Do You Trust Your Ni?

[Litvyak]

1. Do you trust this unjustifiable idea?
2. Which one would you hire?
3. How certain are you of your decision?

1. Nah, certainly not. I trust results and objective data.
2. The first one. I hate mediocrity, I'd hire the seemingly more effective, and possibly problematic candidate. I'm positive I could handle the situation if necessary - I'd keep an eye on him/her though.
3. 80-90%

... is this very un-INTJ?

 

[Jaguar]

1. Nah, certainly not. I trust results and objective data.
2. The first one. I hate mediocrity, I'd hire the seemingly more effective, and possibly problematic candidate. I'm positive I could handle the situation if necessary.
3. 80-90%

... is this very un-INTJ?

You sound like someone who relies on Te for everything,
and by writing "certainly not," means Ni is foreign to you.
At least at this point in your life.

Food for thought-"objective data" and "results" can be oxymoronic.
They can also be an illusion.
Especially in business.

 

[TickTock]

I am really suprised by the amount of people that didn't trust their intuition. That is really strange to me.

 

[cascadeco]

1. Do you trust this unjustifiable idea?
2. Which one would you hire?
3. How certain are you of your decision?

1. Yes
2. The one I sensed would be the better candidate...so, the so-so one.
3. Pretty certain.

------------

Personally I don't view it as 'unjustifiable', because I trust my intuition when it comes to reading people, and I know that what is on the surface (i.e. excellent credentials, fantastic-ness on paper) isn't nearly everything. I go off of body language, subtleties, other things..the interaction itself and the vibe I catch from the person...just my sense of the persons overall character. Credentials are simply the icing -- and won't be of any use if the cake is rotten (ha! What a dumb metaphor ;-).

 

[kiddykat]

1. Heck yeah
2. The one that I have a good 'feel' for (so-so one)
3. Pretty certain

.. Anyone can pull off a great first impression. I'm looking for someone genuine/that I can trust. Credentials, gpa, high achievement helps; it doesn't really say much about a person/their integrity.

 

[Litvyak]

You sound like someone who relies on Te for everything, and by writing "certainly not," means Ni is foreign to you. At least at this point in your life.

Off: Interesting. This may mean that I'm Te-dominant without strong (auxiliary) Ni - that makes me an ESTJ, right? This would contradict the fact that I do not "defend procedures" and that I hate administration. I have to think this through.

I am really suprised by the amount of people that didn't trust their intuition. That is really strange to me.

Err... most of the posters did trust their inuition

 

[Biaxident]

1) Intuitive Leap? Yes.

2) The "so-so" one.

3) 90% or more, depending on how much dirt I dug up. Trusting intuition is fine, but always back it up with concrete information. At least in real life.

I am seldom wrong. And each time I am wrong, I become better at detecting bullshit.

 

[Cimarron]

In my mind, it would be foolish to avoid hiring him when all evidence (except your "bad feeling" about him) points to him being better. I would tell myself, "no, that's just a silly feeling."

But if my suspicion were there, I'd like to figure out the cause. It would be worth investigating, asking myself "What do I know about him that may be giving me this bad feeling? Something in his history, demeanor, attitude, maybe I should call former employers, maybe I should give him some kind of secret 'test'."

The point is that I'd like to test the hunch before throwing it away completely, but it's not going to get priority in the decision until something justifies it.

If he were to bypass all these things, and end up being the wrong choice for the company after all, then yes, I guess "lack of trust for Ni" would be at fault here.

 

[Lethe]

Off: Interesting. This may mean that I'm Te-dominant without strong (auxiliary) Ni - that makes me an ESTJ, right? This would contradict the fact that I do not "defend procedures" and that I hate administration. I have to thing this through.

You may like to examine the entire scope of your inclinations and behaviors under separate settings. In one circumstance, an individual could use an unfamiliar set of functions because it's been proven to get the task finished. So someone who is comfortable with say, introverted feeling, might choose to utilize more introverted thinking during their work hours. Another effective way of figuring out your preferences is to ask yourself which functions are you most energized & relaxed delving into while you're alone.

[By the way: I strongly prefer Ni, Te and Fi. When I'm using either one in high amounts, people think I'm a.) crazy; b.) ENTJ or c.) NFP.]

Generally speaking, if I get an intuition, I make it come true. For somewhere in there it is true. People talk about INTJs and the sneaky way we make perspective shifts, switching words or expressions till we're right. From the outside it looks like we missed something and are wrong, and switched something but still missed something and are wrong again, and then switched something again and still wrong, and then suddenly we have a formulation totally unlike the earlier attempts and we're walking around crowing about how we were right all along. Well, from the inside, we were right all along. The idea wasn't unjustifiable, it just wasn't justified yet.

And it's shameful when that process doesn't end up working.

Great post. I also find it humorous because it's one of the reasons why the other types assume we're close-minded and insufferable.

 

[Jaguar]

Off: Interesting. This may mean that I'm Te-dominant without strong (auxiliary) Ni - that makes me an ESTJ, right? This would contradict the fact that I do not "defend procedures" and that I hate administration. I have to thing this through.

I wouldn't call that ESTJ. No.
It just means you lean heavily on your Te.
For all you know, Ni may develop for you later.
Or you simply lack awareness.

No two people are exactly alike.
People do not have to develop their functions,
in the same way, or speed, someone else does.

To think so would be dogmatic bullshit.
But then MBTI can indeed be, dogmatic bullshit.

 

[sade]

1. Do you trust this unjustifiable idea?
Yes. Despite it being the 'stupid' or less reliable way of making decisions.. I've just come to avoid telling people my actual reason for coming to my decicion and just telling them stuff that I'd found out while digging for more proof/evidence of being wrong. I doubt it, but by experience the idea is usually right.
2. Which one would you hire?
The second one, the one I have a better feel about.
3. How certain are you of your decision?
85%

 

[nightning]

"You've been interviewing candidates for a job.
One of them has all the credentials, and scored the highest on all the company-defined criteria for the job.
Another one of them was pretty good but not in the same league.
You have a sense about the high-scorer, though, that he's bad news, and that the "so-so" one will work out well.
You can't point to anything that's led you to this conclusion, you can't justify your belief, but you have this sense just the same."

1. Do you trust this unjustifiable idea?
Yes I would. Criteria and credentials don't tell you how well somebody work in a team. If I'm hiring somebody, I need to consider how well they fit with the rest of the group. This matters even if people have their individual projects, there will STILL be people interactions.

2. Which one would you hire?
I'll hire the second guy with the less perfect record. Paper records aren't everything.

3. How certain are you of your decision?
If I'm going along with my instinct, then I better be certain I can live with the decision shouldn't I?

 

[Oaky]

"You've been interviewing candidates for a job.
One of them has all the credentials, and scored the highest on all the company-defined criteria for the job.
Another one of them was pretty good but not in the same league.
You have a sense about the high-scorer, though, that he's bad news, and that the "so-so" one will work out well.
You can't point to anything that's led you to this conclusion, you can't justify your belief, but you have this sense just the same."

1. Do you trust this unjustifiable idea?
Yes
2. Which one would you hire?
The second
3. How certain are you of your decision?
100%

 

[INTPness]

I have never really understood what Ni looks like, but this thread has helped. One thing that stood out to me as I read this thread is that some of you stated or implied that you might not tell others "why" you came to the conclusion you did - even though you say that your Ni has been very accurate over a lifetime. Is this because people usually don't understand your explanation?

I mean, what would be wrong with telling your hiring colleague(s), "Look, I just have a really bad feeling about this person. I have a hunch or a gut instinct that this guy is trouble in the long run." If you and I are in charge of hiring for this position and you say this to me, I'm going to listen to you and at least consider what you are intuiting.

When you explain your Ni-based decisions to others, do you get a lot of these kind of looks?

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

1. Do you trust this unjustifiable idea?
2. Which one would you hire?
3. How certain are you of your decision?

1. Somewhat
2. One I'd have the hunch for of qualifying the job, based on undefined qualities
3. 85%

I know my Te, Ti, etc, so this wouldn't be a hunch out of the blue. It wouldn't be a ridiculous hunch. It would be based on something. So, I'd examine it somewhat - and I'm quite deliberate in examining some of my thoughts. But, I'd end up supporting the hunch rather than the numbers.

There's a big IF. What IF the organization in question evaluated me on my decisions, and it would give much better evaluation of me if I went by the corporate standards? I'd vote for corporate standards then, just to save my own ass. Or, I might talk about the other opportunity, see how it would work out for me, then make my decision.

I have my ideals, but I like things to turn out well for me, as well.

 

[Ozz]

Most people on the thread seems to trust their intuition. I envy you guys. I am always being surprised by flaky team members and the most flaky members seem to be those that sound confident and loudest.. while the most reliable members are those that are quiet.. perhaps this should my starting point.

 

[Lethe]

Most people on the thread seems to trust their intuition. I envy you guys. I am always being surprised by flaky team members and the most flaky members seem to be those that sound confident and loudest.. while the most reliable members are those that are quiet.. perhaps this should my starting point.

I was raised in a predominate sensor environment and I've come to appreciate their views. The most you can ask of your teammates is to keep both their intuition and sensing in perspective. An excessive of either will hinder the progress rather than assist it. You could also try recruiting members who are skilled in one single area, and neutralize their weaknesses with someone who has those strengths. In essence, you're receiving the best of all worlds.

*Edit: Let's say, hypothetically, the only person who's capable of handling a certain job is the world's flakiest arsehole. You cannot hire more than one individual and you are left with the choice of recruiting the flaky arsehole and the mediocre (yet good) employee. I strongly advise the person to hire the flake, keep him on a leash, develop contingency plans, and offset his problems by the other employees who can withstand his trouble-making ordeals. Indeed, the company is taking a risk by hiring this individual and they should have the strategy to handle the potential dangers. And what is growth without some (calculated) risks? Win some, loose some. In the end, it should add up to a long-term placement on the winning side.

 

[Biaxident]

Most people on the thread seems to trust their intuition. I envy you guys. I am always being surprised by flaky team members and the most flaky members seem to be those that sound confident and loudest.. while the most reliable members are those that are quiet.. perhaps this should my starting point.

That's because those being loud and sounding confident, are most likely trying to convince themselves first and foremost. The truly confident don't have to announce it to the world, they already know.

 

[Uytuun]

"You've been interviewing candidates for a job.
One of them has all the credentials, and scored the highest on all the company-defined criteria for the job.
Another one of them was pretty good but not in the same league.
You have a sense about the high-scorer, though, that he's bad news, and that the "so-so" one will work out well.
You can't point to anything that's led you to this conclusion, you can't justify your belief, but you have this sense just the same."

1. Do you trust this unjustifiable idea?
2. Which one would you hire?
3. How certain are you of your decision?

My answers:
1. Yes
2. The one I sensed would work out.
3. 100%

Generally connections are made fluently so that you can identify or have a sense of what it is that leads you to prefer one over the other. Ni is integrated insight...it's not cut off from your being, it originates from within. Fi and Te are also involved...this is a decision-making process after all.

The insight would make it so that the so-so on paper becomes excellent and the excellent one on paper becomes so-so. I would hire the best person for the job using all the angles I can look at.

 

[PeaceBaby]

"You've been interviewing candidates for a job.
One of them has all the credentials, and scored the highest on all the company-defined criteria for the job.
Another one of them was pretty good but not in the same league.
You have a sense about the high-scorer, though, that he's bad news, and that the "so-so" one will work out well.
You can't point to anything that's led you to this conclusion, you can't justify your belief, but you have this sense just the same."

1. Do you trust this unjustifiable idea?
2. Which one would you hire?
3. How certain are you of your decision?

My answers:
1. Yes
2. The one I sensed would work out.
3. 100%

I'm actually surprised that no one mentioned the fact that NOT hiring the most credentialed person would be frank discrimination. As the person making the hiring decision, you could lose your job hiring someone on a "hunch" without proper documentation.

My answers:

1. Yes.
2. I try to hire people who I have the best instinct about, but selecting the obviously less-qualified person at this point would be contrary to fair hiring practices. And against the law where I live.
3. 95% - Anyone who says 100% isn't thinking through all the possible negative outcomes.