being willing to being wrong

[entropie]

wrong factually no problem, wrong valueably gfyt

 

[NK258]

I think I've been wrong enough in my life to welcome the notion I might be wrong. This doesn't mean I let people choose for me. It just means I'm receptive to input. However, I do think in the past I've done a number on pushing people into positions where they felt I wasn't approachable. but in reality, I do better with people who have guts and are willing to kick a shoe to my head if need be.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm wondering if there is something very INFJ-ish being expressed here, that is lost on the INTJ? Boundary of wrongness? Softening? Identification? From my perspective its more like, "Well, shit, I guess I was wrong." It's accompanied by the (perhaps unmerited) thought, "Well, at least NOW I'm right."

That is likely. I have read post 15 addressing my comments several times over, and still just don't get it. I cannot imagine wanting "to stay in a state of wrongness". That makes about as much sense as enjoying having the flu.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

(Again, state, correct me if this isn't what you mean.) There's (1) actual wrongness, an adjective to describe the actual objective condition of information and (2) there's 'wrongness' in the sense of describing a condition of being. We're all trapped in a subjective praxis of thought striving to achieve objective rightness/avoid objective wrongness. And I believe the context in which state is using wrongness in post 15 isn't about striving to achieve objective wrongness (which is what I think Coriolis is hearing) but about paying attention to the condition of wrongness and/or the urge in oneself to avoid objective wrongness. Because instinctively it is about enjoyable as having the flu, so people instinctively avoid it- but somewhere in there this instinct can actually make us avoid the condition of being wrong (or at least, avoiding the way it feels- we can avoid the feeling of being wrong) over and above avoiding actual wrongness. The way to avoid this trap is realize that the condition of wrongness isn't actually so bad in the first place.

This is why state made the comment about 'practicing the feeling of wrongness'- it's about desensitizing oneself to the aversion. There's a phrase for this, but I've forgotten what it is. It's like- the way to get over being afraid of spiders is to actually interact with them until the aversion is gone. [eta: With spiders though, it's a very clear process with objective criteria- the condition of being wrong is infinitely trickier.]

If there's an INFJ difference here, it's in the way it's being discussed. I think. Probably. [My guess is the Ti is giving y'all a headache/seems whiny.]

 

[uumlau]

The interesting thing is that "wrongness" is being compared to "having the flu." To me, wrongness is not a state of being. It is not intrinsic to me. Rather, it is a state of knowledge. And if you're used to dealing with knowledge, then being right, sometimes, and being wrong, sometimes, is part of how people learn things, in general. For me, there are no emotions (or values) associated with it.

 

[Werebudgie]

The interesting thing is that "wrongness" is being compared to "having the flu." To me, wrongness is not a state of being. It is not intrinsic to me. Rather, it is a state of knowledge. And if you're used to dealing with knowledge, then being right, sometimes, and being wrong, sometimes, is part of how people learn things, in general. For me, there are no emotions (or values) associated with it.

My first thought was I that agree with this - for me, wrongness is not a state of being nor intrinsic to me. A state of knowledge makes sense to me as an alternative, though I think maybe for me a state of understanding might be more accurate. I've been known to actually enjoy being wrong if it's part of a learning and/or research process.

Tangent:

Though I actually enjoy the state of "not knowing WTF" (absence of analytical comprehension for a period of time) even more ... again when it's part of a learning/research process. Sometimes truth is in or suggested by what I don't understand - confusion points the way to information, by its shape. I once tried to describe this to some of my students and was wildly unsuccessful in doing so (they looked at me like I was nuts. Don't blame them). /tangent

That was my first thought. But my second thought was that I could imagine wrongness as a state of being, in my case. For me, it would mean that my perceiving apparatus itself would be damaged or broken in some way. I think that would be a terrible space to be in, and I bet it could feel very much like an illness. (actually, I wonder if losing access to Se in service to Ni when I was a child falls into that category. It was incredibly disorienting for me and actually, I could see how it could map to feeling physically ill, that sense that something isn't well/right inside).

I have no idea if any of my comment here is relevant to the focus of this thread, though.

 

[skylights]

This has been a really interesting conversation to read, thank you @the state i am in and all who have contributed.

I resonate with the reluctance to be wrong in terms of identity. My father is an INTP e593 doctor, and my mother a teacher, and my dad's family is a bit competitive in general while my mom's family is very "wholesome" in terms of doing good/being ethical, and there was always much focus on being knowledgeable, upright, and competent during my childhood. Plus I believe I carry plenty of that in my own personality in terms of wanting to be secure in a position (e6/soc) of trusted data and reliable capability. So to be wrong is to be uncomfortable on a number of levels... not just in the unfortunate consequences of acting upon and/or spreading inaccurate information, but also in terms of my self-concept as well as my reputation with others.

I'm still working on getting more graceful at acquiescing, to be sure. As state pointed out, e7s seem to have a natural ability to accept it and make the most of it. Lately I've been starting with just saying, "oh, I was wrong!" - getting the painful part of admitting it squared away ASAP so I can move on. I think it's good, though, to be knocked on your ass occasionally... again like state said, the universe reminding you that it's bigger than you can ever become. There's some joy in being a work of progress. A long time ago I wandered across the concept of knowledge being created in the gap between things and I thought that was a really lovely way of putting it. I'd rather not be wrong if I can avoid it, but at the same time, it's good to keep a reverent space for development of understanding. After all, we can easily look back on history and see how much incomplete knowledge there is... medical knowledge for example... and even if we try to avoid it there's virtually no getting around falling into certain misconceptions. In other words - being wrong is inevitable to a certain extent... messy, interesting, mysterious part of life that it is. I figure it's like coming to terms with the fact that you're going to get a faceful of saltwater and sand every once in a while when you're surfing. It kind of sucks but it keeps you humble and it's barely a blip on the radar when it comes to getting meaning out of life.

 

[yeghor]

I'm wondering if there is something very INFJ-ish being expressed here, that is lost on the INTJ? Boundary of wrongness? Softening? Identification? From my perspective its more like, "Well, shit, I guess I was wrong." It's accompanied by the (perhaps unmerited) thought, "Well, at least NOW I'm right."

Perhaps it has something to do with superego (internalized/critical parent) berating ego for making a mistake, being wrong, bad, faulty somehow...

Perhaps INFJs have not received positive reinforcement and validation growing up and have been expected to "perform" to their parents satisfaction so as to avoid criticism...so they've internalized the criticism, and being "wrong" (i.e. being unable to interpret a situation correctly and failing to resolve the situation) triggers a learnt/internalized reflex and self-criticism and berating?

It reflexively makes us doubt the veracity our past judgments as well as our present Ni capacity to make further judgments...as already stated by [MENTION=20789]Werebudgie[/MENTION]...

So taking baby steps towards allowing ourselves to make mistakes and getting away with it without too much self-criticism may perhaps help dismantling that reflex and the accompanying bad feelings...This, I believe, is the point [MENTION=6275]the state i am in[/MENTION] was trying make in his #1 post, which, you [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] likened to enjoying the flu...

So I (as an INFJ) appear to have tied my ego's well being (and self worth) to being correct...However I believe that reflex starts to loosen up as my Ti gets stronger...a strong Ti can offer counter narratives to offset my superego's self-criticism as well as external criticism that may seep through Fe-aux?

The interesting thing is that "wrongness" is being compared to "having the flu." To me, wrongness is not a state of being. It is not intrinsic to me. Rather, it is a state of knowledge. And if you're used to dealing with knowledge, then being right, sometimes, and being wrong, sometimes, is part of how people learn things, in general. For me, there are no emotions (or values) associated with it.

The ill feeling that INFJs associate with ending up wrong, I believe, manifests itself specifically when a judgment INFJs voiced out (to the public or people around) with conviction turns out to be wrong...rather than instances where INFJs rectify their incorrect information thru ongoing learning process...

The thing about it being voiced out in public (which signifies a commitment made by the INFJ) and ending up wrong poses a vulnerability to the INFJs thru external (public) Fe feedback I believe, which the INFJ cannot shake off easily and internalizes, and also tarnishes INFJs' reputation in terms of reliability...This may, as I pointed out earlier, have it's origins in incidents in INFJs' childhood when INFJs have received negative feedback regarding their conclusions, judgments and actions...

Doesn't recognizing being wrong (about a publicly voiced out judgment) initiate a process in you to doubt your earlier judgments and question the soundness of your overall cognitive capabilities?

 

[PeaceBaby]

I'm wondering if there is something very INFJ-ish being expressed here, that is lost on the INTJ? Boundary of wrongness? Softening? Identification? From my perspective its more like, "Well, shit, I guess I was wrong." It's accompanied by the (perhaps unmerited) thought, "Well, at least NOW I'm right."

Yes, I think it is very INFJ'ish but more specifically, it's Fe in action. The veracity of information is very much tied to who delivers that information in the Fe world. There's this association of people and information in Fe that is much more "at the hip" than in the Te - Fi world. For Te - Fi, the two seem far more separated.

Note how my old chestnut "Je is always right" barely registers for you. But to INFJ, it's a very hot button. Actually, thanks to this thread I'll update that one: "Je is attached to the condition of being right." And it is. But to Te, it's easier to let go of that because your ego structure is not AS invested in the sharing of the "objective logical" space through Fe.

I've witnessed so many occasions irl I can hardly count them all where two people are saying basically the same thing but the person who is more "liked" or "credible" is listened to more seriously. I think for myself, as a Je last, I can be most detached to see this? Not sure. But it is something I seem to frequently notice.

Don't have time this morning to more fully flesh this out.

 

[1487610420]

 

[PeaceBaby]

Explain your thinking on this dear phobik.

 

[the state i am in]

Yes, I think it is very INFJ'ish but more specifically, it's Fe in action. The veracity of information is very much tied to who delivers that information in the Fe world. There's this association of people and information in Fe that is much more "at the hip" than in the Te - Fi world. For Te - Fi, the two seem far more separated.

Note how my old chestnut "Je is always right" barely registers for you. But to INFJ, it's a very hot button. Actually, thanks to this thread I'll update that one: "Je is attached to the condition of being right." And it is. But to Te, it's easier to let go of that because your ego structure is not AS invested in the sharing of the "objective logical" space through Fe.

I've witnessed so many occasions irl I can hardly count them all where two people are saying basically the same thing but the person who is more "liked" or "credible" is listened to more seriously. I think for myself, as a Je last, I can be most detached to see this? Not sure. But it is something I seem to frequently notice.

Don't have time this morning to more fully flesh this out.

peacebaby, i understand you are trying to explain this, but what about how it could feel to someone else in my position? for instance, if you got in a fight with another person that escalated quite a bit, and then you went around talking about them in public, trying to establish facts about them that were gleaned from your uniquely privileged perspective (as a Je last, which you seem to use as evidence that you understand them the best), what would that feel like if you were in their shoes? what would it look like to you as an objective observer? what would you do when you as a person had to try to balance those two for yourself? would you be frustrated and feel like from the perspective of the objective observer, that was wrong, and would that challenge your ability to empathize with yourself more than seemed fair to you, because you have to make up the difference about what it feels like through your own self-compassion?

i mean, is it generally a useful approach to reconciling conflict by talking about what someone else is and trying to take control of that, rather than working outward from your own needs and finding a place where you can connect to some kind of empathy with them or with, even more importantly, yourself? Te does not work without Fi registering its own needs. it's just domineering. it's just focusing on playing the rightness game, which often times prevents real listening (as an impersonalization of "knowledge" can tend to do, especially if the knowledge is not rigorous, reflexive, and as aware of its limitations as it can possibly be). just like Fe doesn't work without being able to hold yourself accountable to committing to your own reality (Ti). is it better to deny that conflict even exists so that you can act without being reflexive to the context surrounding why you choose what you do? that may work for Te/Fi in some sense, and maybe it even works for Ti/Fe in some sense, but it doesn't seem to me to ever work for the F part of that, the relational part. it's just easier to communicate if the relationship is positive. i don't think this is a type thing. i think it's an F thing, which is a crucial part of all of us, even if some types of activities and some types of participants can shift their focus away from this more so.

furthermore, if you were in the place trying to negotiate your objective reality with your inner experience, and you were already sensitive from a fight, would this behavior signal to you, as an objective observer, an attachment to being right on the part of the other? would that be frustrating? what would an attachment to being right look like to you? to me it looks like an unwillingness to listen to what others are experiencing and how your actions affect others quality of experience. that's how it shows up in me and in others actions that i've observed. would you be more or less likely, if you felt hostility from someone and your own anger rose to meet it, to hear them as well as if they approached you with openness that helped you relax and be more open as a result? how would you feel if, for another person after a conflict, this is the only activity in the thread that is worthy of participating in, the chance to talk about the other and try to get to define them once more? i understand that questions are controlling in their own right. all conversation is, because we have to negotiate the context. i don't know how else to try to show that i find this frustrating, or open up my experience in a way that is objectively defined enough to be shared. you are making claims (in this case, about us). that's what Te does. i can refute you, but generally the F side of that process gets ugly. if you made a claim about how a specific behavior that we could both observe affected you in a specific instance, that would be a way of using Te that would not have so much F fallout. that's because a) it's less of a sweeping generalization b) we can observe it, so it doesn't just feel like an attack on us as a whole and c) it's easier to test/verify. this latter is important, because i DO NOT DOUBT that there is a grain of truth to what you see. but regardless, it's difficult not to think that your claims are too big for you to make, and wonder why you feel the need to make those.

finally, for my needs, i don't need any peacemaking with umlau. i can speak for myself. i understand if you feel you have needed information and that, from a Te perspective, you have feel you have every right to interrupt to supply that. bc it's just information. others can test it for themselves. you're just putting it out there. you have the right to add whatever information you have that can direct where things go from here. but what about if the relationship between you and the person addressed is in a challenging place for both of you? would that interruption be more provoking, if you then addressed and attempted to define him, rather than let him answer? umlau and coriolis have asked very good questions which i personally need time to consider, because i want to understand the disconnect between us, because i recognize we are different and understanding what that difference is like for him and what it is like for me helps me feel connected to myself in a bigger way, because i can appreciate and enjoy relating with those who are different than me and still take that in as part of myself, can still share across those boundaries of mentation.

 

[Werebudgie]

Another interesting discussion heading into the proverbial crapper - hopefully it will pull itself out.

eta:

umlau and coriolis have asked very good questions which i personally need time to consider, because i want to understand the disconnect between us, because i recognize we are different and understanding what that difference is like for him and what it is like for me helps me feel connected to myself in a bigger way, because i can appreciate and enjoy relating with those who are different than me and still take that in as part of myself, can still share across those boundaries of mentation.

I myself personally have nearly always found INFJ-INTJ dialogue incredibly enlightening when it comes to my own learning processes, and hope that part of the discussion gets back on track sooner than later.

 

[1487610420]

Explain your thinking on this dear phobik.

Subjectively personal experiences, psychologically complex, entrenched dysfunctional behavior, too much, too often, too many threads, chalked under the conveniently available, widely accepted, laziness-enabling, typology stereotypes umbrella. This site is flooded with it.

Dont even get me started on the circular codependent mental masturbatory fixes.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

The interesting thing is that "wrongness" is being compared to "having the flu." To me, wrongness is not a state of being. It is not intrinsic to me. Rather, it is a state of knowledge. And if you're used to dealing with knowledge, then being right, sometimes, and being wrong, sometimes, is part of how people learn things, in general. For me, there are no emotions (or values) associated with it.

This seems (to me) like a semantic dis-junction more than an actual experiential one. Does it.....seem/feel wrong to use the term "wrongness" to refer to this state of being? [Or maybe I'm wondering if there's something offensive (?) about referring to 'wrongness' as something that exists inside people (intrinsic to the intrapersonal condition of being human)?]

[I say this in part because I have directly experienced being on the other end of an INTJ being stuck in a state of being in which the aversion to feeling wrong declares a coup over rational logic. No matter what the 'type' (INFJ/INTJ, J/P, N/S, whatever...), all people are subject to this state of being. It's always more obvious to observers than it is to the person who is doing it.]

 

[uumlau]

This seems (to me) like a semantic dis-junction more than an actual experiential one. Does it.....seem/feel wrong to use the term "wrongness" to refer to this state of being? [Or maybe I'm wondering if there's something offensive (?) about referring to 'wrongness' as something that exists inside people (intrinsic to the intrapersonal condition of being human)?]

I believe there is an experiential difference. It isn't about any particular term. The INFJ description of this is so very animate, I cannot identify with it. That there is this thing, this entity, this "wrongness" or whatever we call it, and we must face it in battle and win (or in humility seek surrender). Really, I boggle at it. So much drama seeking catharsis.

One of the ways in which INTJs annoy other people is that we appear to pretend to be never wrong, when what's really going on inside our head has no drama, no pain. There's no bowing to whatever gods in abject humiliation asking for forgiveness for the hubris of ever thinking that we were right. No, none of that. It's just "F-ck. That's wrong. Let's find the right answer." And usually, we realize that we were wrong BECAUSE we just found the right answer. I'm wrong all the time. It happens every day. It's called learning, and I'm usually thankful for it.

[I say this in part because I have directly experienced being on the other end of an INTJ being stuck in a state of being in which the aversion to feeling wrong declares a coup over rational logic. No matter what the 'type' (INFJ/INTJ, J/P, N/S, whatever...), all people are subject to this state of being. It's always more obvious to observers than it is to the person who is doing it.]

Every type is certainly capable of getting a stick up one's butt and insist on "my way or the highway" right or wrong. The difference between types is where and when and how. INTJs, usually lacking enough information (Se), can insist upon particular truths that are patently untrue. INFJs often do something that I call "writing between the lines": they assign values to words to which other parties do not subscribe, and run from there, making baseless judgments to which any counterargument is dismissed as the other person being "defensive." INTPs tend to assume that they are 100% right in their area of expertise, which is absolutely true, until they're wrong about one particular thing.

Where I differentiate is the emotional reaction to realizing that one is (or might be) wrong. For me, as an INTJ, there is, at worst, a fleeting feeling of embarrassment, but usually there is no feeling at all. I'm not sure what INTPs feel inside, but they tend to get very cagey when it turns out that they were incorrect to disbelieve what I was saying. INFJs, I perceive, have a great deal of feeling about it. Perhaps it might even be described as kind of an epiphany? With INFJs, I suspect that being wrong always has a "moral" component to it, that INTJs simply don't have.

The interesting thing about it to me is that it appears to point to a typological difference between Fe and Te that is fairly substantial (in spite of the peanut gallery's protestations!). I believe PB's observation on the matter is fairly apt, and if not perfect, points in the right direction: that there is something about Fe such that being right or wrong is a remarkably personal matter, that Te simply doesn't see it as personal, and it explains a lot of criticisms I've heard from INFJs and INTPs about INTJs that I never seem to hear from INFPs.

 

[Tiltyred]

Or maybe the INFPs are just suck-ups.

 

[uumlau]

Or maybe the INFPs are just suck-ups.

Interestingly, INFPs have different criticisms. They tend to question INTJs on their emotional self-knowledge, an appropriately Fi matter, and only the most naive INTJs claim to understand their emotional selves, so it turns out to be a remarkably easy interaction, usually.

 

[Tiltyred]

That explains a lot, actually.

 

[Forever_Jung]

i was trying to remark on the willingness that comes from practicing staying in that space of "wrongness" in a way that you can learn to hear the surrounding context around it much more clearly, with less urgency to get out of there, with more confidence that you can be patient with yourself. for me, the difficulty in developing enough self-trust so that passing through the identifications with wrongness won't escalate into a situation in which i feel like i am being hunted down by shame. i feel like clinging to the need to be right, rather than seeing it simply as a motive to change to align with right, will always leave other traces too. to do so without anger or self-resentment, without disappointment, without hearing why those beliefs may have resulted at least in part from a need springing out of you and not emerging out of the facts purportedly outside of you, seems difficult to do without really checking in with yourself.

This really helped me.

As a person who isn't terribly factual, I tend to be very insecure about getting things "right". I am usually quick to admit I've made a mistake, but not in a healthy way. In that moment when I am being corrected, I mentally lash myself, and (unfortunately) close myself off from really accepting it neutrally.

Like you said (I think), if you realize your mistake, and mentally think "Oh SHIT!" and then quickly admit how stupid you were, it's still coming from a place of needing to identify yourself as right.

Being corrected should happen like this:

Me: Pi is exactly 3.
Guy: Actually, Pi is is roughly 3.14159
Me: Oh? How do you know this?
Guy: *proves statement*
Me: I see I was wrong. 3.14159 is roughly equivalent to Pi.

The End

This is how I actually operate:

Me: Pi is exactly 3.
Guy: Actually, Pi is is roughly 3.14159
Me: Oh? How do you know this?
Guy: *proves statement*
Me: I see I was wrong. 3.14159 is roughly equivalent to Pi.*neutral face*

But privately...

I wasn't posting here when Hoffman died, so I'm a bit late to the party, but what a loss