Why do others hate INFJs?

[prplchknz]

INTJs and ENTJS and INFPSs i hate more than INFJs and i don't actually hate intjs, entjs, or infps just more easily annoyed by them than I am INFJs maybe i just get along better with Fe than Fi?

 

[greenfairy]

It shows no such thing. It shows simply that reality is more complex than classical mechanics is able to describe. The limitation is with us. See this article for a decent if brief discussion.

Oh, I think that's debatable.

 

[á´…eparted]

Oh, I think that's debatable.

Think, doesn't mean that it is.

A very common misnomer about quantum mechanics (a term that is way to frequently hijacked) is that the observer means a person. There is no human element to quantum mechanics as many want there to be. It merely speaks to atomic and subatomic particles. Once you scale up beyond that, the laws that government no longer have an effect. Well, they do, but they are completely statistically insignificant on larger bodies. It's sort of difficult to understand/appreciate unless you have taken a course in it or have the math background to learn it, and it is very easy to wrongfully "humanize" since it is inheriently non-intuitive and complex.

 

[Coriolis]

Oh, I think that's debatable.

You can try to argue that the earth is flat or only ~6300 years old as well, but it won't get you very far.

 

[Elfboy]

Hey, what's wrong with being a collectivist?

because society serves the individual, not the other way around. Society is a giant marketplace, a more efficient means of taking advantage of division of labor. people like to act like it's this giant kumbaya family, but it's all bullshit (family is a group of people you feel close personal bonds with. not people you don't know personally). the idea that I should sacrifice my well being for something that I initially invested in for the sake of personal gain would be like an investor caring more about the stocks he is invested in than his own wellbeing and holding on to them while they are losing money.

when I do make personal sacrifices, it is because I feel compelled to. there is no "should" when it comes to personal sacrifice

And what if we really do know what's best for you?

believing you know what's best for me isn't the problem. the problem is:
1) you rarely ever do (I've met plenty of NFJs who claimed to understand Fi users...they've all missed the mark)
2) that's not the point. even if they did know what was better for me, I'd rather they just make a suggestion. no one gets to act like my mother and obligate me to do what's best for me (even my real mother). NFJs in particular seem to lack a sense of what is/is not their business, which is a tendency I find very arrogant, disrespectful and, at times, controlling (albeit usually with a velvet glove)

 

[Mole]

Think, doesn't mean that it is.

A very common misnomer about quantum mechanics (a term that is way to frequently hijacked) is that the observer means a person. There is no human element to quantum mechanics as many want there to be. It merely speaks to atomic and subatomic particles. Once you scale up beyond that, the laws that government no longer have an effect. Well, they do, but they are completely statistically insignificant on larger bodies. It's sort of difficult to understand/appreciate unless you have taken a course in it or have the math background to learn it, and it is very easy to wrongfully "humanize" since it is inheriently non-intuitive and complex.

But why is Quantum Mechanics and Relativity non-intuitive.

This is because we are exquisitely attuned to our size, while Quantum Mechanics is to the nth power small, and Relativity is to the nth power big.

We intuitively understand things our own size, and anything outside our size is beyond our intuitive understanding.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

This might be useful for reference. It is Jung's description of Ni which has positive and negative implications.

Carl Jung on Ni (Introverted Intuition)
April 3, 2014 at 11:32pm
9. The Introverted Intuitive Type

The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other. The latter might be regarded as the normal case, since there is a general tendency of this type to confine himself to the perceptive character of intuition. As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem, and -- in the case of a productive artist-the shaping of perception. But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often results in an extraordinary aloofness of the individual from tangible reality; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle. [p. 509]

If an artist, he reveals extraordinary, remote things in his art, which in iridescent profusion embrace both the significant and the banal, the lovely and the grotesque, the whimsical and the sublime. If not an artist, he is frequently an unappreciated genius, a great man 'gone wrong', a sort of wise simpleton, a figure for 'psychological' novels.

Although it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem, since a certain reinforcement of the rational functions is required for this, yet even a relatively slight differentiation of judgment would suffice to transfer intuitive perception from the purely æsthetic into the moral sphere. A variety of this type is thus produced which differs essentially from its æsthetic form, although none the less characteristic of the introverted intuitive. The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its æsthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world? The pure intuitive who represses judgment or possesses it only under the spell of perception never meets this question fundamentally, since his only problem is the How of perception. He, therefore, finds the moral problem unintelligible, even absurd, and as far as possible forbids his thoughts to dwell upon the disconcerting vision. It is different with the morally orientated intuitive. He concerns himself with the meaning of his vision; he troubles less about its further æsthetic possibilities than about the possible moral effects which emerge from its intrinsic significance. His judgment allows him to discern, though often only darkly, that he, as a man and as a totality, is in some way inter-related with his vision, that [p. 510] it is something which cannot just be perceived but which also would fain become the life of the subject. Through this realization he feels bound to transform his vision into his own life. But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken -- it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'.

The introverted intuitive's chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object. His unconscious is characterized by this fact. For we find in his unconscious a compensatory extraverted sensation function of an archaic character. The unconscious personality may, therefore, best be described as an extraverted sensation-type of a rather low and primitive order. Impulsiveness and unrestraint are the characters of this sensation, combined with an extraordinary dependence upon the sense impression. This latter quality is a compensation to the thin upper air of the conscious attitude, giving it a certain weight, so that complete 'sublimation' is prevented. But if, through a forced exaggeration of the conscious attitude, a complete subordination to the inner perception should develop, the unconscious becomes an opposition, giving rise to compulsive sensations whose excessive dependence upon the object is in frank conflict with the conscious attitude. The form of neurosis is a compulsion-neurosis, exhibiting symptoms that are partly hypochondriacal manifestations, partly hypersensibility of the sense organs and partly compulsive ties to definite persons or other objects. [p. 511]

Chapter 10 of Carl Gustav Jung's work "Psychological Types" (1921):
[ Web Source: Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10 ]

 

[Flâneuse]

I know all types have their annoying traits, but I have yet to meet an INFJ I even dislike, let alone hate.

 

[skylights]

Hate is such a strong word.

Having said that I do believe that to "hate" a type tends to say more about the hater than the hated.

There are some types I get along with better than others, but there is no type that I "hate," to do so would be to give MBTI a morally significant power that no theory should be granted, and to me, suggests that the "hater" is either very immature, still doesn't have a grasp on the typology theory, or both. Just my thoughts for whatever they're worth.

I generally appreciate INFJs for their insight, warmth, and grace. Sometimes I am frustrated by INFJs who feel that they are doing a good thing by enforcing an idea which may or may not suit others as well as it suits them. But, on the whole, the INFJs I have met have been overwhelmingly kind-hearted and deeply considerate, with a humanistic and idealistic social awareness and future orientation that I especially appreciate.

Besides, we are all flawed, and no good comes of hate.

 

[á´…eparted]

But why is Quantum Mechanics and Relativity non-intuitive.

This is because we are exquisitely attuned to our size, while Quantum Mechanics is to the nth power small, and Relativity is to the nth power big.

We intuitively understand things our own size, and anything outside our size is beyond our intuitive understanding.

Sure, ok, but this is going off on a distracting tangent from what I and coriolis were saying.

 

[Ene]

Besides, we are all flawed, and no good comes of hate.

Beautifully spoken. Thank you.

 

[skylights]

Beautifully spoken. Thank you.

 

[greenfairy]

Think, doesn't mean that it is.

A very common misnomer about quantum mechanics (a term that is way to frequently hijacked) is that the observer means a person. There is no human element to quantum mechanics as many want there to be. It merely speaks to atomic and subatomic particles. Once you scale up beyond that, the laws that government no longer have an effect. Well, they do, but they are completely statistically insignificant on larger bodies. It's sort of difficult to understand/appreciate unless you have taken a course in it or have the math background to learn it, and it is very easy to wrongfully "humanize" since it is inheriently non-intuitive and complex.

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.

because society serves the individual, not the other way around.

It's not quite that simple. They are interdependent, meaning it doesn't just go one way. The group/system wouldn't exist without the actions and contributions of the individuals, so the quality of the group depends on what is put into it.

Society is a giant marketplace, a more efficient means of taking advantage of division of labor. people like to act like it's this giant kumbaya family, but it's all bullshit (family is a group of people you feel close personal bonds with. not people you don't know personally). the idea that I should sacrifice my well being for something that I initially invested in for the sake of personal gain would be like an investor caring more about the stocks he is invested in than his own wellbeing and holding on to them while they are losing money.

when I do make personal sacrifices, it is because I feel compelled to. there is no "should" when it comes to personal sacrifice

Agreed. But a lot of people do feel compelled to make personal sacrifices for a perceived whole with which they feel a personal bond, so there must be something to the instinct. I don't think either way is more right than the other.

believing you know what's best for me isn't the problem. the problem is:
1) you rarely ever do (I've met plenty of NFJs who claimed to understand Fi users...they've all missed the mark)
2) that's not the point. even if they did know what was better for me, I'd rather they just make a suggestion. no one gets to act like my mother and obligate me to do what's best for me (even my real mother). NFJs in particular seem to lack a sense of what is/is not their business, which is a tendency I find very arrogant, disrespectful and, at times, controlling (albeit usually with a velvet glove)

True. So do you think then that most people who do things that objectively aren't good for them just want to make their own mistakes/choices or they aren't aware of their actions? I think it's both, but probably more one than the other with some people. I think an INFJ's tendency to try to "fix" other people's mistakes comes from their fear of failing, so they just can't stand to see someone else do something they fear doing whether that results in failure or not.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

True. So do you think then that most people who do things that objectively aren't good for them just want to make their own mistakes/choices or they aren't aware of their actions? I think it's both, but probably more one than the other with some people. I think an INFJ's tendency to try to "fix" other people's mistakes comes from their fear of failing, so they just can't stand to see someone else do something they fear doing whether that results in failure or not.

I have also read in some INFJ descriptions that they can offer advice and be offended when others don't heed it.

I haven't ever had an INFJ do that to me, and most of the time I'm non-controlling to a fault. I need to be more controlling with my music students but I end up with a reputation for being really easy because it's really hard for me to pressure people because I feel whatever negativity I instill in them. I think this need to offer advice must be the Fe part of the personality and it would be shared with all FJs? The more focused a person is on their perceiving function, Ni, the less likely they would be to assert anything onto others. The INFJs who I've talked with, even when I was in a mixed up and destructive scenario, were never forceful or judgmental. Some of the especially strong INFJs here were quiet gentle about it, asking questions, clearly stating their perspective, but not in a way that felt at all like I was being criticized. I've also hung out on a couple of INFJ forums and only encountered one noticeable control freak, but that person had psychological issues outside of personality type.

In my own life I find my Ni-Ti loop to be very detached, disconnected, and non-judgmental about the world. My Fe-Se loop can end up mirroring this somehow in the concrete world in which it is on the opposite end of the spectrum of the attached and visceral, but also momentary and impossible to judge. Aren't we perceivers just as surely as an ENFP, but just more inward, serious, structured?

 

[1487610420]

Because they breathe?

 

[Coriolis]

True. So do you think then that most people who do things that objectively aren't good for them just want to make their own mistakes/choices or they aren't aware of their actions? I think it's both, but probably more one than the other with some people. I think an INFJ's tendency to try to "fix" other people's mistakes comes from their fear of failing, so they just can't stand to see someone else do something they fear doing whether that results in failure or not.

Most people who do things that objectively are not good for them are not thinking objectively, and may not even value objectivity. They prioritize gratification in the moment, and sometimes are unwilling to expend the effort or self-discipline to get that objectively greater good. The world is full of such people, and it is always frustrating to encounter one up close.

 

[greenfairy]

Most people who do things that objectively are not good for them are not thinking objectively, and may not even value objectivity. They prioritize gratification in the moment, and sometimes are unwilling to expend the effort or self-discipline to get that objectively greater good. The world is full of such people, and it is always frustrating to encounter one up close.

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 [MENTION=5684]Elfboy[/MENTION] 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.

 

[Mole]

Sure, ok, but this is going off on a distracting tangent from what I and coriolis were saying.

Is it a distracting tangent, or is it a simple fact that is overlooked?

 

[Eilonwy]

Because they breathe?

I attempted to get people to stop hating me by holding my breath, and it worked! But only for 1-3 minutes at a time.

 

[Comeback Girl]

I don't hate INFJs. One of my best friends is an INFJ. She's kind of a selfish bitch though, (ignores me when I could use some support and stops talking to me whenever she gets a boyfriend, while I'm always there to listen to her drama and help her out), but I don't hate her enough to end our friendship.