[NF] NFs - does your insight into people hinder your relationships?

[Cellmold]

Insights are dangerous. Afterall they are rarely confirmed only assumed.

 

[Ivy]

Insights are dangerous. Afterall they are rarely confirmed only assumed.

Exactly. This (and many other things upthread) was exactly what I was thinking. As an NF (maybe other types experience this too) it's very easy to assume that your insights are accurate. Even if you think you're getting evidence later that confirms them, we are all subject to confirmation bias. "See, I was right!" (Not that you say that out loud or even consciously, metalmommy.) I've found it safest to be skeptical about even my own perceptions of people's inner workings.

 

[Cellmold]

Exactly. This (and many other things upthread) was exactly what I was thinking. As an NF (maybe other types experience this too) it's very easy to assume that your insights are accurate. Even if you think you're getting evidence later that confirms them, we are all subject to confirmation bias. "See, I was right!" (Not that you say that out loud or even consciously, metalmommy.) I've found it safest to be skeptical about even my own perceptions of people's inner workings.

Me too, although I am still guilty of slipping up from time to time, though I am not an NF. Ive just had to learn to reign in my judgement.

 

[Starry]

Exactly. This (and many other things upthread) was exactly what I was thinking. As an NF (maybe other types experience this too) it's very easy to assume that your insights are accurate. Even if you think you're getting evidence later that confirms them, we are all subject to confirmation bias. "See, I was right!" (Not that you say that out loud or even consciously, metalmommy.) I've found it safest to be skeptical about even my own perceptions of people's inner workings.

Yup.


Peacebaby basically stated a similiar thing...but I would NEVER put up a wall with someone that was 'gettin it right' (that were correct in their insights and subsequent assertions concerning me). And I don't give a rip about 'timing' or 'over-familiarity' or 'bluntness' or 'the appropriate level of discretion a certain social situation assumes' blah, blah, blah. <--- I mean, I have lived long enough to know that many people do take those things into consideration - but when it comes to me I just do not care. I can work with and around all of those things and then some - in the moment - without batting an eye (or whatever you say). Nor am I a very private person. Or easily embarrassed. And I can even handle someone 'gettin it wrong' with regards to their 'insights' into me (hey man, we're all human). No, the only reason I would throw-up a wall is if the 'insight' was wrong BUT the individual continued to operate with the assumption that they were right. And not just 'right' for them...but right in reality. Where the 'insight' was not left tentative until an exchange has been had...but conclusive. That I can't deal with. And if I'm further insulted by the suggestion...whether stated or implied...that there is some unwillingness or defect or embarrassment on my part...that I'm incapable for any reason of accepting the 'insight' as truth...then it is quite likely more than a wall will go-up but rather I will kindly come to the end of the line with this person.

And this has happened before, unfortunately for me more than once, with FJs. And is why the OP caused me to pause. Whether the OP is right or wrong with regards to her insights does not appear open to negotiation <--- which again, is the ONLY reason I would put up a wall.

 

[entropie]

Insights are dangerous. Afterall they are rarely confirmed only assumed.

Always depends on how much you depend on reality. If you live in your own dream world, your insights are just the show

 

[Firebird 8118]

I find that my ability to easily and deeply understand people is often off putting to them. Over my lifetime I've noticed that people don't like it that I can see their mental inner workings. I often don't realize that I've seen something they don't want me to until I've said something in passing and suddenly I'm staring at a wall.

Being an INfJ, it's already difficult for me to find people I can be close to, but it seems like my ability to read others just makes it that much harder. People put up their walls and push me away when they discover I can see, even tho I'm not judging what I see. Seeing alone is enough to put people off.

I've tried to mitigate this by keeping my observations to myself, but like I said, sometimes I don't realize I've hit on something that deep until it's too late.

Do any of you other NFs have this problem?

Well, if you were to do that with me, I'd appreciate it greatly. Sometimes it's hard for me to properly express what's on my mind, so it'd be nice if someone understands me in this way. (I might even give you a giant bear hug if you know what my flaws are and are okay with it anyway. )

 

[the state i am in]

Yup.


Peacebaby basically stated a similiar thing...but I would NEVER put up a wall with someone that was 'gettin it right' (that were correct in their insights and subsequent assertions concerning me). And I don't give a rip about 'timing' or 'over-familiarity' or 'bluntness' or 'the appropriate level of discretion a certain social situation assumes' blah, blah, blah. <--- I mean, I have lived long enough to know that many people do take those things into consideration - but when it comes to me I just do not care. I can work with and around all of those things and then some - in the moment - without batting an eye (or whatever you say). Nor am I a very private person. Or easily embarrassed. And I can even handle someone 'gettin it wrong' with regards to their 'insights' into me (hey man, we're all human). No, the only reason I would throw-up a wall is if the 'insight' was wrong BUT the individual continued to operate with the assumption that they were right. And not just 'right' for them...but right in reality. Where the 'insight' was not left tentative until an exchange has been had...but conclusive. That I can't deal with. And if I'm further insulted by the suggestion...whether stated or implied...that there is some unwillingness or defect or embarrassment on my part...that I'm incapable for any reason of accepting the 'insight' as truth...then it is quite likely more than a wall will go-up but rather I will kindly come to the end of the line with this person.

And this has happened before, unfortunately for me more than once, with FJs. And is why the OP caused me to pause. Whether the OP is right or wrong with regards to her insights does not appear open to negotiation <--- which again, is the ONLY reason I would put up a wall.

but when the negotiation is over, what do you do? consensus is often not reached and can't always be the goal.

in terms of the experience, i think i know what you mean. that kind of presupposition that someone else brings into the situation to define the reality rather than simply controlling their own behavior. i get this the worst with tps, particular 3w4 and 5w6. you just feel really blatantly railroaded. i probably do it too at times.

what are the subjectivity/Fi rules that are broken when someone else presupposes something that is in conflict with what you presuppose? Fi says you have to respect the difference of opinion and just keep quiet or reroute where it is you think you need to go in order to allow them to maintain their beliefs without crossing their lines? that it's your job to anticipate that and respect that as much as your own? in which case, how do you negotiate at all? i can see serious conflict between "facts" and "beliefs" in this area, especially in terms of what information should be privileged and gets to establish the foundation/common ground. for Fi, is it "what has led you to adopt those beliefs?" "what are the direct effects of those beliefs on others?" at the same time, Ti has a job to do as well, which is to establish solid, observable common ground that allows us to "objectively" relate to the same evidence. as far as Ni goes, i'd also say "patterns," which to me would be difficult to articulate but would limit how information could be synthesized within particular frameworks, when using particular lenses, and demanding that we recognize that we are always using lenses and being reflexive of the conditions of perception is important in order to integrate understanding among the various constraints in any meaningful way.

edit: i realize now that i am talking not really about the specific instance of disagreeing about what one person in the conversation is feeling or why they are feeling that and more about disagreeing in general. it still seems like a fine line, but it does further amp up the presumptuousness of being so goddamned certain and does seem like a more extreme rights violation as a result.

 

[Starry]

but when the negotiation is over, what do you do? consensus is often not reached and can't always be the goal.

in terms of the experience, i think i know what you mean. that kind of presupposition that someone else brings into the situation to define the reality rather than simply controlling their own behavior. i get this the worst with tps, particular 3w4 and 5w6. you just feel really blatantly railroaded. i probably do it too at times.

what are the subjectivity/Fi rules that are broken when someone else presupposes something that is in conflict with what you presuppose? Fi says you have to respect the difference of opinion and just keep quiet or reroute where it is you think you need to go in order to allow them to maintain their beliefs without crossing their lines? that it's your job to anticipate that and respect that as much as your own? in which case, how do you negotiate at all? i can see serious conflict between "facts" and "beliefs" in this area, especially in terms of what information should be privileged and gets to establish the foundation/common ground. for Fi, is it "what has led you to adopt those beliefs?" "what are the direct effects of those beliefs on others?" at the same time, Ti has a job to do as well, which is to establish solid, observable common ground that allows us to "objectively" relate to the same evidence. as far as Ni goes, i'd also say "patterns," which to me would be difficult to articulate but would limit how information could be synthesized within particular frameworks, when using particular lenses, and demanding that we recognize that we are always using lenses and being reflexive of the conditions of perception is important in order to integrate understanding among the various constraints in any meaningful way.

edit: i realize now that i am talking not really about the specific instance of disagreeing about what one person in the conversation is feeling or why they are feeling that and more about disagreeing in general. it still seems like a fine line, but it does further amp up the presumptuousness of being so goddamned certain and does seem like a more extreme rights violation as a result.

Yah...I mean, I don't really think in terms of 'consensus'. I think consensus is great when it happens but it isn't really in the forefront of my mind as a 'goal' or whatever. When negotiating I'm seeking 'openness'...which includes an openness to the possibility that you may not know all that you think you know (<--- I'm thinking specifically about what is being discussed in the thread. Likewise, I’ll be honest and say that I was actually under the impression that ‘consensus’ was more of an extroverted-judgment kind of thing – but maybe I’m wrong. And at times is experienced by all types as ‘I am right and I need to you acknowledge/agree with my ‘rightness’’ = consensus <--- hey we’ve all done it I imagine). Still, I don’t necessarily think anything that I put-forth is strictly in Fi’s ballpark. There were individuals of both types in agreement with the OP… or presenting with some form of ‘ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh what?’ I was merely sharing my experience as an alternative way of looking at the issue. Maybe I am naïve…but I don’t think anyone wants to be dealing with someone that is ‘always right’ or ‘knows it all’ or ‘knows you better than you know yourself’ blah, blah, blah. No one wants to be dealing with that crap.

Anyway…perhaps it is the case that I’m not answering this properly because I’m not exactly sure of what you are asking. I have no problem with someone presupposing something that is in conflict with what I’m presupposing. I do, however, have a problem if they subsequently need me to agree with what they are presupposing and maybe that last bit is ‘Fi-ish’. But yah…I don’t want anyone to force their ‘insights’ or beliefs onto me…and if the only way that can be achieved is by keeping quiet and rerouting where you need to go…then keep quiet and reroute-away. I am just very suspicious of people that have so much confidence in their ‘rightness’. And feel, in most cases, insights only serve the individual that is having the insight.

 

[Firebird 8118]

I don’t want anyone to force their ‘insights’ or beliefs onto me…and if the only way that can be achieved is by keeping quiet and rerouting where you need to go…than keep quiet and reroute-away. I am just very suspicious of people that have so much confidence in their ‘rightness’.

Well... I'm not sure about this myself, but those who know me say I'm very strong in my beliefs - once I come to believe something, it's nearly impossible for anyone to convince me otherwise (unless their arguments prove to be valid). Dunno if that's called having so much confidence in my 'rightness'... but rest assured I will never force my opinions on you (because that's just wrong - no one likes to be a puppet. :marionette

 

[Starry]

Well... I'm not sure about this myself, but those who know me say I'm very strong in my beliefs - once I come to believe something, it's nearly impossible for anyone to convince me otherwise (unless their arguments prove to be valid). Dunno if that's called having so much confidence in my 'rightness'... but rest assured I will never force my opinions on you (because that's just wrong - no one likes to be a puppet. :marionette

I understand what you are saying...but what you describe is different to me. There's a big difference in my mind between 'right for me' and 'so right - it's right for everyone'.

 

[Firebird 8118]

I understand what you are saying...but what you describe is different to me. There's a big difference in my mind between 'right for me' and 'so right - it's right for everyone'.

Okay. Thanks for clarifying, I was rather confused at first to be honest!

 

[PeaceBaby]

...in which case, how do you negotiate at all?

hmmm, that might be part of the point right there.

I don't think about interactions with people in terms of negotiations or motivations. It's more about authenticity and acceptance.

Each person gets to have their own subjective reality, bounded by some kind of universal values that we share as "humanity". My goal is, in forming friendships, to be as real and genuine as possible.

So, if you come into my world but you insist on forcing me through your lens, it's pushing against my reality boundary, against authenticity. Because if I "get real" with you and you can't see me clear, well, there's little other choice but to shut you out.

I do find INFJ's in particular can want to translate my words into something more than what they are. But basically, what I say is what I mean and what I am. My value of honesty demands it. I'm not the most articulate in such situations, but I will always try at least to be real.


(P.S. You could argue there is no such thing as "universal values", but I generally find Fi doms & auxs perceive a difference between their own value set and those that seem to be of a higher nature, forming a kind of objective morality.)

When negotiating I'm seeking 'openness'...which includes an openness to the possibility that you may not know all that you think you know.

Yes, I like this and agree.


(P.P.S. I should add, and I shared this earlier with Starry, if you delivered a bulls-eye insight on me, man I might not like it, but I would not shut you out because you were right, it would be damn impressive. Even if I totally hated what you had to say.)

 

[cascadeco]

I don't think about interactions with people in terms of negotiations or motivations. It's more about authenticity and acceptance.

Each person gets to have their own subjective reality, bounded by some kind of universal values that we share as "humanity". My goal is, in forming friendships, to be as real and genuine as possible.

I can definitely identify with this, at least with friendships and actual relationships. And with those friendships, I don't know how I could call it a true friendship if I wasn't as real/genuine as possible, and they didn't feel free to be the same.

I suppose I could do the negotiation / navigation thing in the work environment, though, and can be pretty skilled at it I think, although I also desire total honesty at the same time. But I'm not entirely clear on what [MENTION=6275]the state i am in[/MENTION] means by 'negotiation', as he may mean something quite different depending on the situation or relationship.

I do find INFJ's in particular can want to translate my words into something more than what they are.

I'm probably guilty of this sometimes, though!!

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I take negotiation simply to mean communication until both people can agree to one story about the experience going on between them, and I *think* Starry is referring to when one person unilaterally decides what that ‘story’ is and won’t listen to anything else. If/when conflict comes up with someone important to me, I do consider finding resolution to that a ‘negotiation’ of sorts. Being authentic isn’t always enough to get along with others- even if both people are being authentic. I don’t trust authenticity alone because it can be irrational- a person can misunderstand a situation, maintain a disrespectful position and still be authentic. It’s exchanges such as “You said ‘this’- but then you did ‘that’, which is contrary to ‘this’- so help me understand how both can be true, if that’s the case”, though, which help me get back onto the same page with someone…..or not. If I keep getting answers which seem to just be blowing smoke over something or means of distraction, then ‘consensus’ is not reached. [ eta: Sometimes I’m the one blowing smoke and mirrors, without even realizing it, in which case I’m the one preventing ‘consensus’. I don’t mean to sound like ‘consensus’ is always reached when the other person is being reasonable. We all do the best we can- this is what I mean when I say authenticity is not enough, imo- and sometimes our own issues/attachments prevent us from being able to understand someone else’s pov adequately enough, regardless of how genuine we are. ]

I can see how maybe ‘negotiation’ or ‘consensus’ may seem too sterile, and may be causing some misunderstanding here, but I *think*- if I’m right about Starry referring to the tendency for one person to unilaterally come to some conclusion and stick to it (and they are not open to any other story than the one that immediately popped into their own head.....and FJs can be champions in this regard)- ‘consensus’ simply means that both people feel respected and heard at the end of ‘negotiation’ (aka: dialogue).

[state can correct me if I’m misunderstanding him, but I don’t think I am. eta: 'Dialogue' should produce a 'synthesis' of both sides, and one which is agreeable to both sides = 'consensus'. Sometimes authenticity alone is not enough for this (and this has nothing to do with state's post, it's my own interjection). I guess at least as I perceive 'authenticity', which is to say someone is being authentic to the best of their ability. ]

 

[Starry]

Sorry...I should have clarified yesterday that I was, in fact, the individual that brought-up the whole 'negotiation' thing by writing this:

Whether the OP is right or wrong with regards to her insights does not appear open to negotiation <--- which again, is the ONLY reason I would put up a wall.

I actually use the word 'exchange' further-up in that post. ^^^But what I meant there was...

The OP has a challenge in where individuals are distancing themselves from her. The process that seems extremely foreign to me...even somewhat 'dangerous' if you will (I'll try to see if I can even explain why I feel it is dangerous here in a bit)...is she has also determined exactly why this is happening...that being...'people are uncomfortable with her *seeing* abilities and the level of access she has into their mental-inner workings.' <--- Now even if I thought that that was what was going on (which I don't and is why I subsequently contributed my experience)...it wouldn't occur to me to think that that was what was occurring in 100% of the 'putting-up walls' cases.

The reason I used the word 'negotiation' (which I explained for me means 'openness' and I like Z Buck's description as well - 'dialogue')...is because it is presented in a very closed/decided way. 'This is what is happening and this is why' - no other possibilities. Which is a difficult thing for my mind to grasp. And when I asked the OP how she knew this was, in fact, what was occurring she did not respond which may have been merely because she missed my post. Peacebaby and I *think* a few others asked for examples...and those were not provided either. But in my mind...unless a large portion of the individuals that distanced themselves from her returned later and said 'I distanced myself from you because I was uncomfortable with how you were able to see into my mental-inner workings' (or whatever)...then it is difficult for me to understand how you can come to that conclusion (like it was solid). And it further concerns me because the 'this is exactly what is happening' reason that is provided...almost seems to relinquish the OP from responsibility within the interpersonal interactions you know? I mean, in a way it is similiar to 'People hate me because I'm beautiful.' It's like...it's not because I'm an asshole or a 'know-it-all' or controlling or smell bad...it's (only) because people can't handle this special quality I have.

Anyway...I can see how that level of confidence can start to lead you down the wrong path...where you can't ever get the real issue addressed. And I'm assuming that level of confidence spills over into other areas as well <--- which may be why people close themselves off.

 

[Coriolis]

Peacebaby basically stated a similiar thing...but I would NEVER put up a wall with someone that was 'gettin it right' (that were correct in their insights and subsequent assertions concerning me). And I don't give a rip about 'timing' or 'over-familiarity' or 'bluntness' or 'the appropriate level of discretion a certain social situation assumes' blah, blah, blah. <--- I mean, I have lived long enough to know that many people do take those things into consideration - but when it comes to me I just do not care.

I would do it in an instant, if the person were getting into territory that I considered none of their business. I might file the information for later consideration if it seemed to have any accuracy, but there would be no further communication on the matter with the other person. I might do this to a lesser extent if the offering of insights seemed somehow misplaced - wrong time or circumstances, irrelevant to matter at hand, etc. In these cases, though, I would probably give an explicit explanation, and be willing to revisit the conversation later.

 

[Starry]

I would do it in an instant, if the person were getting into territory that I considered none of their business. I might file the information for later consideration if it seemed to have any accuracy, but there would be no further communication on the matter with the other person. I might do this to a lesser extent if the offering of insights seemed somehow misplaced - wrong time or circumstances, irrelevant to matter at hand, etc. In these cases, though, I would probably give an explicit explanation, and be willing to revisit the conversation later.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here so I want an opportunity to clarify.

What you bolded from my post...
Saying to another individual that has just shared an insight (about me) with me...'whoa...that is intense. I need some time to process that and possibly return to it at a later date' =/= (does NOT equal) putting-up a wall. Are you saying that it does for you?

 

[Coriolis]

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here so I want an opportunity to clarify.

What you bolded from my post...
Saying to another individual that has just shared an insight (about me) with me...'whoa...that is intense. I need some time to process that and possibly return to it at a latter date' =/= (does NOT equal) putting-up a wall. Are you saying that it does for you?

I meant more of pointing out to someone that they chose an inopportune time/place to share their insights, whether accurate or not. This is a wall, in that it is firm, instant, and not to be crossed, but it is temporary, unless the person persists. And yes, this is different from the more absolute wall that comes when someone gets into areas that are not their business. Asking for more time to consider and process is not a wall at all, since I would do at least some processing and careful listening right away, and neither shut the person down nor ask them to defer sharing the information.

 

[Starry]

I meant more of pointing out to someone that they chose an inopportune time/place to share their insights, whether accurate or not. This is a wall, in that it is firm, instant, and not to be crossed, but it is temporary, unless the person persists. And yes, this is different from the more absolute wall that comes when someone gets into areas that are not their business. Asking for more time to consider and process is not a wall at all, since I would do at least some processing and careful listening right away, and neither shut the person down nor ask them to defer sharing the information.

Okay. Sorry I guess I'm not understanding why you quoted me then as I was merely sharing what my personal reaction would be...yet have already acknowledged the bolded (that people will respond in a way that is represented in what I bolded) more than once I believe in this thread. Maybe you were just identifying yourself as one of those individuals??? *nervous confused laughter* haha.

 

[Coriolis]

Okay. Sorry I guess I'm not understanding why you quoted me then as I was merely sharing what my personal reaction would be...yet have already acknowledged the bolded (that people will respond in a way that is represented in what I bolded) more than once I believe in this thread. Maybe you were just identifying yourself as one of those individuals??? *nervous confused laughter* haha.

My comment was meant to contrast my reaction with yours, and to provide at least one reason why someone might put up a wall when someone else provides personal insights that are accurate. The first sentence of my original comment was the main point.