• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NF] INFPs, what do INFJs do that drives you nuts?

CuriousFeeling

From the Undertow
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
2,937
MBTI Type
INfJ
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Just as a friendly reminder, please keep conversations in this thread related to the topic at hand and keep it constructive and civil.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
[MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION] I think you had some great points but please tread carefully with your tone. I really don't want my words to start an all out character assassination of INFJs. What I said was probably harsh enough as it was.:blush:

These are Ni issues.
Yes, I realise that they are more generally present in Ni doms. I think there is a Fe spin on it though (which I couldn't define) that makes it slightly different.

Ni/Se can look circular to Ne/Si, while Ne/Si looks tautological. These are the most difficult issues to address, because the entire basis of perceiving issues is different. This is where both sides need to express patience and listen.
Interesting, I never thought of Ni-Se in general appearing circular. Tautological is a new word to me but I see what you're getting at. In a way, Ne-Si is more of a spiral - we circle an indirectly perceived truth/principle (Ti/Fi), getting just a little closer each time. The idea is to get as close as possible to that core and perhaps fully grasp it (if that's in fact possible). I can see why this would irritate Ni-Se because it seems like time wasting, when we could just make a direct leap. I grasp Truths through refining and distilling ideas, whereas the INFJs seem to grasp it through revelation (?). I don't really have "Aha moments" like Ni-users. My version of it is simply a sudden swing in the spiral towards the core Truth - it doesn't solve all the issues involved, it just clarifies things a little and gets me a little closer.

Fe issues. The main difference between Fe and Fi is object vs subject. When dealing with the object, there is only object to be shared in common, so the notion of everyone having their own object, or everyone legitimately seeing the object differently is nonsense. In the case of the subject, each has their own, so the notion of multiple points of view is self-evident. I believe this is an easier barrier to cross, though it's more touchy than the Te/Ti version, especially if participants are easily offended.
What do you mean by this? Can you elaborate?

Personally, I find this to be the most difficult issue for me with INFJs. When they start trying to "out-logic" me, it makes my head hurt. Basically, they do an "Ni-twist" of perspective, and then "prove" that you're wrong in that perspective - which is why I initially read this as an Ni thing, but the Ti nitpickiness is more prevalent. The Ni-twist is just a one-time thing, and probably way more visible to me than to xNFPs. I try to point out that they simply chose axioms that are consistent with their point(s), and thus didn't prove anything, but that really never goes anywhere. After all, how do you tell someone who sincerely believes he/she is being logical that they aren't even close to being logical, and still maintain a civil conversation? In this case, I find myself having to remind the INFJ that we should be debating which axioms are correct, not whether the INFJ's axioms "disprove" my statements.

(This isn't to say that INFJs aren't logical as a rule, but rather that when they're illogical, it has particular traits like this, namely the Ni-twist of axioms, and then peppering with Ti-deconstructive "disproofs" of others' points. INTJs and INTPs can also be illogical, but it doesn't look like this. )
Interesting. Yes, I think I have vaguely had a sense of that going on beneath, but I do imagine a Ni and Te user would recognise it better. This is in part what I meant about the circularity defence. It seems like when they feel under threat, there can be a walling up and they simply work with what data they have already imbibed. It's like they sense a siege is coming and (real) progress is halted. They close the drawbridge to the castle and then work with what resources they have stored up to defend themselves.

I actually cop to every one of SK's points. It's true I often think FiNe is wrong and am dismissive. It's true I think they're wrong because they're wrong. All the rest of it: true. Yes, this makes me infuriating and hard to live with.
Thank you for your honesty.

I admit I am surprised that you would particularly address point 4 and admit to it outright (not that I thought you were particularly guilty of it or anything). I just thought this wasn't a point that would be talked about much, and that it was a less common issue among INFJs compared with some of the other ones. I also imagined that if it was done by a INFJ, that it would be done quite unconsciously and therefore would be hard to recognise within yourself.

(It doesn't make FiNe right, though.)
Absolutely not. I hope I didn't suggest that I believed that. You are well within your rights to question Fi-Ne ideas/conclusions, I just hope you will consider them too.

It is perhaps an accurate portrait of what we're like when we're near the end of our rope with having to explain everything all the time to somebody who doesn't get it. How's that for arrogant? Not trying to be provocative, that's just what I experience. The person who I believe doesn't get it is also thinking the same about me -- that I don't get it. But time after time, I'm proven right. And time is what it takes. Arguing doesn't help.
Oh, I very much realise that these issues aren't much of a problem outside of tense/stressful/argumentative situations. On a day to day basis, these are probably very minor, background issues - that is, unless they're a particularly unhealthy INFJ.

About seeming arrogant -- The trick to being seen as mostly right is to know what you're talking about before you talk. I think INFJ usually doesn't talk unless they feel quite sure know what they're talking about.
Fair enough.

Perhaps. INFP will talk endlessly about stuff they really have no idea of, and only find out what they really think at the end of the talk. Maybe it's not so much that we disagree with whatever conclusion you finally come to. Maybe we just don't understand the having to listen to you process.
I can see that. The thing is, in such situations the INFPs do have an idea about things - it's just so vague and intangible or almost in another language entirely. Part of the Fi-Ne waffle is attempt to translate an impression of things into 'human' language. Other times, it is the spiral process. I realise this can be frustrating, but it is important to recognise the worth in it. I sometimes get the impression that the INFJs see it as taking the long way round to get to what they knew immediately (hence the appearance of arrogance). The point is, that lengthy process can reveal totally new and different things than the Ni-Fe conclusion, so it's not just a waste of time.

P.S. Yes, I find it very hard to accept inconvenient truths. I am an idealist. I very much want to believe that if I throw my entire will into achieving the ideal, it is achievable. I believe somewhere inside me that if I just had pure enough, good enough energy and the right technique, I could make something perfect happen. The more you draw attention to how much that's not going to happen because of xyz, the more I want you to shut up so I can focus. I confess to this for myself.
Makes sense. I realise Fi-Ne can sound like a bunch of negative, party poopers. This comes back to the tendency to react more to the negative (eg. disagreeing) than the positive.

BS-ing FiNe insights -- that we act like they don't exist -- it's not that they don't exist. It's that they don't matter. That it's a waste of energy to land there and fixate on that point, because it takes you nowhere. This is my experience of it. (when there is conflict -- not all the time) (example deleted)
...in your opinion. I disagree. :)
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Being painfully honest, PB, I see you as desperately wanting to be liked. I feel you wanting attention and approval more than anything. I feel that a lot with INFP -- that it wants approval more than anything else. Ok -- taking that a step further, and I'm walking on thin ice, I know, but wth, I can swim -- needing approval a priori puts you one down. Do you see that? If you're waiting for me to see you as equal, you've already put yourself one down to me.
Hmmm. Could you explain what you're getting at here? I fear replying without some elaboration.

I'm glad to see you being direct, though. It helps.

Also -- again, I'm cringing because this is brutally honest -- I'm not in the least interested in seeing things as you do. It's not adaptive for me. Just as you find my process objectionable and not adaptive for you -- you prefer your own process.
Is this because putting yourself in others' shoes too much pollutes your process, making it harder for your perception to function effectively?

Sometimes you ask process questions, though, and instead of it being about the process, i.e., where did I go wrong, it seems like you don't really want to hear where you went wrong. You want to hear where you were misjudged in your intent. Or where you understandably didn't adequately process the information that was given to you. Or, in general, that you are ok. That's a different question than "What did i do wrong?" Your question (it seems to me) turns out to actually be "Why did I not experience validation?"
Interesting that you see it that way. This is very meta INFP issue territory so I'm not sure how well I can explain or understand this - in other words I'm still processing so I might not get this totally spot on.

You're right, we don't like to ask "where did I go wrong?" - well I don't anyway. To me that's a Fe question; something you guys say when you're trying to work through Judging issues externally. I don't look down on that question or people who ask it, I just don't tend to ask it myself. That is not to say that I never consider that I might be wrong; I just think that perhaps it's difficult for me to totally submit to another person's perspective and have complete faith that they'll guide me in the right direction. I'm more than willing to listen to their perspectives, advice and arguments, then input that data into my Si and consider whether it's useful/applicable/whatever, but I struggle to put myself in their hands. It feels a lot like handing over the steering wheel to another person, and that's scary for me. I don't mind having people suggest where I should drive but I don't want to be told and I want to be the one in the drivers seat. This may sound weird and controlling, but in my mind, if I let go of the wheel the car will crash; I have this strange child-like sense that if I'm not driving the car, no one is. And while I know that the other person is competent enough to drive, in my heart I struggle to believe it. I suppose to Fe, it looks like a form of arrogance (no one else can be trusted to drive - which implies to you that I think I'm the best driver - yes?), but really it's fear of losing authority over my own mind. It's not that I necessarily think Fe is trying to control me; I just worry about the helpless and unknown path of being a passenger.

Does this make any sense? Is it even what you're talking about?

Ok, yes, Standuble, that's exactly what I see as well. "I am an SO and an INFP and I therefore have standing to believe I am good with people, so why did this interaction not go well?" with the intended meaning actually being "My ego is hurt. Please tell me that I did it right and this person just responded badly."

and this is what INFJ means as white noise. What you ask for is not really what you want. Believe it or not, if we know what you want, we will likely be very happy to give it to you on a platter with a complimentary glass of champagne. But if we think you're trying to trick it out of us, we balk. Or if we receive the impression you want ego strokes when you say you want to have an intellectual discussion about a point. This to us is a mixed message, and we'll usually go for the objective part of it and "attack" the behavior, because that's the observable part of it. To which INFP objects "but I meant ...." and we'll say "but you said ..." and then after a few rounds of this, we want you to stop talking, because we're not getting the meaning out of what you say -- the words are all in the way.

It goes the other way 'round, too. INFJ says "Stop doing x thing. It's driving me crazy." INFP hears "Something about x drives her crazy. I'm pretty sure she doesn't mean literally x thing, because I didn't intend any harm by x thing," and keeps on doing x until INFJ explodes in a rage, whereupon INFP retreats in confusion. It's only after repeated requests from INFJ, "Please no more X thing, and when I say X thing, I mean exactly X thing" that INFP finally gets that X thing = no good in INFJ land. Whereupon INFJ is accused of being judgmental, harsh, etc.

Dunno, that's what I see.
I want to reply in depth to this but I think it might relate in part to what I said above. It would help if this argument was restated with that in mind (if I'm on the right track). Sorry, I'm trying to piece this together.

I don't think ego is involved (not significantly, anyway). I think it is that INFP response to the negative (ie. things aren't gelling right) and needing to shift that closer to the positive (eg. clarity or agreement). Believe it or not, disharmony bothers us as a concept, not because we need to be humoured and told everything is OK.
 

Tiltyred

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
4,322
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
468
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
That was as clear as I know how to be. I don't know how to explain it more.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
You're right, we don't like to ask "where did I go wrong?" - well I don't anyway. To me that's a Fe question; something you guys say when you're trying to work through Judging issues externally. I don't look down on that question or people who ask it, I just don't tend to ask it myself. That is not to say that I never consider that I might be wrong; I just think that perhaps it's difficult for me to totally submit to another person's perspective and have complete faith that they'll guide me in the right direction. I'm more than willing to listen to their perspectives, advice and arguments, then input that data into my Si and consider whether it's useful/applicable/whatever, but I struggle to put myself in their hands. It feels a lot like handing over the steering wheel to another person, and that's scary for me. I don't mind having people suggest where I should drive but I don't want to be told and I want to be the one in the drivers seat. This may sound weird and controlling, but in my mind, if I let go of the wheel the car will crash; I have this strange child-like sense that if I'm not driving the car, no one is. And while I know that the other person is competent enough to drive, in my heart I struggle to believe it. I suppose to Fe, it looks like a form of arrogance (no one else can be trusted to drive - which implies to you that I think I'm the best driver - yes?), but really it's fear of losing authority over my own mind. It's not that I necessarily think Fe is trying to control me; I just worry about the helpless and unknown path of being a passenger.

Fascinatingly, this is exactly how [MENTION=7111]fidelia[/MENTION] reacted to this metaphor when I once asked if she would let go of the wheel for a bit.

There are a lot of similarities I've noted in this thread, just in a different purview for each type. Very interesting stuff.

Believe it or not, disharmony bothers us as a concept, not because we need to be humoured and told everything is OK.

Agreed.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
...in your opinion. I disagree.

And from my vantage point Tilty's saying she doesn't mind if you agree or not.

She's ok not understanding your pov or the INFP pov in general.

Can we be ok with that? Can we accept that?

What I am hearing is that if INFJ's understand what we need, they would be happy to provide that - under reasonable conditions that we approach from the perspective they feel is the most indicative of goodwill. That's about as good as this is going to get I think. The Fi position is just not one that INFJ's are wired to see, appreciate, or 'get' very easily. And that's ok. I can be ok with that.

The question "INFP's, what do INFJ's do that drives you nuts" - the answer - "You choose to dictate the terms of our interaction." So, the question ultimately comes down to choice - do we choose to interact or not?

choice.jpg
 

Ivy

Strongly Ambivalent
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
23,989
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6
Although this thread's topic has morphed more than the models in the end of the Michael Jackson "Black or White" video, some recent posts have been moved to OT posts. There have been two previous in-thread warnings to mind the level of civility in here. This makes three. Please, don't disregard these warnings. Typically we would close the thread or start banning people from the thread if the first warning was not heeded, but I think this thread has had some of the best discussion on the forum right now and for the most part, the lows haven't been that low (in terms of violating the forum's actual guidelines, that is- they have definitely stirred up some powerful negative feelings, but stirring up powerful negative feelings is not against the rules here).

This is the last in-thread warning that will be posted. If you have no chance of engaging constructively with a certain poster, just don't engage with that poster, especially if you have been specifically asked not to by a mod or admin. There is no "but I was really mad!" exception to the forum's rules about insults and personal attacks.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Fascinatingly, this is exactly how fidelia reacted to this metaphor when I once asked if she would let go of the wheel for a bit.

There are a lot of similarities I've noted in this thread, just in a different purview for each type. Very interesting stuff.
Maybe there's a Ni version of my Fi reaction. Like what I said about INFJs struggling to put themselves in other people's shoes because it pollutes their thinking process - perhaps? :thinking:
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
And from my vantage point Tilty's saying she doesn't mind if you agree or not.

She's ok not understanding your pov or the INFP pov in general.

Can we be ok with that? Can we accept that?

What I am hearing is that if INFJ's understand what we need, they would be happy to provide, under conditions that we approach from the perspective they feel is the most indicative of goodwill. That's about as good as this is going to get I think. The Fi position is just not one that INFJ's are wired to see, appreciate, or 'get' very easily. And that's ok. I can be ok with that.

The question "INFP's, what do INFJ's do that drives you nuts" - the answer - "You choose to dictate the terms of our interaction." So, the question ultimately comes down to choice - do we choose to interact or not?

View attachment 8885
I don't know. It's pretty hard to accept. :unsure:

I tend to expect a lot of people out there will dismiss my thoughts/feelings/ideas as dull, insignificant or just plain nonsense. I suppose I kind of hold out that a INFJ, being fundamentally similar and pretty empathetic, would at least try to understand. Too often I feel like the INFPs are viewed in MBTI circles as the INFJs' poor cousin, or idiot brother. The fact that the INFJs, being one of the types in a better position to understand us, would feel that way too, is pretty shattering.

Again with the disillusionment... :(
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
I don't know. It's pretty hard to accept. :unsure:

I know.

I tend to expect a lot of people out there will dismiss my thoughts/feelings/ideas as dull, insignificant or just plain nonsense. I suppose I kind of hold out that a INFJ, being fundamentally similar and pretty empathetic, would at least try to understand. Too often I feel like the INFPs are viewed in MBTI circles as the INFJs' poor cousin, or idiot brother. The fact that the INFJs, being one of the types in a better position to understand us, would feel that way too, is pretty shattering.

I know, I get the feeling like it should 'work out' too. Probably one-to-one is simply the best answer. Some of this stuff remains unsaid, but the connection and affection can still be of great value in our lives.

Again with the disillusionment... :(

:hug:
 

Tiltyred

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
4,322
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
468
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I work with NTs. I'm thoroughly used to it. :D
 

Fidelia

Iron Maiden
Staff member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
14,497
MBTI Type
INFJ
I don't know what I think yet about that...

I guess, yes, I would agree with PeaceBaby, that I absolutely will dictate the terms of interaction, as I would also expect others to do as well. If we agree about how to interact, then we'll interact. If we don't, then we won't. They have exactly the same right as me to decide that they don't like the terms of interaction and choose not to engage. I think this is one of the reasons why I find it so difficult to interact with larger groups of people. I'm trying to figure out what all of them are hoping to get out of the conversation, how to address those needs best and decide if I can work with it. What if I arrive at the conclusion that I can with some and not with others? Then that means that I'm being unkind or excluding some people, when it is really just that I don't see how it can turn out well, or else I just have to water it down to something that is non-offensive to anyone (and therefore not all that stimulating).

Hence the reason that you see a lot of INFJs just withdrawing - they don't feel that they have the right to impose on the people around them any more than someone else can on them, so they just decide that if the negative interaction isn't going to yield benefits which outweigh the drawbacks, they'd rather save everyone some trouble by avoiding it. I don't think it's a fear of conflict, so much as an outlook about rules of engagement. I tend to overassume that everyone's views are unchangeable. As Tilty said earlier, I generally don't voice something until I feel fairly attached to it. I may be willing to rethink, given some time, but it won't happen immediately.

I didn't consider before that the "where did I go wrong" idea was necessarily an invitation to let the other person take over. Usually that is the fundamental question that I want to answer for myself (as I am focussed on the goal I am heading towards and how I got lost on the way). I would see it a bit like finding knowledgeable people who know their way around a place that I am uncertain of (hence my filtering for credibility) and then getting advice from more than one of those people about where I took a wrong turn. Of course, that is completely dependent on them knowing and agreeing on where I want to ultimately end up. That doesn't necessarily mean I'll just take one person's word at face value, or even that I am conducting a poll. More like accessing expertise that I don't have access to, and then making an informed choice about what I want to do with the information. I would still reserve the right to decide what decision I will make.

If that does feel like surrendering control to you guys, that's something that's really helpful for me to know. I know I have reacted negatively to someone offering to "guide" me, when I hadn't picked them for the job and if that's what it feels like I'm doing, I want to be aware of that!

I guess I should confess that I want to understand what you guys see differently from me, not so much as a way of validating individuals, or sharing an experience, as to create generalized rules for myself of interaction that will best accomplish everyone's aims in interacting with each other and so that I do not offend needlessly. I also want to add that knowledge to the structure that I am creating in my head of how things work, as it creates a sense of both satisfaction and security to know how the pieces fit into a larger whole.

Perhaps maybe this seems a little cold and impersonal. Maybe even mercenary? It feels like there's a layer of warmth with it too though, as that is what I want people to do for me. The best compliment they can pay me is taking time to understand what makes me tick and file the information away for when it is needed.

There is a bunch to this yet that I think is worth considering, but I haven't gotten it completely thought out myself yet. Lots of other stuff in the thread that I would like to respond to as well...

I will tell you that I don't see INFPs at all as INFJs' poor cousin/idiot brother etc. I have dated an INFP and been very close friends over a period of years with another. While we are wildly different in some respects, they have strengths that I do not have and truly admire.

I've found this thread some of the most interesting, real discussion that I've seen on here in a long time and I think at the end of it, I will come away with several points that help inform my perspective courtesy of you folks being willing to help out in the way you have.
 
Last edited:

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
I'm trying to figure out what all of them are hoping to get out of the conversation, how to address those needs best and decide if I can work with it.

A quick question: Does it strike you that some people aren't looking to 'get' anything out of the conversation? Can you sense when there is no goal? How does that affect your interaction?
 

Fidelia

Iron Maiden
Staff member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
14,497
MBTI Type
INFJ
Even when that's the case, there's still something. I mean, even if they have no goal, then that in itself informs how I interact with them. It usually is still centred around sharing something, understanding someone better, feeling in need of company, or any variety of other things.

But yeah, I understand that you are wired to think of it in very different terms than me and having a reason for having the conversation seems a little foreign of a way to think of it. Still, if you want to understand why or why not I engage in conversation with someone, this idea is really central to understanding that.

If I feel unsure of myself in a new setting, but can see that there is someone who has a need that supersedes that, I will take initiative in approaching them. In a group where I have little in common with the other people and where one on one conversation isn't really possible, it takes me longer to figure out how to engage with them and I often just observe for quite awhile first. The more complicated it is to figure out what motivates the person or people to engage, the more observing and thinking I have to do (and then there's that whole delayed processing thing as well to know what to do with the information). I hate that about myself, as it often leads to misperceptions about me and it also looks a bit socially awkward, but I don't know how to change it. I've also found that if someone seems to be doing okay in a social environment, I'm less likely to take initiative to approach them. That is something I've been working to correct, as often I've missed out on friendships just because I wasn't willing to take a chance first.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Yes, I realise that they are more generally present in Ni doms. I think there is a Fe spin on it though (which I couldn't define) that makes it slightly different.
Yeah, there's Fe-spin in there, in that the Ni-twists of reasoning are in the domain of values/emotion instead of the domain of things and analysis.

Interesting, I never thought of Ni-Se in general appearing circular. Tautological is a new word to me but I see what you're getting at. In a way, Ne-Si is more of a spiral - we circle an indirectly perceived truth/principle (Ti/Fi), getting just a little closer each time. The idea is to get as close as possible to that core and perhaps fully grasp it (if that's in fact possible). I can see why this would irritate Ni-Se because it seems like time wasting, when we could just make a direct leap. I grasp Truths through refining and distilling ideas, whereas the INFJs seem to grasp it through revelation (?). I don't really have "Aha moments" like Ni-users. My version of it is simply a sudden swing in the spiral towards the core Truth - it doesn't solve all the issues involved, it just clarifies things a little and gets me a little closer.
That's a good description of the Ne approach. The Ni approach isn't revelation so much as immediately perceiving a truth as being obvious. To debate the truth feels as absurd to Ni as debating whether a red apple is red. "The apple is red, isn't it obvious? Why are we even debating whether the apple is red?" Ne instead notes that the apple isn't completely red, and points out that its insides are white, with black things, and even the skin has speckles of various non-red colors.

What do you mean by this? Can you elaborate?
Fe vs Fi is an easier barrier to cross than Ne vs Ni. Ne and Ni see different things, but Fe and Fi merely start reasoning from different places. Fe and Fi eventually meet in the middle with very similar conclusions, but if it's Fi-Ne vs Ni-Fe, they will disagree about WHY those conclusions are true, and that means they'll have a hard time arriving at the common ground.

Interesting. Yes, I think I have vaguely had a sense of that going on beneath, but I do imagine a Ni and Te user would recognise it better. This is in part what I meant about the circularity defence. It seems like when they feel under threat, there can be a walling up and they simply work with what data they have already imbibed. It's like they sense a siege is coming and (real) progress is halted. They close the drawbridge to the castle and then work with what resources they have stored up to defend themselves.

And THIS is why the Ni/Se vs Ne/Si divide is the most difficult barrier to cross. Ne complains that Ni is all walled off and defensive, even as Ni keeps shouting, "Why are you banging on my wall?! The door is over here!" Ni's door is often invisible to Ne, and vice versa.

BS-ing FiNe insights -- that we act like they don't exist -- it's not that they don't exist. It's that they don't matter. That it's a waste of energy to land there and fixate on that point, because it takes you nowhere. This is my experience of it. (when there is conflict -- not all the time) (example deleted)

...in your opinion. I disagree. :)

This is Ni vs Ne; I run into the same issue with INTPs. There was a specific question, with specific conditions in specific circumstances, and I answered it (correctly, as completely as was required by those same circumstances). The INTP will inevitably say, "I don't think that's completely true," and either start poking holes in my answer (if the INTP is in a bad mood) or start asking exploratory questions to find out the "complete truth" (if in a friendly mood). It's like the apple example I used above. It's "true enough" that the apple is red, it's not worth arguing about, but Ne will want to explore/argue the concept of "redness" even as Ni regards it as a total waste of time.

What's going on is that each side sees different things when looking at the same problem. Using the red apple example, the Ni context might be answering the question, "What apple should I get for John?" and the answer is "That red apple." There are several unstated aspects to this context. Ni knows what kinds of apples John likes (Gala apples, though Ni can't always seem to remember the name). Right here and now (Se), there is a limited set of apples on display, some of which are red, and others are green, yellow, etc. Each of these apples is of a particular variety (Granny Smith, Red Delicious, Fiji, Gala, etc.). So Ni picks "That Red apple" (which also happens to be a Gala apple) for John, because Ni knows that's the best choice of the bunch, saying, "I think I'll get this red apple for John. He likes those red apples." ["those red apples" meaning the particular Gala kind of apple, for which Ni doesn't remember the word.]

At this point, Ne replies, "That apple isn't exactly red."

:huh:

:doh:

Now let's look at this from the Ne side. Ne saw Ni "jump to a conclusion" (answer an internal question, then declare the result out loud). Ne sees that red apple, and all the other apples, so many of which are far more red than the apple Ni chose, and, you know, if we want to the farmer's market on Saturday, they'd probably have even redder apples that probably even taste better, too. Of course, if you waited until late October, then you'd get some of the best and reddest apples of all. (Or if in a bad mood, Ne would just complain about Ni "obstinately" insisting that the apple is red when it really isn't.)

Is the Ne version worthy of discussion? Of course, but the topic Ne sees and wants to discuss is invisible to Ni at the moment. The topic (and set of circumstances) Ni thinks is under discussion is invisible to Ne. These pieces need to be explicitly stated by both sides in order for communication to work. The reason I can have these kinds of issues with INTPs is that it can take what feels like a game of 20 questions before we realize that we were talking about different things. In the Ne/Ni apple discussion, the purity of the redness of the apple was never a matter for consideration, it was just a hand-wavy identifier.

So when an Ni dom says your point doesn't matter, it is most likely 100% true, given the time/space constraints the Ni dom currently has under consideration. If you believe your topic is very important, or being too quickly dismissed, you are likely using a context very different than what the Ni dom is using. Yes, it is very important in the bigger scheme of things that "1+1=2, 2+1=3, ... " forming the set of counting numbers, and that tangentially relates to what I'm talking about, but right now I'm just counting avocados, thanks.

I don't know. It's pretty hard to accept. :unsure:

I tend to expect a lot of people out there will dismiss my thoughts/feelings/ideas as dull, insignificant or just plain nonsense. I suppose I kind of hold out that a INFJ, being fundamentally similar and pretty empathetic, would at least try to understand. Too often I feel like the INFPs are viewed in MBTI circles as the INFJs' poor cousin, or idiot brother. The fact that the INFJs, being one of the types in a better position to understand us, would feel that way too, is pretty shattering.

Again with the disillusionment... :(

Yeah, I know. It feels like you're showing something that it quite interesting/fascinating, only to have it categorically dismissed. The problem is that often times it's fascinating because of "how" you are looking at it, and it's difficult to communicate that "how." The trick is learning how to communicate the "how" (the context) along with everything else. And, in turn, how to listen for contexts that others use that you don't happen to prefer.


...



TL;DR - Always give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Their "unreasonableness" is most likely a result of mismatched contexts.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Fe issues. The main difference between Fe and Fi is object vs subject. When dealing with the object, there is only object to be shared in common, so the notion of everyone having their own object, or everyone legitimately seeing the object differently is nonsense. In the case of the subject, each has their own, so the notion of multiple points of view is self-evident. I believe this is an easier barrier to cross, though it's more touchy than the Te/Ti version, especially if participants are easily offended.

I don’t think it’s a matter of it being ‘nonsense’ so much as there are degrees of objectivity/subjectivity and the extent to which something is subjective (legitimate, just- also subjective) is the extent to which I don’t particularly have a right to impose it on others as Truth. It’s okay if someone else’s ‘truth’ sounds like nonsense to me, just as my own personal ‘truth’ may sound like nonsense to them, that isn’t to say it is nonsense- that’s just to say I can’t personally make sense of theirs and/or they don’t understand mine. Much like Tilty has already said- I don’t need my own personal ‘truth’ validated except by those close to me and I do think this is something that INFJs seem to be able to take for granted, just knowing that we’re all already on equal ground and entitled to our own take on reality. We just seem more resilient somehow. Something that I find difficult to understand- apparently if this isn’t overtly acknowledged, Fi’ers default to thinking the other person is trying to devour their immortal soul dictate One Truth For All? Or…..something? It’s difficult to get a grasp on- yet I do vaguely understand it because I feel easily drowned out by an overzealous Te’er.

Anyway, I think I can speak for most INFJs when I say ‘legitimately seeing the object differently’ isn’t nonsense to us, that of course individuals see the object differently and everyone is entitled to their own vision (NF ego is NF, after all- and personally I think instinct variant speaks more to focus on ‘individual’ than Fi/Fe). I’ve felt alienated for seeing my own version of the ‘object’ for as long as I can remember. It’s just that INFJs don’t work through the immediate details aloud as they surface, and external freedom (to immediately express/act) isn’t as important as internal freedom (to scheme up improvements on what’s there, for the future, there needs to be a relativey smooth/harmonious external environment for Pi to thrive). And I don’t know, what I consider my own way of seeing the object differently- it’s more private somehow, if even only because it’s more vague and more internal.

It's not always a power play from the Fe/Te PoV, though it can be. A Te-dom of my acquaintance would often argue with me about various contentious issues. We'd argue, eventually get down to brass tacks, and he'd note, "Oh, you're assuming that X is true, while I'm assuming Y is true. OK, that makes sense," and the argument would be over. Remember that for Te and Fe, the argument is over an object OUTSIDE of ourselves. I might be pointing at A, and he's pointing at B, but that doesn't mean my ego is attached to A or his is attached to B. A and B are just starting points.

I suspect it FEELS more like a power play to Fi/Ti, however. Subjective ideas tend to have a lot of ego attached, and Ti and Fi types tend to push back VERY HARD if you approach too close. The picture in my head is of a nice but curious doggy (Je) sniffing at a cat (Fi) and the cat clawing at the doggy's nose just because the doggy got too close. The doggies don't mind each other a bit, though, and they'll bark loudly at each other and sniff at each others' butts until they're both happy.

I reckon this is why INFJs can take for granted that it’s equal ground without needing it explicitly acknowledged. It doesn’t feel as personal in the first place.

And yes, sometimes it is just a Je’er feeling entitled to impose their own judgment on their external environment, needing to ‘alpha’ whatever to soothe their ego (?)- but a lot of times it’s just not being able to bend right away. I don’t consider Pi tunnel vision to be the same thing as ‘needing to be Right’, necessarily. I can see how it might look that way to someone who can change their focus on a dime- but there’s something about this “Je is always RIGHT” assertion, [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION], that’s very peculiar to me. It’s inserting way too much intention into it. It’s more clumsiness than it is intention. Kinda like how I described the way ‘raw batter’ can seem to introverted perceivers- inserting ‘intention’ into the consequence of being Pe (‘playing stupid’ or sounding ‘me me’)….it can seem like someone is intentionally omitting someone else’s viewpoint and trying to push their own as the ‘shared story’ because it’s so hard to imagine it not being ‘obvious’. But Je and Pe can both just be really clumsy.




eta: okay, uumlau's post above this one actually hits on points I was trying to make much better than I did. That's some mighty fine mbti kung fu, uumlau.
 
G

Glycerine

Guest
TL;DR - Always give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Their "unreasonableness" is most likely a result of mismatched contexts.

^ I know this is an gross oversimplificaton but from what I gathered over the years on the forum and such, Ne's essential question would be "How?" and Ni's essential question is "Why?". It seems that both sides tend to find the others' essential question irrelevant to the "big picture".
 

Fidelia

Iron Maiden
Staff member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
14,497
MBTI Type
INFJ
Yeah, there's Fe-spin in there, in that the Ni-twists of reasoning are in the domain of values/emotion instead of the domain of things and analysis.


That's a good description of the Ne approach. The Ni approach isn't revelation so much as immediately perceiving a truth as being obvious. To debate the truth feels as absurd to Ni as debating whether a red apple is red. "The apple is red, isn't it obvious? Why are we even debating whether the apple is red?" Ne instead notes that the apple isn't completely red, and points out that its insides are white, with black things, and even the skin has speckles of various non-red colors.


Fe vs Fi is an easier barrier to cross than Ne vs Ni. Ne and Ni see different things, but Fe and Fi merely start reasoning from different places. Fe and Fi eventually meet in the middle with very similar conclusions, but if it's Fi-Ne vs Ni-Fe, they will disagree about WHY those conclusions are true, and that means they'll have a hard time arriving at the common ground.



And THIS is why the Ni/Se vs Ne/Si divide is the most difficult barrier to cross. Ne complains that Ni is all walled off and defensive, even as Ni keeps shouting, "Why are you banging on my wall?! The door is over here!" Ni's door is often invisible to Ne, and vice versa.





This is Ni vs Ne; I run into the same issue with INTPs. There was a specific question, with specific conditions in specific circumstances, and I answered it (correctly, as completely as was required by those same circumstances). The INTP will inevitably say, "I don't think that's completely true," and either start poking holes in my answer (if the INTP is in a bad mood) or start asking exploratory questions to find out the "complete truth" (if in a friendly mood). It's like the apple example I used above. It's "true enough" that the apple is red, it's not worth arguing about, but Ne will want to explore/argue the concept of "redness" even as Ni regards it as a total waste of time.

What's going on is that each side sees different things when looking at the same problem. Using the red apple example, the Ni context might be answering the question, "What apple should I get for John?" and the answer is "That red apple." There are several unstated aspects to this context. Ni knows what kinds of apples John likes (Gala apples, though Ni can't always seem to remember the name). Right here and now (Se), there is a limited set of apples on display, some of which are red, and others are green, yellow, etc. Each of these apples is of a particular variety (Granny Smith, Red Delicious, Fiji, Gala, etc.). So Ni picks "That Red apple" (which also happens to be a Gala apple) for John, because Ni knows that's the best choice of the bunch, saying, "I think I'll get this red apple for John. He likes those red apples." ["those red apples" meaning the particular Gala kind of apple, for which Ni doesn't remember the word.]

At this point, Ne replies, "That apple isn't exactly red."

:huh:

:doh:

Now let's look at this from the Ne side. Ne saw Ni "jump to a conclusion" (answer an internal question, then declare the result out loud). Ne sees that red apple, and all the other apples, so many of which are far more red than the apple Ni chose, and, you know, if we want to the farmer's market on Saturday, they'd probably have even redder apples that probably even taste better, too. Of course, if you waited until late October, then you'd get some of the best and reddest apples of all. (Or if in a bad mood, Ne would just complain about Ni "obstinately" insisting that the apple is red when it really isn't.)

Is the Ne version worthy of discussion? Of course, but the topic Ne sees and wants to discuss is invisible to Ni at the moment. The topic (and set of circumstances) Ni thinks is under discussion is invisible to Ne. These pieces need to be explicitly stated by both sides in order for communication to work. The reason I can have these kinds of issues with INTPs is that it can take what feels like a game of 20 questions before we realize that we were talking about different things. In the Ne/Ni apple discussion, the purity of the redness of the apple was never a matter for consideration, it was just a hand-wavy identifier.

So when an Ni dom says your point doesn't matter, it is most likely 100% true, given the time/space constraints the Ni dom currently has under consideration. If you believe your topic is very important, or being too quickly dismissed, you are likely using a context very different than what the Ni dom is using. Yes, it is very important in the bigger scheme of things that "1+1=2, 2+1=3, ... " forming the set of counting numbers, and that tangentially relates to what I'm talking about, but right now I'm just counting avocados, thanks.



Yeah, I know. It feels like you're showing something that it quite interesting/fascinating, only to have it categorically dismissed. The problem is that often times it's fascinating because of "how" you are looking at it, and it's difficult to communicate that "how." The trick is learning how to communicate the "how" (the context) along with everything else. And, in turn, how to listen for contexts that others use that you don't happen to prefer.


...



TL;DR - Always give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Their "unreasonableness" is most likely a result of mismatched contexts.

There's a bunch of really good stuff in here. I think for me, the issue is knowing exactly where we are seeing different things and knowing what questions to ask to find out what it is that the other person is seeing. Do you see any shortcut to getting to the place where you can more easily recognize that or is it largely a trial and error process? Do you think there are any generalizable principles that can streamline the process once you have done it with one person of that type, or are there so many variables that it has to happen separate for each individual in each circumstance as it comes up?
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
^ I know this is an gross oversimplificaton but from what I gathered over the years on the forum, Ne's essential question would be "How?" and Ni's essential question is "Why?". It seems that both sides tend to find the others' essential question irrelevant to the "big picture".
Not "irrelevant". It just isn't the first thing on one's mind.

I start off building a "why" framework. Once I have "why", then "how" becomes "obvious specific instances." "How" is still a very useful question to answer, but I can't answer it without the "why" piece.

Ne does the opposite, starting off building a "how" framework. Once "how" is fully understood, then "why" becomes "obvious implications" of the how. Ne can't answer the "why" until the "how" is understood.

[Please note that I'm using your word choice. Replace "why" with "the Ni question" and "how" with "the Ne question" to get closer to the truth.]

There's a bunch of really good stuff in here. I think for me, the issue is knowing exactly where we are seeing different things and knowing what questions to ask to find out what it is that the other person is seeing. Do you see any shortcut to getting to the place where you can more easily recognize that or is it largely a trial and error process? Do you think there are any generalizable principles that can streamline the process once you have done it with one person of that type, or are there so many variables that it has to happen separate for each individual in each circumstance as it comes up?

For the most part, I find that it's trial and error. The main thing we can do is make the trial and error piece be less painful and take less time. I had a post here a week or so back in this thread that went into lots of detail on this. The main thing is to learn how to "hear" the opposite perspective, and to answer it in its own terms. For INFJs, this means not stating things declaratively, and be more explicit about your internal reasoning. For INFPs, this means developing a thicker skin and learning to state things more declaratively.
 
S

Society

Guest
I absolutely will dictate the terms of interaction, as I would also expect others to do as well. If we agree about how to interact, then we'll interact. If we don't, then we won't. They have exactly the same right as me to decide that they don't like the terms of interaction and choose not to engage.

ok, holding to the benefit of my doubt like it's a precious stone, in which others may or may not see value, that is their own choice to make, but i'm compelled to give the opportunity either way:

normally, if i see a post goes to the black/white generalization of rights in a discussion assessing the consequences and meanings of interactions within those right, i would conclude that this is the act of boxing all the actions within a box in which we see an intrinsic right, and thus shows and an unwillingness to look or address the various objects within that box.
for example, if - in a thread about various forms of physical violence - someone decided to explain that they have every right to move their body as they see fit, and that the same freedom of physical motion and that they expect the same from others, i would perceive it as an unwillingness to address the various forms of physical motions which have being expressed as harmful to others. likewise for verbal violence and freedom of speech.

instead of letting myself go with that, i am going to ask: what do you mean by this? is that box a nicer re-framing of "everything is either my way or the highway", or is there's something more too it, perhaps something i am missing altogether?
 
Top