User Tag List

First 789101119 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 250

  1. #81
    Member olivetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/so
    Socionics
    EII Ni
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    I have also read in some INFJ descriptions that they can offer advice and be offended when others don't heed it.
    I wanted to address this (sorry I didn't quote all of it, fia, but this phrase in particular stood out). I think frustrated might be a better term. It's frustrating after the fact, I see that someone who didn't take my advice, and they wound up worse than before - and complaining just as loudly about their circumstance. That annoys me. If someone doesn't take my advice and they find a better outcome for their situation, that doesn't bother me; I'm glad they found an answer that worked. But I don't like it when I give people some advice, advice that I feel will work and they end up worse off because they didn't even try it.

    That's more of a problem with Ni's bossiness, maybe. We ultimately feel that this is the right thing to do for this person, and when we mention it, we expect others to be as enlightened as we are on it. I've been caught off-guard when someone hasn't felt the same way regarding my advice, but I'm mature enough to not get mad at them for it. I'm only upset if they keep complaining to me about it after I offered a solution they didn't take.

    And that is kinda pushy, I agree.

  2. #82
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olivetti View Post
    I wanted to address this (sorry I didn't quote all of it, fia, but this phrase in particular stood out). I think frustrated might be a better term. It's frustrating after the fact, I see that someone who didn't take my advice, and they wound up worse than before - and complaining just as loudly about their circumstance. That annoys me. If someone doesn't take my advice and they find a better outcome for their situation, that doesn't bother me; I'm glad they found an answer that worked. But I don't like it when I give people some advice, advice that I feel will work and they end up worse off because they didn't even try it.

    That's more of a problem with Ni's bossiness, maybe. We ultimately feel that this is the right thing to do for this person, and when we mention it, we expect others to be as enlightened as we are on it. I've been caught off-guard when someone hasn't felt the same way regarding my advice, but I'm mature enough to not get mad at them for it. I'm only upset if they keep complaining to me about it after I offered a solution they didn't take.

    And that is kinda pushy, I agree.
    This might all change if an INFJ has plenty of Enneagram 9 in them, was the youngest in a family, and is heavy on the Ni perceptive aspect.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  3. #83
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    Nah, I'm not trying to humanize it. I've been reading about it and that's the interpretation of many people, scientists included; the question is, what does that really mean. It obviously doesn't mean that reality is created by humans or living things since it was there before living things existed (and to postulate some sort of discarnate entity "creating" the universe/s with perception seems ad hoc); but it does mean that the act of perception, however it is actualized, has an effect on the physical world. I don't want to get into a debate about it, just playfully pointing out that this is a valid perspective on it. Whatever I mean by what I say is probably not 100% what you think it is.

    Though I trust that you may know much more about some aspects of it than I.

    Humanize might not be the best word to explain what I am trying to convey (I don't think there is a good one). More what I am concerned with, is quantum mechanics (and anything dealing with science, medicine, etc.) being applied beyond what is meant to be used for. Quantum mechanics gets subjected to this A LOT. Considering I was raised around a lot of new age things (and have since renounced/rejected it all a few years ago), and the fact that I am a scientist who has taken quantum chemistry, and applies principals of it in my research, I am particularly sensitive to this (hence I felt compelled to mention it).

    The idea of perception changing the physical world around us does apply, but only on really, really small scale. This has to do with the uncertainty principal, which is one of the most frequently hijacked. It states that one can not know the position, and momentum of an object at the same time. There is a certain level of uncertainty associated with it. The mere process of "observing" an object (i.e. collecting a data point) suddenly locks it. Shrodingers cat is a frequent thought experiment associated with it. The thing is though, it's just that, a thought experiment to illustrate the principal; it's a formalism. The uncertainty principal doesn't apply to large objects in a statistically significant manner. The forumla is xp≥ħ/2. Where x is the position, p is the momentum, and ħ is reduced planks constant (it's simply a number, but a really really small number (.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010545 71 J/s)). I am too tired and rusty to re-learn the proofs and formulas at the moment, but there is a mass dependency that arises within the formula (if you apply a conversion to p if I remember correctly since it is dependent upon mass). As an object gets heavier, the difference between x and p, or the uncertainty gets smaller and smaller by virtue of how small ħ.

    Simply put, big objects don't apply. By big, I mean larger than a nucleus of an atom. I am a bit rusty on that stuff so forgive me if there are errors or things that are unclear. Either way, this is why I refute that being a "valid" perspective, because it's simply not correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Is it a distracting tangent, or is it a simple fact that is overlooked?
    It is a distraction, see my discussion above; that's what being talked about.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  4. #84
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    Humanize might not be the best word to explain what I am trying to convey (I don't think there is a good one). More what I am concerned with, is quantum mechanics (and anything dealing with science, medicine, etc.) being applied beyond what is meant to be used for. Quantum mechanics gets subjected to this A LOT. Considering I was raised around a lot of new age things (and have since renounced/rejected it all a few years ago), and the fact that I am a scientist who has taken quantum chemistry, and applies principals of it in my research, I am particularly sensitive to this (hence I felt compelled to mention it).

    The idea of perception changing the physical world around us does apply, but only on really, really small scale. This has to do with the uncertainty principal, which is one of the most frequently hijacked. It states that one can not know the position, and momentum of an object at the same time. There is a certain level of uncertainty associated with it. The mere process of "observing" an object (i.e. collecting a data point) suddenly locks it. Shrodingers cat is a frequent thought experiment associated with it. The thing is though, it's just that, a thought experiment to illustrate the principal; it's a formalism. The uncertainty principal doesn't apply to large objects in a statistically significant manner. The forumla is xp≥ħ/2. Where x is the position, p is the momentum, and ħ is reduced planks constant (it's simply a number, but a really really small number (.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010545 71 J/s)). I am too tired and rusty to re-learn the proofs and formulas at the moment, but there is a mass dependency that arises within the formula (if you apply a conversion to p if I remember correctly since it is dependent upon mass). As an object gets heavier, the difference between x and p, or the uncertainty gets smaller and smaller by virtue of how small ħ.

    Simply put, big objects don't apply. By big, I mean larger than a nucleus of an atom. I am a bit rusty on that stuff so forgive me if there are errors or things that are unclear. Either way, this is why I refute that being a "valid" perspective, because it's simply not correct.



    It is a distraction, see my discussion above; that's what being talked about.
    So that's why! Yeah investigating this was on my research to-do list. Thanks.

    Well I mean, I encounter books which are read and commented on my physicists and they (supposedly) essentially agree with some interpretations like this, so if that's true then they obviously have a way of looking at it which makes up for that fact somehow. I'm still doing research so I can't say I'm right and you're not, but I still maintain it's more complicated. And the books have quotation from Einstein and Bohr and people like that to the same effect.

    Anyway, it was just a joke. Jeez people! But I understand you wanting to set me straight.

  5. #85
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    I think that's true. So wouldn't it follow that often people who are more able to think objectively can point out the things they are doing that don't work too well? So since INFJ's can think objectively in certain respects they would have this ability. I think what @Elfboy is getting at is that they value subjective decision making as as much a part of their well being as the objective stuff (does that sound accurate, Elfboy?), and more objective thinkers wouldn't see that and so think they are really helping. I can see both sides but I know I tend to err on the side of being too critical.
    I'm not following this. By "they" do you mean INFJs? You seem to be saying that T types mistakenly think INFJs are helping because they (T's) don't recognize that the INFJs also value subjective thinking. But that doesn't make sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Is it a distracting tangent, or is it a simple fact that is overlooked?
    It can be both. Some facts deserve to be overlooked, lest they lead to an unproductive tangent.
    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
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ene View Post
    I think it depends on a person's definition of close.

    @SilentMusings what do you mean by close? What constitutes closeness in your way of seeing?
    If I knew that then I could attempt a fair and accurate answer.
    Well, someone who is "close" to me is someone who is emotionally open with me. There are no silly guessing games: they tell me how they actually feel. The person is happy to let me into their private life, and share secrets with me. By default, this means that they have to be pretty attached to me so I'm not worried about what will happen if I do the same.

    I don't like INFJs' tendency to shut people off who care a lot about them because they fear intimacy. Understand?

    P.S. WTF has happened to the thread?

  7. #87
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eilonwy View Post
    I wouldn't read too much into @SilentMusings' point. If his forum persona is anything to go by, I don't think INFJs will be the only ones he'll be pissed off at for refusing to get close in a relationship. Just my opinion.

    However, to answer your question, no, I don't think INFJs would do better than average at being close in relationships. It might not be that we refuse to get close, but, much like @fidelia said, we tend to keep a tight rein on our own emotions. In order to avoid conflict, we might be less than honest, open, or vulnerable.
    Yes, a lot of women are painful to spend time with and therefore incur my wrath. Amazing observation.

    While I would not recommend telling the whole world your deepest secrets, it is both selfish and stupid to hide shit from a potential partner to avoid conflict. Here's an example: say you had a serious genetic disease that only started to become symptomatic in midlife (eg polycystic kidney disease). Would you tell a long-term girlfriend about it or withhold the information? What's more important, the off chance that you might get dumped or passing on a dangerous disease to offspring?

  8. #88
    Senior Member Ene's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    Well, someone who is "close" to me is someone who is emotionally open with me. There are no silly guessing games: they tell me how they actually feel. The person is happy to let me into their private life, and share secrets with me. By default, this means that they have to be pretty attached to me so I'm not worried about what will happen if I do the same.

    I don't like INFJs' tendency to shut people off who care a lot about them because they fear intimacy. Understand?

    P.S. WTF has happened to the thread?

    Thanks. I do understand. Not all INFJs fear intimacy.

    I also hate mind games. Hate to be coerced, manipulated, threatened, etc.

    I would say that the only explanation is that she really didn't want to be close and didn't have the guts or know how to tell you.

    Or, she is just emotionally immature. Teenage INFJs or people who are stuck in a teenage egocentric frame of mind, may behave in this way. Not all INFJs behave that way.

    INFJs are just like any other group of individuals, some are butt holes and some are angelic. You can't lump a whole group together and label them because of the actions of one or a few. It's no different than saying that INTJs are cold and distant. Some may be, but all are not.

    About the disease question you asked Eilonwy, yes, I'd tell them because if they couldn't deal with it, they're not right for me anyway, but my worth and value doesn't depend on whether some guy finds me "worthy" or not, so there you go. I would be up front and tell him from the get-go, because it would be sticky and messy later on. Deception, manipulation, guilt-tripping, control, temper tantrums, condescension: for me those are not options. I try not to do them and I won't be with anyone who seeks to play my god by employing them...period, no exceptions.

    What happened to the thread? Haha...I guess the INFJ feminists took over!
    A student said to his master: "You teach me fighting, but you talk about peace. How do you reconcile the two?" The master replied: "It is better to be a warrior in a garden than to be a gardener in a war." - unknown/Chinese

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...=61024&page=14

  9. #89
    Vulnerability Eilonwy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4 sp/so
    Posts
    6,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    Yes, a lot of women are painful to spend time with and therefore incur my wrath. Amazing observation.

    While I would not recommend telling the whole world your deepest secrets, it is both selfish and stupid to hide shit from a potential partner to avoid conflict. Here's an example: say you had a serious genetic disease that only started to become symptomatic in midlife (eg polycystic kidney disease). Would you tell a long-term girlfriend about it or withhold the information? What's more important, the off chance that you might get dumped or passing on a dangerous disease to offspring?
    Perhaps I wasn't clear. Let me try to be clearer. It's possible for any human being to refuse to get close in a relationship. I stated some reasons that might be specific to INFJs refusing to get close in a relationship.

    So, to use your example, people of any type might not reveal to their long-term partner that they had a serious genetic disease, but one reason an INFJ, in particular, might not reveal that information is that, in order to avoid conflict, the INFJ might be less than honest, open, or vulnerable.

    ETA: Does that reason make INFJs more prone to refusing to get close in relationships? I don't have enough hard data to answer that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    P.S. WTF has happened to the thread?
    Could you be more specific?
    Johari / Nohari

    “That we are capable only of being what we are remains our unforgivable sin.” ― Gene Wolfe

    reminder to self: "That YOU that you are so proud of is a story woven together by your interpreter module to account for as much of your behavior as it can incorporate, and it denies or rationalizes the rest." "Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain" by Michael S. Gazzaniga

  10. #90
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eilonwy View Post
    Perhaps I wasn't clear. Let me try to be clearer. It's possible for any human being to refuse to get close in a relationship. I stated some reasons that might be specific to INFJs refusing to get close in a relationship.

    So, to use your example, people of any type might not reveal to their long-term partner that they had a serious genetic disease, but one reason an INFJ, in particular, might not reveal that information is that, in order to avoid conflict, the INFJ might be less than honest, open, or vulnerable.

    ETA: Does that reason make INFJs more prone to refusing to get close in relationships? I don't have enough hard data to answer that.
    These kind of threads are all built upon a stupid premise anyway. Not many INFJs are a walking stereotype of their type description.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eilonwy View Post
    Could you be more specific?
    What does physics have to do with this topic (look back)? Excuse me for being at a loss...

Similar Threads

  1. Why do you hate humanity?
    By Agent Jelly in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 08-11-2011, 10:41 PM
  2. [INFP] Why do people Hate the idea of being INFP?
    By CrystalViolet in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 05-23-2011, 10:39 PM
  3. Why do religions hate gays so darn much?
    By Kasper in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 183
    Last Post: 09-11-2010, 03:27 AM
  4. [NT] "Why do you hate me?"
    By Haphazard in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 01-18-2009, 10:09 PM

Tags for this Thread

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