find out if the boy assessed the situation correctly- and knowing that #3 is always a possibility, it’s our way of figuring out when we should ‘hang in there’ and stick it out (no matter how much we “don’t like” the information). I suspect the reason INTJs can do the ‘assess the information, not the source’ more than us is because the kind of criteria that INFJs prioritize/pay attention to can’t often be proven ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ immediately (or 75% correct, or 95% correct- it’s extraordinarily rare that anyone seems 100% correct). If you’re evaluating some kind of objective criteria though- then yeah, duh, dismissing according to source is irrational.

    So I’m a little bit stumped (unsure it equally applies to NiFe) by the statement, “You're still allowed to NOT LIKE those things you perceive as evil or stupid, but that doesn't mean you should allow yourself to stay in the ignorance of not trying to figure out (3).” I know, at least for myself, whether or not I move to #3 has very little to do with ‘liking’ or ‘not liking’ the information- it has to do with trusting the source. It isn’t even available for me to dismiss information I “don’t like” if the source has been valuable to me (which creates problems of its own, but that's a whole other thread).

    [And regarding the overall criticism from the other thread about considering a source not valuable because they present things I “don’t like”- perhaps speaking only for myself- so long as someone is in our purview, evaluating things never stops. If those things I “don’t like” end up being true, then my ‘tier mechanism’ adjusts accordingly. So I think maybe the NiFe equivalent to the statement above (about when to invest energy on #3) might not be about taking a closer look at “those things you perceive as evil or stupid” so much as just being aware the ‘tier mechanism’ is happening in the first place. Again- not sure how relevant this is, but it does seem like a distinction between NiFe and NiTe, so it seemed worth pointing out.]
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  9. #89
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    I’m not sure this is even relevant- I’ve been thinking about it (didn’t want to respond immediately, to see if it still seemed true a couple days later), and I don’t think NiFe uses the stupid or evil assessment. I think, to NiFe (and I think I can generalize here) it’s about dismissing information that just doesn’t add up or make sense. I’ll agree that Ni does instantly pick up on *something* telling us it isn’t adding up more than other types, though.
    I think you're getting hung up on specific words. It isn't just "stupid" or "evil" ... it's also "it doesn't make sense" or "it's nonsense."

    My point is that which doesn't add up should not be lightly dismissed, especially if it keeps on coming up after you dismiss it. I'm not saying that "the boy who cried wolf" factor doesn't come into play: I dislike political conversations for this very reason, that the conversations just repeat themselves, thus there is no new information to be gained by diving in again. BUT, for example in my case with political conversations, you need to KNOW what the repetition is, KNOW what the counterarguments are, KNOW why you prefer your position over the other position. You need to KNOW how to make the other side's argument in their terms, even if you don't entirely believe it. So I don't lightly dismiss the opportunity for political discussions, but because I know the dance steps for each side, I can quickly determine if there is anything to be enjoyed in a new discussion that is starting out.

    The "boy who cried wolf" factor doesn't quite apply to this Te/Fe case. It's clear that there is some kind of crosstalk going on, but it's also clear that you and state both admit that you can't quite figure out what is missing in the communication that is causing the crosstalk. Personally, I believe I can see it, because I can see your and state's reasoning, e.g., how difficult it is to NOT take things personally, when the personal connection is necessary to align views and cooperate. That totally makes sense to me. I might not understand it fully, I might not understand exactly what I'm missing in my own understanding of what the Fe side sees, but I know it's there: there's an empty space, at least; I know what I don't know.

    So in the reverse consideration, I don't understand which pieces of my Te approach you're not quite getting. In my mind I've spelled it out quite clearly, and Coriolis and EJCC have both come in and confirmed that, yes, this is totally the Te approach, that it has its own set of "ethics", and it negotiates things in terms that appear to be mostly invisible (or just slightly invisible like the alien in Predator [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predator_%28film%29], where you see the slight warping of the light, but it's difficult to pick out).

    I don't think you're "dismissing" the Te perspective, yet, but I do think you're wondering if it's really worth your time to figure it out, as it involves a lot of confusing and painful work talking about things that don't quite make sense to you. (Trust me, Fe doesn't quite make sense to me, but I know that if I follow certain rules, I'll mostly get by ... like passably speaking a foreign language, and Fe types cut me slack because they can see I'm really trying. )

    So I’m a little bit stumped (unsure it equally applies to NiFe) by the statement, “You're still allowed to NOT LIKE those things you perceive as evil or stupid, but that doesn't mean you should allow yourself to stay in the ignorance of not trying to figure out (3).” I know, at least for myself, whether or not I move to #3 has very little to do with ‘liking’ or ‘not liking’ the information- it has to do with trusting the source. It isn’t even available for me to dismiss information I “don’t like” if the source has been valuable to me (which creates problems of its own, but that's a whole other thread).
    Maybe "don't like" is the wrong phrase. "Don't trust" is another possibility. What I try to go for, in (3), is to determine the domain in which the information is true. For instance, in several political disagreements I've had, I can see why the other person thinks what they think: they see how things work in a particular "domain", and they believe that applies in several other domains, including those domains in which I think those particular rules are inapplicable. The important thing for me is to understand why THEY think what they say makes sense, even as I think it doesn't make sense for my own reasons. I -try- to explain how my position makes sense for me, but invariably they tend not to get that: because they think their model that works in a particular domain works in all domains, my position is immediately incorrect because they don't perceive that conditionality.

    [And regarding the overall criticism from the other thread about considering a source not valuable because they present things I “don’t like”- perhaps speaking only for myself- so long as someone is in our purview, evaluating things never stops. If those things I “don’t like” end up being true, then my ‘tier mechanism’ adjusts accordingly. So I think maybe the NiFe equivalent to the statement above (about when to invest energy on #3) might not be about taking a closer look at “those things you perceive as evil or stupid” so much as just being aware the ‘tier mechanism’ is happening in the first place. Again- not sure how relevant this is, but it does seem like a distinction between NiFe and NiTe, so it seemed worth pointing out.]
    I'm not sure how to process "don't like" in this case. I suspect, however, you are providing an important clue as to the communication disconnect.

    INTJs don't have "tiers" in the way you describe. Something is either true or not true. There isn't a fuzzy "this is more reliably true" or "this is less reliably true". In INTJ land, the fuzzy categories get put into their own box: "stuff that doesn't matter because I don't understand it." (Note I'm denigrating INTJs, here.) I'm trying to reach beyond that boxing, to include in my worldview that the fuzzy stuff DOES matter, even if I don't know how to process it on my own. One thing I've learned (and this is sort-of tiering, I think), is that there are particular people in my life that I trust to do that "fuzzy evaluation" for me. They see things I don't see, and when they tell me about the things I don't see, the descriptions click, even though I don't see them, because they fit into what I do see. But insofar as what I DO see, there is no tiering. This is why INTJs always seem to claim that they're right, and be arrogant, because what right do they have to claim that their "tier" of knowledge is more valuable than someone else's? INTJs aren't claiming that. They're just saying what they see, in a more-or-less objective way, and inviting opinions/analysis to the contrary.

    For what it's worth, for me, those people are invariably INFPs and INFJs. Each type sees a different set of things I don't see. I try to include both in my overall understanding.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  10. #90
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    INTJs don't have "tiers" in the way you describe. Something is either true or not true. There isn't a fuzzy "this is more reliably true" or "this is less reliably true". In INTJ land, the fuzzy categories get put into their own box: "stuff that doesn't matter because I don't understand it." (Note I'm denigrating INTJs, here.) I'm trying to reach beyond that boxing, to include in my worldview that the fuzzy stuff DOES matter, even if I don't know how to process it on my own. One thing I've learned (and this is sort-of tiering, I think), is that there are particular people in my life that I trust to do that "fuzzy evaluation" for me. They see things I don't see, and when they tell me about the things I don't see, the descriptions click, even though I don't see them, because they fit into what I do see. But insofar as what I DO see, there is no tiering. This is why INTJs always seem to claim that they're right, and be arrogant, because what right do they have to claim that their "tier" of knowledge is more valuable than someone else's? INTJs aren't claiming that. They're just saying what they see, in a more-or-less objective way, and inviting opinions/analysis to the contrary.
    I'm not sure I agree with this. The true/not true dichotomy seems more suited to INTPs. I rarely consider anything completely true, because I usually am aware of missing information, or information that may not be entirely accurate or credible, that prevents me from making that kind of absolute assessment. Instead, I think of ideas as "conditionally optimal", meaning that this is what will or should happen, given everything I know about the issue to date. Ideas can be workable or unworkable, effective or counterproductive. They can fail a cost/benefit analysis or have internal inconsistencies or contradictions. I would more readily use the distinction of wrong vs. right rather than true vs. untrue, with rightness determined by whether it works.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Similar Threads

  1. On opinion and being wrong
    By Octarine in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-09-2011, 12:16 AM
  2. Would you be willing to work for an organisation that..
    By Octarine in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-16-2011, 11:03 AM
  3. [Te] Can Te be wrong?
    By Blown Ghost in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-27-2010, 01:23 PM
  4. Can millions of years be wrong?
    By Salomé in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 05-08-2009, 10:16 PM
  5. Anybody willing to help me type my teachers?
    By LordPwnage in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-20-2008, 03:28 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO