Why do others hate INFJs?

[olivetti]

I have also read in some INFJ descriptions that they can offer advice and be offended when others don't heed it.

I wanted to address this (sorry I didn't quote all of it, fia, but this phrase in particular stood out). I think frustrated might be a better term. It's frustrating after the fact, I see that someone who didn't take my advice, and they wound up worse than before - and complaining just as loudly about their circumstance. That annoys me. If someone doesn't take my advice and they find a better outcome for their situation, that doesn't bother me; I'm glad they found an answer that worked. But I don't like it when I give people some advice, advice that I feel will work and they end up worse off because they didn't even try it.

That's more of a problem with Ni's bossiness, maybe. We ultimately feel that this is the right thing to do for this person, and when we mention it, we expect others to be as enlightened as we are on it. I've been caught off-guard when someone hasn't felt the same way regarding my advice, but I'm mature enough to not get mad at them for it. I'm only upset if they keep complaining to me about it after I offered a solution they didn't take.

And that is kinda pushy, I agree.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I wanted to address this (sorry I didn't quote all of it, fia, but this phrase in particular stood out). I think frustrated might be a better term. It's frustrating after the fact, I see that someone who didn't take my advice, and they wound up worse than before - and complaining just as loudly about their circumstance. That annoys me. If someone doesn't take my advice and they find a better outcome for their situation, that doesn't bother me; I'm glad they found an answer that worked. But I don't like it when I give people some advice, advice that I feel will work and they end up worse off because they didn't even try it.

That's more of a problem with Ni's bossiness, maybe. We ultimately feel that this is the right thing to do for this person, and when we mention it, we expect others to be as enlightened as we are on it. I've been caught off-guard when someone hasn't felt the same way regarding my advice, but I'm mature enough to not get mad at them for it. I'm only upset if they keep complaining to me about it after I offered a solution they didn't take.

And that is kinda pushy, I agree.

This might all change if an INFJ has plenty of Enneagram 9 in them, was the youngest in a family, and is heavy on the Ni perceptive aspect.

 

[á´…eparted]

Nah, I'm not trying to humanize it. I've been reading about it and that's the interpretation of many people, scientists included; the question is, what does that really mean. It obviously doesn't mean that reality is created by humans or living things since it was there before living things existed (and to postulate some sort of discarnate entity "creating" the universe/s with perception seems ad hoc); but it does mean that the act of perception, however it is actualized, has an effect on the physical world. I don't want to get into a debate about it, just playfully pointing out that this is a valid perspective on it. Whatever I mean by what I say is probably not 100% what you think it is.

Though I trust that you may know much more about some aspects of it than I.

Humanize might not be the best word to explain what I am trying to convey (I don't think there is a good one). More what I am concerned with, is quantum mechanics (and anything dealing with science, medicine, etc.) being applied beyond what is meant to be used for. Quantum mechanics gets subjected to this A LOT. Considering I was raised around a lot of new age things (and have since renounced/rejected it all a few years ago), and the fact that I am a scientist who has taken quantum chemistry, and applies principals of it in my research, I am particularly sensitive to this (hence I felt compelled to mention it).

The idea of perception changing the physical world around us does apply, but only on really, really small scale. This has to do with the uncertainty principal, which is one of the most frequently hijacked. It states that one can not know the position, and momentum of an object at the same time. There is a certain level of uncertainty associated with it. The mere process of "observing" an object (i.e. collecting a data point) suddenly locks it. Shrodingers cat is a frequent thought experiment associated with it. The thing is though, it's just that, a thought experiment to illustrate the principal; it's a formalism. The uncertainty principal doesn't apply to large objects in a statistically significant manner. The forumla is xp≥ħ/2. Where x is the position, p is the momentum, and ħ is reduced planks constant (it's simply a number, but a really really small number (.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001054571 J/s)). I am too tired and rusty to re-learn the proofs and formulas at the moment, but there is a mass dependency that arises within the formula (if you apply a conversion to p if I remember correctly since it is dependent upon mass). As an object gets heavier, the difference between x and p, or the uncertainty gets smaller and smaller by virtue of how small ħ.

Simply put, big objects don't apply. By big, I mean larger than a nucleus of an atom. I am a bit rusty on that stuff so forgive me if there are errors or things that are unclear. Either way, this is why I refute that being a "valid" perspective, because it's simply not correct.

Is it a distracting tangent, or is it a simple fact that is overlooked?

It is a distraction, see my discussion above; that's what being talked about.

 

[greenfairy]

Humanize might not be the best word to explain what I am trying to convey (I don't think there is a good one). More what I am concerned with, is quantum mechanics (and anything dealing with science, medicine, etc.) being applied beyond what is meant to be used for. Quantum mechanics gets subjected to this A LOT. Considering I was raised around a lot of new age things (and have since renounced/rejected it all a few years ago), and the fact that I am a scientist who has taken quantum chemistry, and applies principals of it in my research, I am particularly sensitive to this (hence I felt compelled to mention it).

The idea of perception changing the physical world around us does apply, but only on really, really small scale. This has to do with the uncertainty principal, which is one of the most frequently hijacked. It states that one can not know the position, and momentum of an object at the same time. There is a certain level of uncertainty associated with it. The mere process of "observing" an object (i.e. collecting a data point) suddenly locks it. Shrodingers cat is a frequent thought experiment associated with it. The thing is though, it's just that, a thought experiment to illustrate the principal; it's a formalism. The uncertainty principal doesn't apply to large objects in a statistically significant manner. The forumla is xp≥ħ/2. Where x is the position, p is the momentum, and ħ is reduced planks constant (it's simply a number, but a really really small number (.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001054571 J/s)). I am too tired and rusty to re-learn the proofs and formulas at the moment, but there is a mass dependency that arises within the formula (if you apply a conversion to p if I remember correctly since it is dependent upon mass). As an object gets heavier, the difference between x and p, or the uncertainty gets smaller and smaller by virtue of how small ħ.

Simply put, big objects don't apply. By big, I mean larger than a nucleus of an atom. I am a bit rusty on that stuff so forgive me if there are errors or things that are unclear. Either way, this is why I refute that being a "valid" perspective, because it's simply not correct.



It is a distraction, see my discussion above; that's what being talked about.

So that's why! Yeah investigating this was on my research to-do list. Thanks.

Well I mean, I encounter books which are read and commented on my physicists and they (supposedly) essentially agree with some interpretations like this, so if that's true then they obviously have a way of looking at it which makes up for that fact somehow. I'm still doing research so I can't say I'm right and you're not, but I still maintain it's more complicated. And the books have quotation from Einstein and Bohr and people like that to the same effect.

Anyway, it was just a joke. Jeez people! But I understand you wanting to set me straight.

 

[Coriolis]

I think that's true. So wouldn't it follow that often people who are more able to think objectively can point out the things they are doing that don't work too well? So since INFJ's can think objectively in certain respects they would have this ability. I think what [MENTION=5684]Elfboy[/MENTION] is getting at is that they value subjective decision making as as much a part of their well being as the objective stuff (does that sound accurate, Elfboy?), and more objective thinkers wouldn't see that and so think they are really helping. I can see both sides but I know I tend to err on the side of being too critical.

I'm not following this. By "they" do you mean INFJs? You seem to be saying that T types mistakenly think INFJs are helping because they (T's) don't recognize that the INFJs also value subjective thinking. But that doesn't make sense.

Is it a distracting tangent, or is it a simple fact that is overlooked?

It can be both. Some facts deserve to be overlooked, lest they lead to an unproductive tangent.

 

[Kullervo]

I think it depends on a person's definition of close.

[MENTION=21639]SilentMusings[/MENTION] what do you mean by close? What constitutes closeness in your way of seeing?
If I knew that then I could attempt a fair and accurate answer.

Well, someone who is "close" to me is someone who is emotionally open with me. There are no silly guessing games: they tell me how they actually feel. The person is happy to let me into their private life, and share secrets with me. By default, this means that they have to be pretty attached to me so I'm not worried about what will happen if I do the same.

I don't like INFJs' tendency to shut people off who care a lot about them because they fear intimacy. Understand?

P.S. WTF has happened to the thread?

 

[Kullervo]

I wouldn't read too much into [MENTION=21639]SilentMusings[/MENTION]' point. If his forum persona is anything to go by, I don't think INFJs will be the only ones he'll be pissed off at for refusing to get close in a relationship. Just my opinion.

However, to answer your question, no, I don't think INFJs would do better than average at being close in relationships. It might not be that we refuse to get close, but, much like [MENTION=7111]fidelia[/MENTION] said, we tend to keep a tight rein on our own emotions. In order to avoid conflict, we might be less than honest, open, or vulnerable.

Yes, a lot of women are painful to spend time with and therefore incur my wrath. Amazing observation.

While I would not recommend telling the whole world your deepest secrets, it is both selfish and stupid to hide shit from a potential partner to avoid conflict. Here's an example: say you had a serious genetic disease that only started to become symptomatic in midlife (eg polycystic kidney disease). Would you tell a long-term girlfriend about it or withhold the information? What's more important, the off chance that you might get dumped or passing on a dangerous disease to offspring?

 

[Ene]

Well, someone who is "close" to me is someone who is emotionally open with me. There are no silly guessing games: they tell me how they actually feel. The person is happy to let me into their private life, and share secrets with me. By default, this means that they have to be pretty attached to me so I'm not worried about what will happen if I do the same.

I don't like INFJs' tendency to shut people off who care a lot about them because they fear intimacy. Understand?

P.S. WTF has happened to the thread?

Thanks. I do understand. Not all INFJs fear intimacy.

I also hate mind games. Hate to be coerced, manipulated, threatened, etc.

I would say that the only explanation is that she really didn't want to be close and didn't have the guts or know how to tell you.

Or, she is just emotionally immature. Teenage INFJs or people who are stuck in a teenage egocentric frame of mind, may behave in this way. Not all INFJs behave that way.

INFJs are just like any other group of individuals, some are butt holes and some are angelic. You can't lump a whole group together and label them because of the actions of one or a few. It's no different than saying that INTJs are cold and distant. Some may be, but all are not.

About the disease question you asked Eilonwy, yes, I'd tell them because if they couldn't deal with it, they're not right for me anyway, but my worth and value doesn't depend on whether some guy finds me "worthy" or not, so there you go. I would be up front and tell him from the get-go, because it would be sticky and messy later on. Deception, manipulation, guilt-tripping, control, temper tantrums, condescension: for me those are not options. I try not to do them and I won't be with anyone who seeks to play my god by employing them...period, no exceptions.

What happened to the thread? Haha...I guess the INFJ feminists took over!

 

[Eilonwy]

Yes, a lot of women are painful to spend time with and therefore incur my wrath. Amazing observation.

While I would not recommend telling the whole world your deepest secrets, it is both selfish and stupid to hide shit from a potential partner to avoid conflict. Here's an example: say you had a serious genetic disease that only started to become symptomatic in midlife (eg polycystic kidney disease). Would you tell a long-term girlfriend about it or withhold the information? What's more important, the off chance that you might get dumped or passing on a dangerous disease to offspring?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Let me try to be clearer. It's possible for any human being to refuse to get close in a relationship. I stated some reasons that might be specific to INFJs refusing to get close in a relationship.

So, to use your example, people of any type might not reveal to their long-term partner that they had a serious genetic disease, but one reason an INFJ, in particular, might not reveal that information is that, in order to avoid conflict, the INFJ might be less than honest, open, or vulnerable.

ETA: Does that reason make INFJs more prone to refusing to get close in relationships? I don't have enough hard data to answer that.

P.S. WTF has happened to the thread?

Could you be more specific?

 

[Kullervo]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Let me try to be clearer. It's possible for any human being to refuse to get close in a relationship. I stated some reasons that might be specific to INFJs refusing to get close in a relationship.

So, to use your example, people of any type might not reveal to their long-term partner that they had a serious genetic disease, but one reason an INFJ, in particular, might not reveal that information is that, in order to avoid conflict, the INFJ might be less than honest, open, or vulnerable.

ETA: Does that reason make INFJs more prone to refusing to get close in relationships? I don't have enough hard data to answer that.

These kind of threads are all built upon a stupid premise anyway. Not many INFJs are a walking stereotype of their type description.

Could you be more specific?

What does physics have to do with this topic (look back)? Excuse me for being at a loss...

 

[Starry]

That's more of a problem with Ni's bossiness, maybe. We ultimately feel that this is the right thing to do for this person, and when we mention it, we expect others to be as enlightened as we are on it. I've been caught off-guard when someone hasn't felt the same way regarding my advice, but I'm mature enough to not get mad at them for it. I'm only upset if they keep complaining to me about it after I offered a solution they didn't take.

And that is kinda pushy, I agree.

I personally think it's more of an issue with "Je bossiness"...and with that said have never experienced this kind of thing from INFJs. I would notice from time to time however that my INFJ ex would occasionally get his panties in a wad if I didn't share his opinion on someone or something though. When this would occur...I admit I would be standing there with cartoon question marks...most likely visible to all above my head but..."hate" never entered my mind. Just the question mark thing.

 

[Kullervo]

Thanks. I do understand. Not all INFJs fear intimacy.

I also hate mind games. Hate to be coerced, manipulated, threatened, etc.

Well, at least you are self-assured enough to be in a relationship on your own terms.

I would say that the only explanation is that she really didn't want to be close and didn't have the guts or know how to tell you.

Or, she is just emotionally immature. Teenage INFJs or people who are stuck in a teenage egocentric frame of mind, may behave in this way. Not all INFJs behave that way.

INFJs are just like any other group of individuals, some are butt holes and some are angelic. You can't lump a whole group together and label them because of the actions of one or a few. It's no different than saying that INTJs are cold and distant. Some may be, but all are not.

An INFJ can be emotionally immature? Heresy!

If the above is the case (and I happen to agree) why even bother having a thread about why people hate INFJs? I know you didn't start the thread but it's a question worth asking.

About the disease question you asked Eilonwy, yes, I'd tell them because if they couldn't deal with it, they're not right for me anyway, but my worth and value doesn't depend on whether some guy finds me "worthy" or not, so there you go. I would be up front and tell him from the get-go, because it would be sticky and messy later on. Deception, manipulation, guilt-tripping, control, temper tantrums, condescension: for me those are not options. I try not to do them and I won't be with anyone who seeks to play my god by employing them...period, no exceptions.

This is a relief to know.

What happened to the thread? Haha...I guess the INFJ feminists took over!

 

[Ene]

Well, at least you are self-assured enough to be in a relationship on your own terms.

Thanks. I think for it to work, really work, both people have to understand what their own terms are, be willing to listen to the other person's, than be open and secure enough to make themselves understood. Guessing games are for kids in my opinion.

An INFJ can be emotionally immature? Heresy!

eek! I had a dream once that I was burned at the stake for heresy! Well, I do believe that any type can be emotionally immature.

If the above is the case (and I happen to agree) why even bother having a thread about why people hate INFJs? I know you didn't start the thread but it's a question worth asking.

You are right. That is a reasonable question. I don't know the answer as of right now. It really does seem like a broad generalization.

 

[Coriolis]

If the above is the case (and I happen to agree) why even bother having a thread about why people hate INFJs? I know you didn't start the thread but it's a question worth asking.

That depends on how one interprets the question.

(1) One assumes INFJs are particularly deserving of or at least received with hate, and wants to know why. If the assumption is false, the thread is pointless.

(2) One understands that all types can be hated by others from time to time, and wants to understand the specific causes and dynamic when the hatred is directed at an INFJ. This has potential for worthwhile discussion.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

Hate is such a strong word.

Having said that I do believe that to "hate" a type tends to say more about the hater than the hated.

There are some types I get along with better than others, but there is no type that I "hate," to do so would be to give MBTI a morally significant power that no theory should be granted, and to me, suggests that the "hater" is either very immature, still doesn't have a grasp on the typology theory, or both. Just my thoughts for whatever they're worth.

I'ma be lazy and simply endorse this as GOOD and very similar to my thoughts on the subject to "typism".

@OP: I think that typism is a part of the natural evolution of someone interested in typology. Eventually you/they will start labeling everyone one they know and then it starts... slowly at first... You/they will begin to notice inconsistencies of their type vs. what is "known" about X type... Inevitably, for most at least, "we" learn that typology really just a starting point and not the end all be all of a person.

 

[Kullervo]

That depends on how one interprets the question.

(1) One assumes INFJs are particularly deserving of or at least received with hate, and wants to know why. If the assumption is false, the thread is pointless.

(2) One understands that all types can be hated by others from time to time, and wants to understand the specific causes and dynamic when the hatred is directed at an INFJ. This has potential for worthwhile discussion.

But is the hatred directed at said INFJ because they are an INFJ? I seriously doubt anybody hates a particular personality type enough to hate someone just for that reason.

I see threads popping up a lot where somebody looks to MBTI differences as a way of explaining weird behaviour in others. While I am happy to jokingly indulge for a while for shock value, being serious:

I know some INFJs who are easy going and don't have much wrong with them. I have also had the misfortune to meet one who was seriously screwed up. When somebody in my life started behaving strangely, MBTI was not the tool I needed to diagnose the problem. While I think MBTI is useful in understanding a person's personality holistically (especially if they are healthy), it can easily be muddied by depression and other mental health issues.

 

[Kullervo]

Thanks. I think for it to work, really work, both people have to understand what their own terms are, be willing to listen to the other person's, than be open and secure enough to make themselves understood. Guessing games are for kids in my opinion.

It takes time to trust somebody enough to be open with them. I understand that. But I really despair when there is an emotional distance between myself and somebody i care about, and I can't do anything about it.

eek! I had a dream once that I was burned at the stake for heresy! Well, I do believe that any type can be emotionally immature.

Some of my family actually were burned at the stake for heresy.

You are right. That is a reasonable question. I don't know the answer as of right now. It really does seem like a broad generalization.

Most people are lazy and unimaginative. It is easier to call someone an unhealthy INFJ than speculate about more plausible alternatives.

 

[olivetti]

I personally think it's more of an issue with "Je bossiness"...and with that said have never experienced this kind of thing from INFJs. I would notice from time to time however that my INFJ ex would occasionally get his panties in a wad if I didn't share his opinion on someone or something though. When this would occur...I admit I would be standing there with cartoon question marks...most likely visible to all above my head but..."hate" never entered my mind. Just the question mark thing.

It could be a judging issue, I could see that. I also don't think a lot of types would notice when an INFJ does it, unless they're constantly watching for it. Most of the time our need to help comes with the natural flow of conversation - and when we think people are unconsciously looking for answers to their questions. I don't personally try to press my assumptions on people unless I think they want or need insights. But I do get thrown a bit when I think people are asking for advice or help, and they're really not.

I think the OPs description of INFJs was a bit strong, but that's because I don't think any type can be "hated" per se. I think misunderstood is more likely, but misunderstanding can grow into frustration, which can then transform into anger. But hate? I think people may "hate" individuals, but I don't get the idea of hating a whole group of people who happen to share personalities. To me, that's like hating an entire ethnic group.

 

[animenagai]

Because they always play the victim.

 

[the state i am in]

another thing i feel pretty confident in generalizing about, that speaks to my experience in a very deep way and seems to be illustrated through the concept of N pretty clearly, is that i do naturally identify with my dreams more than i identify with reality. this is where my consciousness begins, and so i am usually dreaming in some sense. for me as Ni, there is a strong sense of identifying with the meaning of things more than with the moment (and its constitutive interactive elements).

i mean, in a literal sense, imagine someone is constantly asleep and responding to the dreams they are constantly having rather than from the clear, consubstantial sense of reality from which we develop an anchored sense of consensual reality. when we are stressing and at our worst, it can be a real challenge to have the skill to be able to help us weave together a bridge from the land of dreams back to the land of the sun, being awake, seeing the world and ourselves substantially and with simplicity as each is and as they are together. dreams are so personal, vivid, undefined, and what the deep underlying meanings of reality are made up of (because it is how we know them most densely, most deeply). they're often filled with complex, vague, unconscious elements that sometimes aren't able to easily be represented. to know where to start, to see what has happened and return to the ground of the moment and the tangible things we can sense and change most directly, is not always easy when waking up from an inaccessible, sometimes profound, and oftentimes wildly disorienting dream.

i know for me, the dilated pupils, and the not all here quite yet quality can be frustrating for others. this is especially the case when i need to be direct with myself so that i can prepare to make a choice NOW and take responsibility for it, rather than waiting and hoping to use the constellations for guidance. there's a kind of conservative sluggishness/delay to me at times that needs a willingness to dive into the cold pool of experience to rectify it.