User Tag List

Page 49 of 95 FirstFirst ... 39474849505159 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 941

Thread: INFPs, what do INFJs do that drives you nuts?

  1. #481
    wants Mifune clone minion Array Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    5w4 sx/sp


    Quote Originally Posted by sorenx7 View Post
    The Waste Land

    T. S. Eliot

    Nam Sibyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: Sibylla ti theleis; respondebat illa: apothanein thelo.

    [I have seen with my own eyes the Sibyl hanging in a jar, and when the boys asked her “What do you want?” She answered, “I want to die.”]

    The effect of this thread on me and probably many others by this point.

    We should probably stop MAKING you follow it then. Apologies for having been doing that.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  2. #482
    FRACTALICIOUS Array phobik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by Tiltyred View Post
    *wishes for a Like Bury button*
    To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
    ~ Elbert Hubbard

    Music provides one of the clearest examples of a much deeper relation between mathematics and human experience.

  3. #483
    Senior Member Array Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    468 sx/sp


    Nice edit.

  4. #484
    thankful Array PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    937 so/sx


    Quote Originally Posted by Eilonwy View Post
    I did want to say that this disconnect in communication between the groups is why the INFJs have been saying that it has SEEMED that it was okay with the INFPs for OA to act a certain way and say certain things in a certain tone of voice, but it didn't SEEM to be okay for the INFJs to act the same way or say the same things in the same tone of voice. In other words, it SEEMED to be okay for OA to hurt our feelings, but not for us to hurt hers, and not for us to even say that it was possible that she might have hurt our feelings.
    I don't think it's ok for anyone to deliberately hurt another person's feelings, no. And it would have been totally ok for you to say it out plain that your feelings were hurt. I think I can collectively speak for most INFP's to say we care very deeply about others and don't want to cause anyone's suffering. In this thread, I played the role of harmonizer to explain some of the language and tone along the way, hoping to minimize emotional impact and keep the discussion MOL flowing. Why did I do that? I followed my "real life" pattern, which is to try to keep the peace and acknowledge people's feelings along the way. I stayed more on the INFP side of the fence because 1.) I am that type and 2.) being that type enables me to try to translate or explain the message from that perspective. For me to try to go back and forth - well, I didn't in this thread, I tried to maintain a middle ground.

    The premise of the thread permitted a power imbalance, with INFP's on the offense and INFJ's on the defense. I would venture to guess that most INFP's feel on the defensive in a conflict interaction with any strong Te or Fe user. So I didn't want to disturb that either, it's not naturally where we find ourselves. It was an interesting premise to explore, and it was initiated by an INFJ which appeared to offer permission to be "open".

    Regardless, with that said, I can totally see what your points are and can see why it was hard to bypass the stuff that seemed nasty and pointed. At first, I wasn't 100% sure if it was tone or words or emotions or the combo effect that was pressing INFJ buttons. Or if it was also because people saw it coming from OA and that history followed her into this thread. But I do understand more clearly now WHY all of that is hard for INFJ's to bypass. I appreciate everything that's been shared, as it has enriched my understanding.

    To try to explain a wee bit more about tone or insults, as I mentioned in a post to fidelia, when I look at a person's post I seem to naturally auto-filter out most of the personal bias. Not just INFP bias, but in the posts of others too, as it's everywhere. I feel like I still "get" the main points someone is trying to convey despite being combined with what looks like screed or overblown with rhetoric. I don't know if that's an INFP thing or an e9 thing or a just-me thing or all 3 together. But I think it's an Fi trait to a certain degree. So, the reason why that's important is that such items may not register as an offense for INFP's when seems to for INFJ's.

    The stuff that generally registers as offensive to us is an attack on the individual.

    When I write a post, I process stuff as I write it, not much before. It means that I often go back and re-edit posts even 10 or 20 times to try to filter out bias, negative emotions, what looks like ranting, reorganize thoughts and fix spelling errors or typos. But that's a lot of effort if you just want to sometimes plonk down some thoughts in a more natural way. I can appreciate that our way is sometimes "challenging" for others to process - I wish it wasn't, but it seems to be. I do feel like my writing loses some of the power and purity of my expression when I over-edit this way though. So I appreciate why some folks don't want to sanitize their natural voice. I try to support folks who want to use it and see where it goes. I don't know if it works well on the forum though, since there's a lack of all the other human communication factors - voice, eye contact, tone to impart sincerity and the intent of good faith.

    The issue is of course, some people will work hard to remain more impartial, and others, on both sides, will totally use their "outdoor voice" to share and that always has the potential to get messy. It has potential to go great places too, but not using "indoor voices" means that more people are going to get their feelings hurt and big headaches result from forum misunderstandings. The best threads can maintain a balance between the two.

    Here's a for hurt brains and hurt hearts everywhere!
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt

    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  5. #485
    It's always something... Array PuddleRiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by Tiltyred View Post
    *wishes for a Like button*
    Yeah, we need one of those. I like it too.
    "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay one invincible summer."
    A Christian's life may be the only Bible some people ever read.
    "The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them" Maya Angelou.
    I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ" Gandhi

  6. #486
    Away with the fairies Array Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    4w5 so/sp


    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    This is the point I was trying to make earlier. This is something Ni does internally- we compare contexts first, then apply our own judgment (which is *why* the processing is so slow), whereas Ne does this work aloud- focusing instead on applying introverted judgment to the isolated and immediate context and then bouncing the product of that off others. It can come across (at times) as hypocritical, like they are trying to propose some half-assed, self-serving resolution because putting forth raw theories without attempting to put it in context first is foreign to us; we *see* someone presenting raw batter and ‘trying to pass it off as cake’ because it’s so hard to imagine not ‘cooking’ things before saying them aloud.
    Nice analogy. This helps clarify it.

    I’m not quite sure how to reconcile this. I think on our end, at least part of this reconciliation means trying to remember that what looks like *playing stupid* (or ‘trying to enforce a really self-serving, short-sighted pov’) is actually just ‘presenting raw batter where we would be presenting finished cake’. Getting offended by it is, I believe, projecting a tendency to prioritize doing that work internally (I suspect seeing Fe’ers as ‘believing we are RIGHT’ is similarly about projecting a tendency to prioritize introverted judgment about an immediate/isolated context….and expecting us to be able to share brand new judgment immediately- which we can’t do because it isn’t our priority to investigate new judgment immediately.....eta: and the truth is rather that we've just put judgment completely on hold). So we can try to keep this in mind, but it really doesn’t make it any less taxing to be pummeled by someone needing to work through raw Pe aloud (especially overzealous Pe’ers).
    It seems like playing stupid? Wow. That's a really manipulative thing to do, and it's not something I want to come across as at all.

    Can you offer advice on presenting that "raw batter" in a way that's not seen as a finalised conclusion? I thought OA did that (in some places) and that I've been doing it too by offering disclaimers, but now I wonder if this is not the way to get it across to Pi users.

    Could you elaborate on what you said in brackets? It sounds like a pretty interesting insight but it's not something I've heard before. I don't think it deserves to be glossed over.

    eta: The thing is though, some Pe'ers really are just trying to relentlessly enforce a self-serving, short-sighted pov as 'the whole truth'.....just like some Je'ers really do believe they are RIGHT. How do people of the opposing team learn to tell the difference? I can generally tell with Je'ers- the difference between someone being slow on the uptake and someone being completely resistant to new information.....but with Pe, I have a hard time knowing.
    Oh, I've no doubt that happens. My old boss used to do it all the time and it was the most unfun thing in the world. I generally don't see it as subtle as the Pi version. It tends to be angry and outright accusatory. However, there can be an underhand version where they 'logic' you into believing you're the source of the problem. Sometimes it's only the bitter unease and dissatisfaction that you feel afterwards that can let on you've been manipulated. The latter version might be harder for Pi to pick up on and I'm not sure I would know how to explain how to spot it. I will admit that OA does appear to tread that line, but the fact that she still make some statements that show she's open to more than one version of the truth, makes me think she isn't attempting to manipulate. I would also expect to see more stonewalling.

    Anyway, it's a hell of a lot harder to pick this up in writing because tone of voice etc can really make the difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    Well, yes, I think that's definitely some of it.

    Maybe in the end it's a lot of it, and you're just using different words to convey the same idea. It's really more about a 'mismatch' in intention from my pov.. maybe it's the same as Z Buck's and fidelia's 'mixed signals' phrase used throughout this thread; like, it's frustrating to be told by a person that they're wanting to discuss theoreticals (thus bringing in a supposedly all-encompassing List), when that isn't really the case and they can't be neutral or fully able to discuss theory objectively because if they were neutral/objective they wouldn't have such a strong angst or complex with an entire type in the first place. I realize though that OA never claimed to be neutral/objective, but yeah, to echo some others there was a lot of bias already built up from past experiences. Same for Mane.
    See, "mixed signals" is so vague to me that it didn't really get through. It never occurred to me that INFJs need to categorise an issue in the form of "venting" or "objective discussion". I've heard the word "venting" thrown around a lot here before and was always confused by how much leeway INFJs (and perhaps FJs in general) seem to give a person in when they're in that mode. Now that I get that they're basically acknowledging that it's irrational discussion and that means we need to be relatively judgement free about it. It's Fe acting not unlike Ne, in realising the need to work through provisional things externally (again, I've heard that said before but never fully clicked). And I suppose equally, "objective" discussion means there can be judgement involved because it implies there are conclusions to address and that there aren't going to be any free passes handed out for irrationality.

    So any Ne-thoughts thrown out there are going to have a strong bias towards the already preconceived notions that they have. It's difficult on the receiving end to just take that and still continue to be 'objective' and logical, while also learning later on that part of their aim is very selfish in nature, in wanting to shift their own perceptions. The result is many of the things you're trying to discuss aren't even being framed in a purely logical light, they're very layered with emotion and that bias resulting from hurt as well, so it's a very bizarre situation to be placed in, to be discussing theory, whilst in the process also being prompted to 'prove', and so on, to heal someones' own wounds.
    Wow. It's surprising that you see it like that. It's rather troubling to me that it appears selfish.

    From our perspective Ne thoughts are only skewed by preconceived notions if the Si data isn't broad and varied enough. A perceived pattern can only be a hypothesis until it is can be confirmed by a vast range of information. Say you're standing on a Paris street and see two red cars go past one after the other. You don't want to leap to the conclusion that, "People in France tend to drive red cars". You might need to sit there all day and see a lot more cars go past before you want to even venture that statement. Proper use of Ne also requires a testing procedure, where we imagine hypotheticals or examine a particular individual experience (not necessarily our own) that might call into question the hypothesis. In other words, you might need to try different streets or suburbs in Paris and at different times of day to see if you can replicate it. You also need to go to other regions in France to see if the results are similar. We need to know that we can defeat, explain away or re-categorise the outliers in order to have confidence in the overall accuracy of the theory. You might, for example, notice that a lot of the people who live on the border with Germany drive blue cars. You might then have to go to Germany to see if they tend to drive blue cars as well. The outlier is then explained away as German influence on people in that region. That way you can still say "French people tend to drive red cars" but also that "Germans tend to drive blue cars". Of course this is not to say the hypothesis is always exactly right. Maybe you'll find most people drive red cars in Paris but not in the rest of France. Or maybe you might have been proven entirely wrong simply by sitting on that first street for 10 minutes more and seeing very few red cars. That's why we don't attach to much importance to that very early hypothesis because we don't know if we can stand behind it yet.

    The emotion can skew the data as you say. If I passionately hate both red cars and French people, I might be more inclined to believe that, "French people tend to drive red cars", without bothering to check if they actually do. This is why correct usage of Ne requires the Si testing phase, as that is how we can build up a 'rational' picture. Asking for data when I think my conclusion is perhaps irrational/skewed, is a call for your help - not a smug taunt like, "Ha! How about that? Just try and prove me wrong, sucker!". It is me admitting, "I think I may have got it wrong" or at least that I am not certain of the accuracy of my Ne hypothesis. It also demonstrates that I consider you a potentially valuable source of Si data; that I trust and/or respect your input. I'm not asking for you to heal my wounds; I'm inviting you to potentially set me straight. The thing is, the only way you can do so, is to provide alternative Si data or a convincing alternative reading (effectively Ne) of the existing data. This is not a demand that you do things my way; it is the only way my brain will really truly click. Otherwise, I just won't get it and that will sound like I'm not listening.

    Yeah, that may be a lot of it.
    A hell of a lot. If INFJs struggle to see how that would work, I wonder that they've ever believed or valued a single thing a INFP ever said! It may be one of the most central things to understanding how we think.

    We see emotions as signs, just like data are signs. The emotional sign doesn't necessarily have a complex conclusion attached to it. It might only be, "when that INFJ says ____, I feel hurt" - which is just a individual case of cause and effect to us. It's relatively meaningless: "I feel hurt" is no different to, "that car is red". It doesn't mean, "INFJs are hurtful" or that, "that when INFJs say ___, they intend to be hurtful". Say that sign becomes a regular occurrence among other INFJs you know and Fi+Si might start to draw inaccurate conclusions, like, "INFJs = hurt" or worse, "INFJs are hurtful". That's when it starts to become a problem. However, if Ne is working well, it functions as a fail safe for that. It asks for us to look past what seems obvious and think of other explanations. It says, "Maybe if you understand why the INFJs do it, it won't seem hurtful any more".

    I don't know if that's going to make you feel more confidence in INFP use of emotions. Maybe I haven't explained it well.
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

  7. #487
    i love Array skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    6w7 so/sx
    EII Ne


    I just want to reemphasize that the OP is essentially an invitation to share negative perspectives of INFJ actions with the goal of resolution and eventual harmony... at least the way I understand it, there should be an implicit underlying intention of goodwill towards INFJs assumed in any post that is made here, even if there is negative content.

  8. #488
    Senior Member Array fripping's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009


    this thread is a that is just way too hard to read. i really tried, i wanted to find a gem. there's just not enough venom.

  9. #489
    4x9 Array cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    4 so/sp


    @Southern Kross, you explained it very well. Thank you for taking the time to do that. It definitely makes sense. It seems then that the situation I do not handle well / know how to deal with is when an Ne user has become entrenched in a particular Si data-set, and then stays entrenched in that for years (btw, this statement isn't directed towards people in this thread , I'm actually recalling a few Ne users from my past).

    Something for me to think about. You present some good suggestions, so thank you.

    Edit: Also, it's curious... I think I tend to 'just listen', as I want to be supportive and figure they'll eventually figure it out/shift on their own, plus I don't want to push myself onto them or project myself onto them. But in a sense I'm still projecting, since I'm under the assumption they'll figure it out internally over time, and shift on their own. Because that's what I tend to do. So it hasn't occurred to me that they might actually want me to challenge their ideas or present alternatives. So by the time a long span of time has passed, I'm tired of hearing them in the same place, with the same vexations, so I check out.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints

  10. #490
    Rape Holess Array Starry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    7w6 sx/sp


    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    I just want to reemphasize that the OP is essentially an invitation to share negative perspectives of INFJ actions with the goal of resolution and eventual harmony... at least the way I understand it, there should be an implicit underlying intention of goodwill towards INFJs assumed in any post that is made here, even if there is negative content.
    And I want all the ENFPs...and especially the INFPs to know that what is written above is exactly the same way I felt until I stopped being a blind *%#@$...stepped outside of type...and actually did my homework

Similar Threads

  1. [INFJ] INFJs: Do you like your career/job? If so, what do you do?
    By sharons in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 02-21-2014, 09:17 PM
  2. [NF] INFJs/INFPs - what in this list do you relate to?
    By Alternatum in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 01-12-2013, 10:01 AM
  3. [ENFP] ENFPs, what do ENFPs do that drives you nuts?
    By Esoteric Wench in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-05-2013, 10:25 AM
  4. [Fi] Fi -- Why does it drive you nuts?
    By CzeCze in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 164
    Last Post: 11-17-2008, 08:47 AM
  5. Josh Groban: INFJ? INFP?? What do you think?
    By BookLady in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-03-2008, 09:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts