[INFJ] When INFJs Dismiss Outside Input Because of the Source

[CuriousFeeling]

I think this may also be connected to Ni-Ti checking for inner logical consistency with one's own conclusions. Present new information and Ni-Ti might reject new information from a source that isn't trustworthy, and become skeptical of the new information. Ni, by nature, is deductive and will search for more evidence (via Se) to prove the hypothesis of their own and reject information from others that isn't logically consistent with what they see to be truth. It's a matter of how much of a stronghold an INFJ has on their hypothesis, thinking they are for a certain right about their convictions. Even greater tunnel vision because INFJ's mode of objective analysis is directed inwards (introverted), vs. Te is based on external information. And it takes much longer for Ni-Ti to process information in comparison to Ni-Te.

 

[cafe]

Yep. And, for me, at least, I can't really just add in a new, unexpected part: I've got to rebuild the whole machine and that is a lot of work. I'm prone to go with the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' school of thought because of that. Once I get a big enough pile of parts, I'll bite the bullet and do the work, but generally not until then. And that is when you are most likely to see me appear to 'turn on a dime' in my views, opinions, or methods.

It no doubt makes me look like a crazy bitch to most folks and I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just saying I have a right to my crazy, just like everybody else.

 

[PeaceBaby]

It came up in another thread, but there is sometimes a tendency for NFPs to throw a bunch of stuff out there - some true and some more tainted and declare it as truth at the beginning. I find it hard then to trust them if they don't make the distinction at the beginning that some is subjective and some is objective.

Just a thought on your post:

I think it might be fair to say we see everything as subjective - just by degrees. When someone speaks, or I read something here on the forum, there's a process that engages automatically where I weigh everything that's said by these degrees of subjectivity, and those scales are set on a variety of parameters. Some stuff comes across as a balanced perspective and other stuff not, some stuff seems especially emotionally driven and some not, and some stuff sounds inaccurate or intuitively off etc etc. So I do this mental weighting as I read each bit, and all that data, the information fills into a spectrum of sorts, and I also assign a tone to the overall message too at the end. Then I look at who said it, consider what I know of them, research what feels like gaps in either my knowledge or their argument ... and so it goes, until it assembles kind of like a puzzle at the end. Hardly anything is discarded until there's a picture of sorts presenting itself.

When an NFP does things in "real-time" it does tend to be all jumbled up like that, and I think this makes it more difficult for IxxJ types in particular to contend with since you produce a much more finished product to begin with. To us though, it kind of all makes sense somehow since we just accept what comes at us and sort that info on the fly (or in retrospect if something continues to feel "wrong").

 

[PeaceBaby]

I think part of this phenomenon also has to do with the fact that Ni keeps generating further possibilities, so each piece of information we accept is really 10 times as big as it initially appears and takes quite some time to process. If we accept all the information that's thrown out there without filtering some of the most obvious stuff out by source, then we would never be able to come to any decisions. As it is, Ni already takes a dreadful amount of time to work through ideas to make it possible to come to a decision.

This too makes me wonder about relative time-frames ... I do accept a lot of info on the fly, so much so sometimes that my mind is numb with all of it, yet my appetite for more data to sort something out can seem insatiable. I must understand, so I must research, must learn more, hear more, see more, experience more. Creating these humungous arrays connecting all the dots.

I wonder if that takes as long as your internal process? But ours just happens to unwind as we go along, and thus seems faster? I know I can spend hours, days, weeks aggregating data and I get impatient when the puzzle still isn't finished and confused as to why the picture isn't evolving.

Anyways, that's a bit of a diversion from the thread topic but it struck me as an interesting question to ponder. Does the INFJ internal process take as long as the ENFP external one, just one is hidden and the other "out loud?" (I won't count INFP in there, since being an introvert seems like it would naturally elongate the whole process anyway.)

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I think part of this phenomenon also has to do with the fact that Ni keeps generating further possibilities, so each piece of information we accept is really 10 times as big as it initially appears and takes quite some time to process. If we accept all the information that's thrown out there without filtering some of the most obvious stuff out by source, then we would never be able to come to any decisions. As it is, Ni already takes a dreadful amount of time to work through ideas to make it possible to come to a decision.

Yes, very much this. I’m reminded of an episode of the Simpsons where Homer sat down with a bunch of energy bars that were actually entire meals crammed into one bar, and then he had to call 911 because he’d eaten a whole pile of them. It isn’t that we *choose* to filter out more information- we have less of a threshold and we filter because we can’t take in the same volume as a Pe’er. Like the ‘energy bars’, information expands once it’s inside, connections start firing off all over the place to different parts of the internal structure. Pe’ers may be able to take in more quantity-wise, but that’s because the processing isn’t as thorough. Or rather, it’s thorough in its own way: it’s spread across several different contexts, never really delving too far into any single context. The point is: for Pe, the volume it appears to be on the outside is pretty much the same volume once it’s inside. If it was your experience to feel so full you could hardly move after eating only a fraction of an energy bar- even if other people seem to be scarfing them down like there’s no tomorrow- you’d understand why we’re so finicky about what we’re willing to ingest in the first place.

 

[1487610420]

It's been an interesting read from both sides of the Pness coin. I'll add my perspective of this process by saying that while understanding the potential "SYSTEM ERROR" Ni's unfolding causes seems to be the main cause for the trimming/filtering/dismissal/reluctance to consider data, to me, a similar glimpse of "SYSTEM ERROR"

this scene from eurotrip comes to mind

occurs when I become aware of the possibility of the existence of new data that can compromise partially/the totality of my understanding of reality.

To me, becoming aware of this and then choosing to look away simply does not compute. And yes, this is with the notion that, in taking it in, my entire understanding of reality/belief system may be challenged but in the face of the possibility of "everything you believe in is a lie", that's more a potential for relief -by confirming whether the possibility is confirmed or not i.e. taking in the data and verifying its validity - than further turmoil.

 

[Galena]

to me, a similar glimpse of "SYSTEM ERROR"

this scene from eurotrip comes to mind

occurs when I become aware of the possibility of the existence of new data that can compromise partially/the totality of my understanding of reality.

I get this with values, and the gif is completely accurate. There is a jolt inside.

To me, becoming aware of this and then choosing to look away simply does not compute. And yes, this is with the notion that, in taking it in, my entire understanding of reality/belief system may be challenged but in the face of the possibility of "everything you believe in is a lie", that's more a potential for relief -by confirming whether the possibility is confirmed or not i.e. taking in the data and verifying its validity - than further turmoil.

Yes! It must be investigated, or if it doesn't come to me, then sought out! Whenever I have a particularly strong reaction or gut feeling, I'm pretty much compelled to look around and research for information that could overturn it or at least disagrees with it at equal strength to my feeling so I can compare views. I want the lies in my beliefs exposed. I want that shock. I'm currently plugging away at a type me thread in which I try to describe this inclination way less concisely than you just did here. This will be a help.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

To me, becoming aware of this and then choosing to look away simply does not compute. And yes, this is with the notion that, in taking it in, my entire understanding of reality/belief system may be challenged but in the face of the possibility of "everything you believe in is a lie", that's more a potential for relief -by confirming whether the possibility is confirmed or not i.e. taking in the data and verifying its validity - than further turmoil.

The thing is, I don't "become aware of it and then choose to look away". Going back to the 'energy bar' analogy- to "become aware of" would mean the whole energy bar was ingested in the first place and then regurgitated a little. Or something. It's like assuming steps were actually taken forward and then a few steps taken back- that's not the case. My attention isn't directed outward to "become aware of it" in the first place (just like Pe'ers attention isn't directed inward to instinctively examine the crap out of each context- the instinct is to bounce to the next context/search more external data right away).

 

[PeaceBaby]

heh, how about another analogy?

Pe'ers aggregate puzzle pieces with little to no preconceived notion of what the puzzle will look like upon completion, so dammit, Pe'ers collect every durn piece they can find because they might neeeed it. If Pe'ers then get a whole whack of pieces that don't seem to fit, they then have to sort and separate and assemble whilst still looking for more and examining the patterns and trends in the pieces they've got. By the end, I suppose there might be two or three puzzles created but what to do with them now ... and the house continues to fill up with puzzle pieces like an episode of Hoarders!

Pi'ers think they saw the photo on the puzzle box already, so they unconsciously seek out the pieces that fit that image of the picture in their heads, and gosh, finding pieces along the way that don't fit what they're already searching for are dismissed without contemplation, like they're not even registered as existing. Until at some point, maybe Pi'ers realize that they've seen too many opposing pieces and start seeing that piece as potentially having import into the whole picture. So how to integrate ... how to accommodate ... how to recreate. grrr, that's frustrating and exhausting!

Or something.

I think it's a good idea to turn back to the OP for a sec ... EW is noting that INFJ's seem to have a tendency to reject more puzzle pieces than any other Pi'er based on some sort of (shall we say for lack of a better word) protocol involved in the delivery of the pieces. And what I am hearing is that, basically, INFJ's concur and are further providing some context so that other types can understand why they legitimately must do this. Is that correct?

So, if I'm interpreting that correctly, an extrapolated question could be: if there is something really, really important one desires an INFJ to look at, is there a way to help respectfully foster this process? When this "first filter" can be so effective at times, are there instances where an INFJ will wish to even have such a thing pointed out? And the gentlest way to do it would be? Or will those efforts be met with resistance or disbelief anyway so no sense trying to press on that?

Thanks INFJ's for your consideration - I imagine this is the path the conversation is going, so trying to facilitate that end.

 

[CuriousFeeling]

Gentlest way to suggest external information that isn't consistent with Ni-Ti concept of reality with an INFJ....

What helps in my case is suggesting evidence that isn't consistent with a theory that I have. If it's presented in an objective format, I tend to work best with it. Maybe it's because I have a heavy 5-wing so approaching things in a scientific way helps. But showing such evidence with consideration towards feelings helps. "I understand you may see this, but there's evidence A, B, C, that suggests something else." I think showing an understanding of an INFJ's perspective helps a lot, that our thoughts aren't being dismissed as unimportant or irrelevant.

 

[Fidelia]

Offer the evidence and don't expect to see the person acquiesce right in the moment. They are going to need some time to mull it over and then to decide whether it is of enough import to totally rebuilt their internal structure on the topic (which also takes time). Just because you don't see them agreeing with you right away doesn't necessarily mean they aren't hearing you.

Also, like I said before, giving time for the INFJ to see your credibility as a person is helpful. Don't green eggs and ham them before they have had a chance to see you as having a good handle on whatever it is you are trying to advise them on and know that you also understand their perspective. Ask them questions from a friendly vantage point about how they arrived at the perspective they did, so that you can see where the missing information or flaw in reasoning is and more effectively address it. When we do buy into something, we do so wholeheartedly, so just be patient.

For me, familiarity with the person also makes a big difference. Give me some time for you to grow on me and you'll get better results. I'll either be able to better articulate what the impediment is, or else I'll come to appreciate you as a person enough that I will be more open to hearing something if it really matters to you. If you try to leap over this process, I'll turtle up and become very resistant to hearing what you have to say. The harder you push, the less successful you will be. I've learned for myself over time that pressured decision making rarely turns out well. I also need some time to observe before I feel like I am oriented enough to determine what are trustworthy pieces of information/sources and what are not.

By nature I think INFJs are cautious people and a little risk avoidant. I would prefer to stay with the familiar I know than the unfamiliar whose results I'm not sure of. Once I'm convinced that the results justify the discomfort or effort, I'm willing to make the jump to the unfamiliar.

The process of change for me is like an oven, which is slow to heat up, but slow to cool down vs a gas burner which will instantly burn and instantly quit.

 

[Society]

i've noticed ISFJs do this a lot more consistently then INFJs, so i don't believe this is Ni related as much as it is Fe suppressing Ti. basically, i think this stems from FJs feeling more confident in their ability to judge a person then in their ability to judge an argument.

not all of them do this with the same frequently, and the one's that do so less share the same trait:
to put it bluntly, they are smarter. not only because of this - but as a whole - more intellectually competent.

here you have a chicken & egg dilemma: have they developed their intelligence because they took the effort to examine arguments and thoughts they would otherwise dismiss, or they had to be intelligent enough to recognize that doing otherwise is being reliant on a fallacy in the first place? either way, one seems to feeds into the other.

it's note worthy that even the later will fall back on this when they are emotionally stressed or on sensitive matters. in both cases, when its done, the behavior follows the same pattern - the more complimenting and 'understanding' you are towards them, the more they will attribute you with characteristics of credibility such as intelligence and expertise, and the more your conclusions and reasoning conflicts with their egos, the less credible you become. on both cases it will be done regardless of the strength or competence of reasoning - utter BS arguments will be acceptable if they come with an ego-stroke, and the best of arguments will be denied if they conflict with their beliefs about themselves.
its also noteworthy that even for those who do so only under emotional stress, the arguments they came to accept or deny under such state will be the maintained beliefs long after, since in their mind the case has already being closed and concluded.

unfortunately, reality does not filter the truth based on what our ego's would like it to be.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

So, if I'm interpreting that correctly, an extrapolated question could be: if there is something really, really important one desires an INFJ to look at, is there a way to help respectfully foster this process? When this "first filter" can be so effective at times, are there instances where an INFJ will wish to even have such a thing pointed out? And the gentlest way to do it would be? Or will those efforts be met with resistance or disbelief anyway so no sense trying to press on that?

Offer the evidence and don't expect to see the person acquiesce right in the moment. They are going to need some time to mull it over and then to decide whether it is of enough import to totally rebuilt their internal structure on the topic (which also takes time). Just because you don't see them agreeing with you right away doesn't necessarily mean they aren't hearing you.

I agree with this, in response to PB’s post. The best way to get information considered is to shave it down to a bare minimum of what you’d like considered. If we come up with a question or present what ‘doesn’t make sense’ about it- don’t equate that with “not listening”….if we’re asking questions or presenting the parts that trip us up, that’s because we’re still trying to take it in. I don’t bother pointing out the problematics once I’ve actually stopped listening, because I consider that a vapid waste of time. [It’s been said this looks like we’re “trying to discredit”- from our point of view (or maybe I should say “from my point of view”, but I know at least a few other INFJs would agree with me here) we’re not actively “trying to discredit” so much as we’re trying to iron out the problematics that appear on their own.]

**

It occurs to me that I maybe should have asked [MENTION=8904]Esoteric Wench[/MENTION]- before I posted anything- what her intention was in creating this thread. I tend to assume things like this are created to try to understand the other side, but then it’s been pointed out before that this can seem to NFPs like “rushing to a solution” (or “telling people why they are wrong for feeling something”) and it can be invalidating if the person actually just wants to complain/vent. (Or something.)

I do think that saying “INFJ's can sometimes refuse to interpret information because it goes against their preconceived notions of how that information should be presented” (or, PB, saying the information gets dismissed because of “decorum”) demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding exactly why some sources are easier to listen to than others. And it seems like a misunderstanding which presumes there’s more ‘choice’ (e.g.“refuse”) involved than there actually is about how much and how quickly a Ni dom can soak up new external data. But if this thread was simply meant to be a platform for venting about how aggravating it is to deal with and nothing more, then I’ll leave it alone.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

It would be interesting to compare the manner in which other types reject information because of the source because this is definitely not limited to INFJs, or I--Js. Perceivers can absolutely do the same which is demonstrated plenty in these parts, but the process is likely to be different.

 

[Guy V. Malaxia]

I'm just saying that INFJ's can sometimes refuse to interpret information because it goes against their preconceived notions of how that information should be presented.

Accurate. In addition I would argue that the presentation itself is information -- that is to say that the details of the person's character are factored into the overall argument/opinion/idea and its credibility because they are in many ways one and the same.

To illustrate via a (somewhat belabored) example, I would not take much stock in the interior decorating tips of one whose own home is in disarray or whose home has a particular style and flavor that doesn't fit my own. I might even outright dismiss his input (kindly, I hope) before I get a chance to hear it in the first place. I'm not going to pretend that it's an infallible heuristic, because it isn't -- but it helps with the filtering process.

Character in this context seems to be an extension of whatever sort of ideology the person holds. To reject one is to reject the other, as they often, in my experience, go hand in hand.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I'll have to continue to reflect on how I relate to this assumption. There is a professor at the local university who puts a lot of people off, and most everyone I talk to completely dismisses him. They will not listen to him, have lunch with him, or credit him with any knowledge. He has undermined and insulted me like he has everyone else, but I relate to him differently. I don't trust him, and I understand their disdain, but it is important to me specifically to continue to consider his expertise. It is easiest for me to be this way in endeavors of knowledge. The personal invites a more complex reaction from me, especially if my friends or family are unfairly attacked. Even in cases where others have judged me otherwise, I remain a degree of openness when a person who has demonstrated harm or dishonesty has demonstrated behaviors and ideas to the contrary. I'll try to come back with more analysis if I have time and don't forget.

 

[Society]

actually, [MENTION=8904]Esoteric Wench[/MENTION] - i am curious about your intent here as well. i assumed before that it was merely an intellectual dabbling - trying to figure out the nature of the phenomena.

but is there something more to it?
looking into their flaws & what's broken... is there someone in your life you are trying to fix?

don't get me wrong, but if its a general people-type thing rather then any specific case, then with the rest of the human race being 97% of the population, to say that there are plenty of other fish in the sea would be one hell of an understatement. if you don't like standing in the supermarket with the 1 cashier who spits when she talks, why not stand in one of the other 15 lines?

 

[PeaceBaby]

[MENTION=8904]Esoteric Wench[/MENTION] - we're waiting on you here woman! Visit soon and get caught up on this thread!

 

[cafe]

actually, [MENTION=8904]Esoteric Wench[/MENTION] - i am curious about your intent here as well. i assumed before that it was merely an intellectual dabbling - trying to figure out the nature of the phenomena.

but is there something more to it?
looking into their flaws & what's broken... is there someone in your life you are trying to fix?

don't get me wrong, but if its a general people-type thing rather then any specific case, then with the rest of the human race being 97% of the population, to say that there are plenty of other fish in the sea would be one hell of an understatement. if you don't like standing in the supermarket with the 1 cashier who spits when she talks, why not stand in one of the other 15 lines?

At risk of confirming the original premise:

Of course, I've thought the same of you and said as much.

 

[Society]

At risk of confirming the original premise

you are the first INFJ i've known to never disappoint