Insights are dangerous. Afterall they are rarely confirmed only assumed.
Exactly. This (and many other things upthread) was exactly what I was thinking. As an NF (maybe other types experience this too) it's very easy to assume that your insights are accurate. Even if you think you're getting evidence later that confirms them, we are all subject to confirmation bias. "See, I was right!" (Not that you say that out loud or even consciously, metalmommy.) I've found it safest to be skeptical about even my own perceptions of people's inner workings.
Exactly. This (and many other things upthread) was exactly what I was thinking. As an NF (maybe other types experience this too) it's very easy to assume that your insights are accurate. Even if you think you're getting evidence later that confirms them, we are all subject to confirmation bias. "See, I was right!" (Not that you say that out loud or even consciously, metalmommy.) I've found it safest to be skeptical about even my own perceptions of people's inner workings.
Insights are dangerous. Afterall they are rarely confirmed only assumed.
I find that my ability to easily and deeply understand people is often off putting to them. Over my lifetime I've noticed that people don't like it that I can see their mental inner workings. I often don't realize that I've seen something they don't want me to until I've said something in passing and suddenly I'm staring at a wall.
Being an INfJ, it's already difficult for me to find people I can be close to, but it seems like my ability to read others just makes it that much harder. People put up their walls and push me away when they discover I can see, even tho I'm not judging what I see. Seeing alone is enough to put people off.
I've tried to mitigate this by keeping my observations to myself, but like I said, sometimes I don't realize I've hit on something that deep until it's too late.
Do any of you other NFs have this problem?
Yup.
Peacebaby basically stated a similiar thing...but I would NEVER put up a wall with someone that was 'gettin it right' (that were correct in their insights and subsequent assertions concerning me). And I don't give a rip about 'timing' or 'over-familiarity' or 'bluntness' or 'the appropriate level of discretion a certain social situation assumes' blah, blah, blah. <--- I mean, I have lived long enough to know that many people do take those things into consideration - but when it comes to me I just do not care. I can work with and around all of those things and then some - in the moment - without batting an eye (or whatever you say). Nor am I a very private person. Or easily embarrassed. And I can even handle someone 'gettin it wrong' with regards to their 'insights' into me (hey man, we're all human). No, the only reason I would throw-up a wall is if the 'insight' was wrong BUT the individual continued to operate with the assumption that they were right. And not just 'right' for them...but right in reality. Where the 'insight' was not left tentative until an exchange has been had...but conclusive. That I can't deal with. And if I'm further insulted by the suggestion...whether stated or implied...that there is some unwillingness or defect or embarrassment on my part...that I'm incapable for any reason of accepting the 'insight' as truth...then it is quite likely more than a wall will go-up but rather I will kindly come to the end of the line with this person.
And this has happened before, unfortunately for me more than once, with FJs. And is why the OP caused me to pause. Whether the OP is right or wrong with regards to her insights does not appear open to negotiation <--- which again, is the ONLY reason I would put up a wall.
but when the negotiation is over, what do you do? consensus is often not reached and can't always be the goal.
in terms of the experience, i think i know what you mean. that kind of presupposition that someone else brings into the situation to define the reality rather than simply controlling their own behavior. i get this the worst with tps, particular 3w4 and 5w6. you just feel really blatantly railroaded. i probably do it too at times.
what are the subjectivity/Fi rules that are broken when someone else presupposes something that is in conflict with what you presuppose? Fi says you have to respect the difference of opinion and just keep quiet or reroute where it is you think you need to go in order to allow them to maintain their beliefs without crossing their lines? that it's your job to anticipate that and respect that as much as your own? in which case, how do you negotiate at all? i can see serious conflict between "facts" and "beliefs" in this area, especially in terms of what information should be privileged and gets to establish the foundation/common ground. for Fi, is it "what has led you to adopt those beliefs?" "what are the direct effects of those beliefs on others?" at the same time, Ti has a job to do as well, which is to establish solid, observable common ground that allows us to "objectively" relate to the same evidence. as far as Ni goes, i'd also say "patterns," which to me would be difficult to articulate but would limit how information could be synthesized within particular frameworks, when using particular lenses, and demanding that we recognize that we are always using lenses and being reflexive of the conditions of perception is important in order to integrate understanding among the various constraints in any meaningful way.
edit: i realize now that i am talking not really about the specific instance of disagreeing about what one person in the conversation is feeling or why they are feeling that and more about disagreeing in general. it still seems like a fine line, but it does further amp up the presumptuousness of being so goddamned certain and does seem like a more extreme rights violation as a result.
I don’t want anyone to force their ‘insights’ or beliefs onto me…and if the only way that can be achieved is by keeping quiet and rerouting where you need to go…than keep quiet and reroute-away. I am just very suspicious of people that have so much confidence in their ‘rightness’.
Well... I'm not sure about this myself, but those who know me say I'm very strong in my beliefs - once I come to believe something, it's nearly impossible for anyone to convince me otherwise (unless their arguments prove to be valid). Dunno if that's called having so much confidence in my 'rightness'... but rest assured I will never force my opinions on you (because that's just wrong - no one likes to be a puppet. :marionette
I understand what you are saying...but what you describe is different to me. There's a big difference in my mind between 'right for me' and 'so right - it's right for everyone'.
...in which case, how do you negotiate at all?
When negotiating I'm seeking 'openness'...which includes an openness to the possibility that you may not know all that you think you know.
I don't think about interactions with people in terms of negotiations or motivations. It's more about authenticity and acceptance.
Each person gets to have their own subjective reality, bounded by some kind of universal values that we share as "humanity". My goal is, in forming friendships, to be as real and genuine as possible.
I do find INFJ's in particular can want to translate my words into something more than what they are.
Whether the OP is right or wrong with regards to her insights does not appear open to negotiation <--- which again, is the ONLY reason I would put up a wall.
I would do it in an instant, if the person were getting into territory that I considered none of their business. I might file the information for later consideration if it seemed to have any accuracy, but there would be no further communication on the matter with the other person. I might do this to a lesser extent if the offering of insights seemed somehow misplaced - wrong time or circumstances, irrelevant to matter at hand, etc. In these cases, though, I would probably give an explicit explanation, and be willing to revisit the conversation later.Peacebaby basically stated a similiar thing...but I would NEVER put up a wall with someone that was 'gettin it right' (that were correct in their insights and subsequent assertions concerning me). And I don't give a rip about 'timing' or 'over-familiarity' or 'bluntness' or 'the appropriate level of discretion a certain social situation assumes' blah, blah, blah. <--- I mean, I have lived long enough to know that many people do take those things into consideration - but when it comes to me I just do not care.
I would do it in an instant, if the person were getting into territory that I considered none of their business. I might file the information for later consideration if it seemed to have any accuracy, but there would be no further communication on the matter with the other person. I might do this to a lesser extent if the offering of insights seemed somehow misplaced - wrong time or circumstances, irrelevant to matter at hand, etc. In these cases, though, I would probably give an explicit explanation, and be willing to revisit the conversation later.
I meant more of pointing out to someone that they chose an inopportune time/place to share their insights, whether accurate or not. This is a wall, in that it is firm, instant, and not to be crossed, but it is temporary, unless the person persists. And yes, this is different from the more absolute wall that comes when someone gets into areas that are not their business. Asking for more time to consider and process is not a wall at all, since I would do at least some processing and careful listening right away, and neither shut the person down nor ask them to defer sharing the information.I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here so I want an opportunity to clarify.
What you bolded from my post...
Saying to another individual that has just shared an insight (about me) with me...'whoa...that is intense. I need some time to process that and possibly return to it at a latter date' =/= (does NOT equal) putting-up a wall. Are you saying that it does for you?
I meant more of pointing out to someone that they chose an inopportune time/place to share their insights, whether accurate or not. This is a wall, in that it is firm, instant, and not to be crossed, but it is temporary, unless the person persists. And yes, this is different from the more absolute wall that comes when someone gets into areas that are not their business. Asking for more time to consider and process is not a wall at all, since I would do at least some processing and careful listening right away, and neither shut the person down nor ask them to defer sharing the information.
My comment was meant to contrast my reaction with yours, and to provide at least one reason why someone might put up a wall when someone else provides personal insights that are accurate. The first sentence of my original comment was the main point.Okay. Sorry I guess I'm not understanding why you quoted me then as I was merely sharing what my personal reaction would be...yet have already acknowledged the bolded (that people will respond in a way that is represented in what I bolded) more than once I believe in this thread. Maybe you were just identifying yourself as one of those individuals??? *nervous confused laughter* haha.