User Tag List

Page 34 of 67 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 663

Thread: Common INFJ issues

  1. #331
    Patron Saint Of Smileys Array Gloriana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    INFJ
    Posts
    950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fidelia View Post
    This brings up another issue. I think for INFJs, they need to be given a little bit of time to synthesize new information into their thought structure and decide if it makes sense there or not. That will not happen immediately in one conversation and makes us reluctant to present or argue information in the way that is naturally to a Te user.
    I relate to that passage. No one will ever get anywhere with me if they insist on changing my mind or getting me to agree with some new concept by the end of ONE conversation. I like having room to bounce things around and see what slots any given concept might fit into inside my head.

    I've often said "I'm very considerate, you just can't see it right away sometimes", haha. Sometimes I get upset when people push me to take their side or agree with certain things because I feel they're not giving me a chance to be considerate. I take the word 'consider' very seriously and I make time to think about things that are important to people I care about. I'm like that with a lot of things, even music (I can't just listen to an album and 'decide' if I truly like it. I need time to 'hang out' with it, hehe).

    I also relate to the bit about coming off like a 'bully' in debates because of how much data I have at my disposal inside my head. Often I will back off because I already know that 'debate' will be forgotten and keeping peace is more a priority. Sometimes though, if I'm passionate about something, I will whip out every relevant fact I've got. I try really friggin' hard (harder than people seem to realize) to stay respectful and keep things friendly but sometimes it turns awkward. Still, if it's something related to my core principles, I will talk until my tongue bleeds.

    I've gotten treated like I'm just some steamrolling bully before, but A) I always consider what someone is talking about no matter how opposite it might be to me and B) I don't think I have to apologize for knowing things. It's like telling someone to bring a knife to a gun fight, it makes no sense.
    "Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get, but if you work really hard, and you're kind, amazing things will happen. I'm telling you...amazing things will happen" --Conan O'Brien

  2. #332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Here's an idea - how would everyone on this thread define "love"?
    Unconditional acceptance of what another person is at their core. Honesty, deep caring and a willingness to sacrifice for that person. A realization that I can ask them to change behaviors that violate my boundaries, but that I must accept many of their innate charecteristics as being part of them, and thus be willing to modify my behaviors/boundaries as needed. An ability to openly, honestly be able to communicate those over areas where there is confusion or conflict.A long term commitment through thick and thin to stand by that person, no matter how hard things may be.

    An inability to tolerate repeated behaviors that are hurtful intentionally. Unconditional forgiveness-with an expectation for discussion and perhaps needed change on both parts.

    [QUOTE=Z Buck McFate;1256747]
    Having more Fe than Fi doesn’t mean I cling to mindless ‘formal’ social rules of etiquette; in fact, I loathe mindless social rules of etiquette and question them at every turn.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiltyred View Post
    It is a little disconcerting how people characterize Fe this way -- I don't think it's that we believe the current social values (what are they, anyway?) are correct, so much as that you have to understand who you're talking to in order to be effective in talking to them. We're just as interested in change as Fi and just as iconoclast and just as authentic and individual. That's just not the flag we come out of the tent waiving. We try to come at other people speaking their language and doing their thing the way they do it and then introduce change within the system. It's not at all that we think the system is right. Cultural norms and such are a tool we can use to infiltrate, that's all.

    In both cases above it sounds like ZB and Tilty are saying they are using Fe as a tool to adapt to the situation at hand and thus more effectively deploy the ideas they have. Would this be Ni context shifting...then once you identify the correct way to approach the problem, you deploy a solution with Fe? But in your minds you shift through multiple different ways of viewing the problem with Ni?? I dunno, just making crazy guesses.


    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    It isn’t that I don’t want someone coming up to me and doing this because I think it’s ‘improper’, or that I have some negative judgment about people ‘needing attention’: I don’t like someone behaving this way towards me because it’s an interruption. It’s a ‘surprise’ of sorts, it interrupts my thinking process and stifles my sense of freedom (which- for Pi types- is in the mind). I prefer things (and people) in the external world to match my expectations (which I formed myself- I didn’t absorb mindless social expectations) so that I can have as much freedom as possible to explore internal possibilities. That’s where my freedom is- just like an ENP type’s freedom is in being spontaneous and “crazy, wacky, etc” (in other words, exploring possibilities in the external world).

    I don’t really understand why INTJs prefer that kind of interruption. The only thing I can think of is that (because they are more Fi than Fe) they don’t feel on-the-spot pressure to react in a way which assures the other person (the one who initiates the playfulness) will leave the incident feeling respected. That’s probably the biggest reason it might annoy an INFJ, but not an INTJ. The distraction for me would be, “damnit, now I’ve got to stop what I was doing and quickly come up with some reaction to assure this person that I acknowledge their attempt to involve me in playfulness is not- in itself- a loathsome thing to do.” INTJ types probably aren’t distracted by how their reaction makes the individual feel- so they can quickly dismiss it if they aren’t in the mood and get back to whatever they were thinking?
    I would suggest all Ni doms might find surprises annoying. However IXTJs plan their world with Te. Thus introducing new factual arguments Ti or Te disrupts the Te plan that is being formed or implemented-so it better be good or well formatted. Otherwise you get shot down or get "the lecture".

    I would suggest symmetrically that INFJ is using Fe to control the world and implement Ni ideas. Thus new emotive interactions are very annoying as it makes you have to reassert emotive control over the situation at hand???? Does this sound familiar?

    How do you respond to introduction of new logic content-like an ENTP who starts playing word games with you? I would assume the Fi/Ti symmetry is present and you might find it a refreshing break for a few seconds?

    Quote Originally Posted by fidelia View Post
    That's an interesting thought. It would help explain why some misunderstandings that happen here don't happen in the same way for me in real life. How would seeing someone's expression of discomfort redirect your strategy for dealing with us? Would you instinctively back off on Te?
    PLEASE NOTE-I do NOT plan how I will approach someone in anyway. I watch them and find myself changing to meet their needs. I dont think about how I should act...I just act. I remold to meet the needs of the person I am interacting with. There are many things I understand-the ENFP chameleon is not yet one of them. We can become totally different from moment to moment-yet still feel perfectly authentic. We show facets.

    Do you find that you plan how to interact with a person before or as you are interacting with them? What signals are you watching for during a conversation? Are your adaptations instinctual or well thought through?

  3. #333
    Iron Maiden Array fidelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sx
    Posts
    9,349

    Default

    Re last thought: I think it's a combination. Probably the first step is consulting my previous evaluation of them based on interactions in the past and possible reasons that would explain anything I don't understand. So I may go in with a loose "strategy", but then as the conversation progresses, I would also react in whatever way seems to make sense and is most natural based on their body language, facial expressions, words, posture, etc.

  4. #334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Credentials.
    Quote Originally Posted by fidelia View Post
    Which don't have to be in the form of degrees.
    ^^ I see this most often in my workplace in the form of a social network. The person who is heard is the one who has standing/connectivity in that network-not the most qualified or competent individual. Facts are often ignored. It also results in management by exclusion-where the Fe user will remove individuals from the communicative network who disagree or voice dissent and thus do not promote an optimistic viewpoint.

    Ti may like references for data, but Fe seeks to make sure you have an established mutual cya relationship before it "respects" you.

    Quote Originally Posted by fidelia View Post
    The INFJ also usually doesn't realize that others don't always feel criticism as personally as we do. I have noticed that ENFPs are much better at handling criticism objectively than we are, as long as they feel accepted by us. We tend to feel rejected no matter what and deeply ashamed and embarrassed (or if we don't respect the person we'll be bothered by it, but dismiss them).
    Oddly...If i get a direct Fe critical comment, it can be crippling emotionally. I mistake a gentle Fe social rebuke for some sort of ultimate Fi judgment of "BAD" or "FLAWED". It generates intense feelings of shame...a desire to disappear and care for others from a far away place as I dont seem to fit in enough to do so at close range-a strong internal feeling of being flawed horribly. I'd suggest a shadow Fe response.

    Does it bother you more to be critiqued on a logical idea you had or on an action where you could have been more caring about another?

  5. #335
    Iron Maiden Array fidelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sx
    Posts
    9,349

    Default

    Logical idea, because it's more removed from me.

    Hm, as far as the management thing, I don't know if I entirely agree. I mean, I have beat my head against a wall in both school and church environments over people refusing to see how their actions are going to affect the group/organization down the road and them speaking out/removing dissenters. For me at least, I believe there needs to be openness to new ideas and competence at implementation. However, I need to respect the person before I am open to agreeing with or implementing their ideas. That may be respecting the wisdom with which they generally handle others or it may be that they've proved themselves to be effective and competent in the past, or that I trust that they have everyone's best interests in mind.

  6. #336
    The Black Knight Array Domino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    eNFJ
    Enneagram
    4w3 sx/so
    Socionics
    eNFJ Ni
    Posts
    11,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fidelia View Post
    Yep, for me, it's what qualifies you to say something (personal experience, credentials etc). While facts are great for supporting, unless I can see a human application and I think you've earned the right to say it, I don't listen as easily. Good to know about how it looks from the opposite perspective. There's been a lot so far in these three threads to help make clearer more effective and convincing communication with NFPs easier.
    Same here. Starkness with no human application leaves me cold. Even the detached thinking and analysis I engage in ultimately returns to anthrocentric concepts. When I was in robotics, the idea is not to create a machine for no reason. The machine is there to either assist or render a human obsolete. It all goes back to people.
    eNFJ 4w3 sx/so 468 tritype
    Neutral Good
    EII-Fi subtype, Ethical/Empath, Delta/Beta
    RLUEI, Choleric/Melancholic
    Inquistive/Limbic
    AIS Holland code
    Researcher: VDI-P
    Dramatic>Sensitive>Serious

  7. #337
    The Black Knight Array Domino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    eNFJ
    Enneagram
    4w3 sx/so
    Socionics
    eNFJ Ni
    Posts
    11,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fidelia View Post
    Part of the way I feel about what love is is written over in the ENFP thread right now. Self-sacrifice on both people's part has a lot to do with it for me, along with a steady, underlying current of grace for each other when one people makes mistakes and hurts the other person. Healthy love includes an element of self-care so that there are still reserves left to give the other person. You do not give until there is no margin left. Self-care also provides an indication of the respect that is expected and needed. Also included in love are appropriate boundaries of what is within the realm of possibility and which behaviours are firmly outside it and will not be tolerated without everything needing to change from the ground floor up.
    Well-said, my dear. Well-said. Graciousness seems to have been unfairly exiled to Victorian "quaint" status along with straw brooms and vinegar tonics.

    It's never alright to hit below the belt.
    It's never alright to take advantage of trust or a forgiving nature.
    It's never alright to call names.

    I remember getting into one of the most charged rows ever with an ISTP friend so so very close to me. He'd done something pretty awful, crossed quite a few people, including me. I was so hurt and angry. The pain of being cut off from him was terrible.

    I didn't hold back. I locked and loaded on him - and it was in that moment that I realized I probably could have knocked him down and done whatever I wanted to him, and he wouldn't have hurt me. It was the deep trust we shared. As angry as I was I didn't want to hurt him either. I've learned how to "fight" over the years - having a twin sister that I would take a bullet for reminds me daily, in spite of how mad we get at each other, that I love her so deeply that I'm not going to allow some momentary freak-out to hit me over the head with amnesia. Like an obedient possessive dog, I would maul anyone who tried to hurt her. And I won't let temporary ugliness make me say or do something hideous and regrettable. That's what I've learned - discipline. Not that I don't lose my temper. Darn thing is a dragon, but I do know some moves to cut the big lizard off before she torches the village.
    eNFJ 4w3 sx/so 468 tritype
    Neutral Good
    EII-Fi subtype, Ethical/Empath, Delta/Beta
    RLUEI, Choleric/Melancholic
    Inquistive/Limbic
    AIS Holland code
    Researcher: VDI-P
    Dramatic>Sensitive>Serious

  8. #338
    wants Mifune clone minion Array Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INfJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fidelia View Post
    I also agree with Z Buck about only mirroring the intransigence level we feel from someone else. This is why I reacted as I did to EW. The more force she was going to use without considering relevant information that would affect her conclusion, the less willing I was going to be to consider what she had to say. Just an acknowledgement that she was taking it into account and how would have changed the reaction considerably.
    Exactly. When someone just keeps coming back pounding the same argument- seemingly impervious to what’s been said to them- it's like a caveman approach to dialogue. I certainly don’t need someone to agree with my counter-argument, but I do need proof that it was heard.

    This brings up another issue. I think for INFJs, they need to be given a little bit of time to synthesize new information into their thought structure and decide if it makes sense there or not. That will not happen immediately in one conversation and makes us reluctant to present or argue information in the way that is naturally to a Te user. […..] I usually need enough time to think something over before I'm going to state anything in certain terms, especially if it's quite a bit different from my previous belief, but it doesn't always mean that I'm closed to the information or that I am emotionally invested in hanging onto the old way.
    Like I was just saying to someone here- this has actually caused me problems several times in the past, because people mistake my hesitation for judgment. They’ll make a suggestion, I’ll get a blank look on my face- and they take it as criticism, or me disapproving of what they said. Really, my face goes blank because the OS in my head is on the brink of crashing. I’m just really slow to incorporate new information. But- like Fid said- it doesn’t mean I’m closed to the idea (it sure does get interpreted that way a lot though).


    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    In both cases above it sounds like ZB and Tilty are saying they are using Fe as a tool to adapt to the situation at hand and thus more effectively deploy the ideas they have. Would this be Ni context shifting...then once you identify the correct way to approach the problem, you deploy a solution with Fe? But in your minds you shift through multiple different ways of viewing the problem with Ni?? I dunno, just making crazy guesses.
    Yeah, that sounds about right. If I go to another country, I try to speak their language- I don’t see that in any way as being ‘fake’. The same applies to being in different social arenas. The form of what I’m saying may change (the shape that it takes), but the content (underlying meaning) doesn’t change.

    I would suggest all Ni doms might find surprises annoying. However IXTJs plan their world with Te. Thus introducing new factual arguments Ti or Te disrupts the Te plan that is being formed or implemented-so it better be good or well formatted. Otherwise you get shot down or get "the lecture".

    I would suggest symmetrically that INFJ is using Fe to control the world and implement Ni ideas. Thus new emotive interactions are very annoying as it makes you have to reassert emotive control over the situation at hand???? Does this sound familiar?
    I’m having an issue with the phrase ‘emotive control’, but I’m not sure why. I just know that- because my perception is so directed inward- it’s a big deal for me to get used to change in the external environment (because it isn’t where my perception is naturally directed). When someone’s behavior takes an INFJ off guard, it’s like moving the furniture around in a blind person’s apartment. Someone who is blind can navigate easily through their own apartment because they ‘know’ where everything is, even though they can’t see it. They just trust things will be in their place, so they can move freely about. That’s kind of like the trust I need to have in my own judgment, where the external environment (and because of Fe aux, the behavior of people in said environment) is concerned.

    How do you respond to introduction of new logic content-like an ENTP who starts playing word games with you? I would assume the Fi/Ti symmetry is present and you might find it a refreshing break for a few seconds?
    I wish I understood this question, because it looks interesting.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  9. #339
    Happy Dancer Array uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    I still feel like we haven't gotten exactly to the bottom of "why that's not OK"



    Wouldn't it have saved a whole bunch of time if you just showed him the relevant authoritative info, or written the test code that demonstrated the principle?
    Show him how? We were talking on the phone. All he had to do was go to the Help for Visual Studio or SQL Server and look up "datetime". I directed him to the relevant info. There's a bit of an oddity, here, though: no respectable developer entirely believes documentation. The 100% correct documentation would mention date and time, but not mention word one about time zones, thus leaving room for doubt.

    Should *I* write the "test code"? He wouldn't trust MY test code, he'd have to write it himself.

    No, the problem here was similar to one I've had in many instances, where I'm solving a problem with other technically adept people. I'll figure it out in about 10 minutes, while they're still barely getting started, and then I spend the next hour explaining it to them. This really isn't a big deal to me, and I patiently go through everything. What I hear very often, though, is "but it shouldn't work that way," or "that isn't how it's supposed to be," as if that were a rebuttal to my analysis. To which my reply is "I know ... that's why it's broken ... "

    There is a mindset where it just takes a while to unlearn whatever it is you thought you knew and replace it with the new correct information.

    You do a good job of making it seem perfectly reasonable, but as evidenced by the exchange above, the other person may not have perceived it as reasonable whatsoever. Now, it may be because he's self-absorbed, as you assert, but might there be another explanation that doesn't lay the blame entirely at his feet?
    Not really. This is a fellow who has managed to get into one-sided shouting matches with INTJ (me), INFJ (coworker) and INTP (another coworker) alike. He sits back all calm and collected, sure in his knowledge, and will never be convinced by anyone else's words, no matter how well-presented or reasonable. A typical trivial disagreement ends with "Oh, you mean <his version of technical term> where <more technical info>" "Yes, that's right." "Why didn't you say so in the first place?!" "I did. Over and over. A different way each time." If it's nontrivial, it's worse.

    You may be talking about just the facts, but there always is contextual meaning. Even things like voice tone, facial movements, and general demeanor otherwise around the person informs your statement, and injects shades of meaning, even if unintentional. The person is "supposed" to engage you as if you were another human being, and not a machine spitting out data, so you can't blame him if he does precisely that.
    His reply to each of my statements and re-explanations was "But I don't understand how that can be true," and variations on a theme. Basically, zero feedback for me to gauge where his misunderstanding lies. Remember, it took me two hours of digging to figure out where the misunderstanding was, and another two to finally convince him to verify it for himself.

    Where you say "is bogus", I think it is more accurately represented "they believe to be bogus." No one on this planet is in absolute possession of correct knowledge, no matter how well-read or informed that person may be. It also takes a lot of maturity to say "I was completely wrong", even if presented with contradictory, verifiable data... for anyone. It's just as easy to say "you clearly don't understand what I'm speaking to" as it is to reanalyze one's own data patterns. And that's not limited to one type, either.
    This is your Ti perspective. Half of the people on the planet don't think this way.

    It is implied when Te person A says "That's bogus" it means "I believe that to be untrue," and several clear reasons for the assertion will follow.

    With an INTJ or INFJ or INFP, the "datetime" conversation would last 5 minutes. With an INTP, it would last maybe half an hour, as the INTP does some extra digging to fully understand what I'm getting at. The fellow in my example is rather extreme.


    See, this is the part that bugs me. Someone else absolutely has a right to say "I don't believe you", even if they're wrong.
    They have a right to say, "I don't believe that's true."
    They have a right to say, "I believe what you just said is incorrect."
    They have a right to say, "That's wrong."

    They don't have a right to say, "I think you're lying."

    In that circumstance, they'll just have to deal with the consequences of their inaccuracy, but often, that's not that devastating. There is no onus on them to contradict your argument, but rather, the burden of persuasion is on you if you're trying to persuade! It surely would be nice if the facts spoke for themselves, but they very rarely do, because unfortunately, we don't have facts - we have subjective perceptions of fact.
    The onus for communication is both on speaker and listener. It is the job of the speaker to present information as clearly as possible. It is the job of the listener to listen with an open mind: any preconception, especially any preconception that dismisses the possibility oneself being wrong, is an impediment to communication.

    In the specific instance, it was my job to provide correct information. That the information was correct was self-evident. It was as full of meaning as if I were saying "The apple in your lunchbox is red." All it takes is pulling out the damn apple and verifying it. If the listener is too lazy to do that, there's not much I can do.

    Instead the effective dialog was:
    "No, it isn't. My Mom put in a yellow apple."
    "Dude, I looked in your lunchbox. It's red. Check it yourself."
    "But I know it's yellow. There's no way it could be red."

    When you show credentials, demonstrate principles or appeal to authority, it's not because you're incapable of perceiving the facts. It's simply because for whatever reason, the other person may see things differently, and what's more, until you've established a reputation for seeing things correctly, the other person has no reason to believe that the way you see things is any better than the way he does.
    Note that you began this with a question. I answered your question, and now you're just disagreeing with my answer, based on your original premise.

    You asked,
    The problem with "just the facts" is that it's never just about the facts - they have to have meaning. Either you take him down the path you took, or you use credentials to assure him that you're not lying in some way.

    Why doesn't that seem "OK" to you?

    I replied that it's insulting to imply that I'm lying or otherwise being intentionally misleading. It's OK to say I'm wrong, but not OK to say I'm lying. To say I'm wrong is to correct me, to say I'm lying is to insult me.

    Note that YOU are saying that it should feel "OK" to me. This is precisely what Fi dislikes about Fe: it doesn't feel ok to me, and you don't get to say it should. Period. If you don't respect this alternative perspective, you will have some rough periods of communication.

  10. #340
    Happy Dancer Array uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fidelia View Post
    Onemoretime stated exactly what I was thinking as I read your post, umlauu - instead of telling him over and over again that you were right about the time zones, why not provide the sources and appropriate evidence. He will then decide if he thinks your sources are reliable, but it is not up to him to waste his time looking up something when you have not given him enough reason to be sure that you are qualified to know better or you have access to information he hasn't considered.
    Instead of what, Fidelia?

    This is me. Uumlau. Do you really think I didn't explore every possible avenue I could, over four hours, patiently trying to figure out where the confusion lies and what might address it? Refer to my reply to OMT for more info.

    I would agree that the burden is on you as a persuader to come up with convincing evidence, rather than the other person as a listen to come up with a convincing counter-argument.
    This is an interesting point. I would argue that the burden of communication is on both parties, not "the persuader." I suspect this is an Fe perspective.

    From the Te perspective, the purpose of communication when conveying relevant objective information is that of a teacher teaching a student, not of an orator convincing an audience. Teachers don't "persuade" students, but rather introduce new material and explain how it works.



    They didn't seek out your help.
    Yes, he did seek out my help.



    If your help is relevant and necessary, you need to tell them why. (Eg "If you are mistaken on this, here's how it will negatively effect x, y and z".) Then you've given them motivation to care! Similarly, if I know that you have more background than me and are a credible person, then I am more likely to trust you than if you have the same information than me and have just arrived at a different conclusion.
    He already "cared," it's just that my answer didn't fit in his worldview, and his worldview is particularly difficult to budge.

    As for the rest of your point, if I don't think you care about some topic, I'll just not discuss it with you. Usually, I'll work around people who don't care, rather than try to make them care.

    I also agree with Z Buck about only mirroring the intransigence level we feel from someone else. This is why I reacted as I did to EW. The more force she was going to use without considering relevant information that would affect her conclusion, the less willing I was going to be to consider what she had to say. Just an acknowledgement that she was taking it into account and how would have changed the reaction considerably.
    This makes plenty of sense to me. Remember, I get along quite well with INFJs.

    What's going on in my example is more of a Te/Ti thing, though. In the Fe case, it is Fi that becomes intransigent and Fe mirrors it. In the Te case, it is Ti that becomes intransigent (basically by making it difficult to figure out where the problem is in the first place), as Te tries to figure out why Ti disagrees.


    This brings up another issue. I think for INFJs, they need to be given a little bit of time to synthesize new information into their thought structure and decide if it makes sense there or not. That will not happen immediately in one conversation and makes us reluctant to present or argue information in the way that is natural to a Te user. The other day, Arclight and I were discussing the possibility that his personality may be different than he had previously believed. I responded initially with skepticism because the two types were very differently driven and motivated. We discussed the possibility of shadow functions etc. After him telling some more, I responded by saying "Perhaps, then." He took it as me feeling passionately that he was the original type. In this case, it meant, "Hmm, you have access to more information than me. It didn't look that way initially, but there is some information I didn't factor in. What d'ya know, you just might be that after all." I usually need enough time to think something over before I'm going to state anything in certain terms, especially if it's quite a bit different from my previous belief, but it doesn't always mean that I'm closed to the information or that I am emotionally invested in hanging onto the old way.
    This makes sense to me. INTJs do the same thing. We'll often forestall an argument, agreeing to disagree. If we respect your reasoning in general, we'll probably mull it over in our subconscious for a while, and come back later and say something like "You know, I think you might have been right, though I think there are some unexpected twists to your reasoning you might be interested in."

Similar Threads

  1. [ENFP] Common ENFP issues
    By Amargith in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 654
    Last Post: Today, 03:46 PM
  2. [INTJ] Common INTJ Issues
    By highlander in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 302
    Last Post: 11-09-2016, 10:42 PM
  3. [ENFJ] Common ENFJ Issues
    By Domino in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 205
    Last Post: 05-08-2016, 03:59 PM
  4. [NF] Common INFP-INFJ Relationship Issues
    By Lenian in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-22-2016, 01:28 PM
  5. [INFJ] UNCOMMON? OR COMMON INFJ ISSUES?!?
    By Lenian in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-31-2011, 05:16 PM

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