User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 24

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    2,446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poki View Post
    you really remind me of INFJ...its like conspiracy theories, but lacking conspiracy...so like theories. how much do you believe these theories you created?
    I usually believe in them... there's almost always a kernel of truth in my "theories"... I just sometimes get lost in the trees... my conclusions are correct but the "why" can be a bit off... until all the facts come in.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,342

    Default

    @Hard

    Working on engines and race bikes, I sort of feel your pain because you can think something is going to occur, you think you can be predictive about performance - based on facts, physics, but forces outside your parameters (that you didn't include or could even know about!!!) will mess those predictions up! Or, influence them in ways you may not have thought because they were not considered to begin with.

    It doesn't mean the facts are false, it means your presumptions were. Or, at least, they were not inclusive of ALL the facts, data.

    Guess what? You may not have all the facts and data to make those predictions with 100% certainty, like ever. Knowing this sort of eases the burden somewhat. At least to myself.

    For instance, I can think a part will perform very well under X conditions based on fact, on the material, on the strength of it as being PROVEN. All right. Then the part may fail under certain loads. Why? Good questions....

    Should I doubt the part? No. The part IS. It's structure is factual. It's an object. It's neutral.

    You can now utilize that information to trust that part MORE because you know when you put it up against that X condition(s), it has range. Now you are seeing the conditions change but not the part. Even though the part is included to create the condition. You know HOW it acts against other objects (which are neutral, objective in themselves).

    The reactions of neutral objects (facts) against conditions (not 100% conclusive all the time because conditions are never completely the same twice) aren't predictive with CERTAINTY. Even though the material is known with CERTAINTY.

    Ugh...this is SO hard to explain

    I'm trying to show you how my Dom Ti works....it recognizes where objectivity stops and where it starts. Point blank.

    Take the puzzle piece out of the puzzle you can describe the shape, colors in it. Those are objective facts. You cannot change those qualities.

    Put the piece into where it fits in the puzzle it doesn't change the objective facts, but it makes the picture clearer. You can still manipulate the picture tho. You can put them where they don't belong like a mosaic and make something else out of it entirely but you have to know that no matter what manipulation you do, those individual pieces aren't changing their shape, color....their objective qualities.

    EDIT:

    I also think you're putting a lot of pressure on yourself and your Ti is going nuts. Also, perfectionism is a bitch

    Just be confident in WHAT YOU KNOW (the facts) then if something doesn't act right, realize it's not the facts not acting right/perfect, it's the conditions.
    Likes Consilience, Poki, Hard, geedoenfj liked this post

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDP2525 View Post
    @Hard

    Working on engines and race bikes, I sort of feel your pain because you can think something is going to occur, you think you can be predictive about performance - based on facts, physics, but forces outside your parameters (that you didn't include or could even know about!!!) will mess those predictions up! Or, influence them in ways you may not have thought because they were not considered to begin with.

    It doesn't mean the facts are false, it means your presumptions were. Or, at least, they were not inclusive of ALL the facts, data.

    Guess what? You may not have all the facts and data to make those predictions with 100% certainty, like ever. Knowing this sort of eases the burden somewhat. At least to myself.

    For instance, I can think a part will perform very well under X conditions based on fact, on the material, on the strength of it as being PROVEN. All right. Then the part may fail under certain loads. Why? Good questions....

    Should I doubt the part? No. The part IS. It's structure is factual. It's an object. It's neutral.

    You can now utilize that information to trust that part MORE because you know when you put it up against that X condition(s), it has range. Now you are seeing the conditions change but not the part. Even though the part is included to create the condition. You know HOW it acts against other objects (which are neutral, objective in themselves).

    The reactions of neutral objects (facts) against conditions (not 100% conclusive all the time because conditions are never completely the same twice) aren't predictive with CERTAINTY. Even though the material is known with CERTAINTY.

    Ugh...this is SO hard to explain

    I'm trying to show you how my Dom Ti works....it recognizes where objectivity stops and where it starts. Point blank.

    Take the puzzle piece out of the puzzle you can describe the shape, colors in it. Those are objective facts. You cannot change those qualities.

    Put the piece into where it fits in the puzzle it doesn't change the objective facts, but it makes the picture clearer. You can still manipulate the picture tho. You can put them where they don't belong like a mosaic and make something else out of it entirely but you have to know that no matter what manipulation you do, those individual pieces aren't changing their shape, color....their objective qualities.

    EDIT:

    I also think you're putting a lot of pressure on yourself and your Ti is going nuts. Also, perfectionism is a bitch

    Just be confident in WHAT YOU KNOW (the facts) then if something doesn't act right, realize it's not the facts not acting right/perfect, it's the conditions.
    exactly...lmao...we are sane mental cases that find complete comfort in what others deem as chaos.
    Im out, its been fun

  4. #14
    The more you know.. geedoenfj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    3,288

    Default

    @Hard I can refer to what you're describing, I get emotional and panic when something goes against my expectations, when I am sure that I followed the instructions but yet cannot get the results that I am expecting, on the other hand, I prefer to not follw the instructions and just do it my own way, testing the significance of the rules, I don't know if this is stupidity or brilliance, but I just find myself more learning from expreinces and mistakes than the written rules..
    I also get overwhelmed and emotional over too many details, the only way that I can go through things is that you give me a brief general explanation, and when I get it, you'd be amazed of how far I would go through the details, searching, exploring and analyzing (of course if I find the subject interesting)..
    As for consparicy theories, if I see the validity and motivations, and analyze the reality, I take a consparicy hypothesis into consideration, I think of ways to reverse thier effect rather than getting induldged in the idea of consparicy itself..
    “You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions.”
    - Naguib Mahfouz



    6w7 > 1w2 > 2w3

    Likes Hard liked this post

  5. #15
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    8,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureInProgress View Post
    I don't know if I experience it quite the same way... I usually trust "objectivity" but I seem to tunnel-vision on minutia and sometimes build elaborate explanations around inconsistencies. For example, I have to keep track of the finances and if some numbers seem off, I internally freak out and come up with convoluted explanations as to why it is so. After awhile, I burn out and tune out. I pretty much do the exact opposite of Occam's Razor.
    That's kind of what I am explaining, actually. I wouldn't call it tunnel vision (though others have claimed that is what I am doing), but it's a lot like reverse Occam's Razor, and is the default for how I think. I will think of the more convoluted explainations first, then through elimination of those start to apply Occam's Razor more correctly. It's why I call myself a non-linear thinker, and why I struggle with math.


    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I really like this assessment of inferior Ti. It makes a lot of sense to me.

    As for why you can't shake that feeling of distrust, it might be "Ti" but being inferior turns it into a gut reaction. You can't avoid the feeling of anxiety it produces, and that's going to be the case for any inferior function.

    The other thing that I've noticed about analytical Fe types (Fe dom or aux working in a technical field), is that in the end, they never trust their logical analysis. They ALWAYS go by gut feel. If their feelings don't match the objective results, they can't rest until they determine the source of that feeling or otherwise the objective evidence becomes overwhelming.

    This sounds like a disadvantage, perhaps, but I've seen it be quite an advantage in the real world. Fe may suck at logical analysis, but it rocks at dealing with people, and in the real world, you have both objective processes AND you have real people performing them. For example, a QA friend of mine would know EXACTLY what would go wrong based on which software developer did the coding. Heck, the only people whose work totally frustrated him were those who sucked so bad that their bugs were all over the place in no particular pattern. But for the most part, he could use his gut feelings to know exactly where to test and then feel confident that he had tested everything thoroughly, without relying 100% on objective results.
    This is accurate, it very much is like a gut reaction that I just can't seem to bring to full consciousness to articulate it properly. When I get right down to it I don't trust my logical analysis of things. Nearly all of it is purely self taught, and when I use that I feel like I am following a process I don't fully understand or believe. I've seen so many errors with following gut through my life that I go out of my way to filter/question them, and first go to logical thought. It's well serving, but draining and stressful. It becomes almost intolerable when I am put in situations where I have to rely on that process with no breaks/escapes from it. When I am really stressed I will actively avoid having to use it, often to personal detriment. The most recent example is my (intentional) habit of throwing away letters from my health insurance because "health insurance is this sort of magical thing that's just there". It's too much Ti, minutia, detail, etc. and I am afraid to look at it because then I become too aware of all the things that could go wrong. If I avoid it, out of sight out of mind and I can run by gut and be fine with it.

    It's frustrating because a huge part of me feels like inferior Ti is a HUGE personal flaw that I must run counter to every chance I get. It's like I reject my operating system, and want to get a "better" one. It's the primary reason people can mistake me for ESTJ I believe, but that's a different discussion.


    Quote Originally Posted by MDP2525 View Post
    @Hard

    Working on engines and race bikes, I sort of feel your pain because you can think something is going to occur, you think you can be predictive about performance - based on facts, physics, but forces outside your parameters (that you didn't include or could even know about!!!) will mess those predictions up! Or, influence them in ways you may not have thought because they were not considered to begin with.

    It doesn't mean the facts are false, it means your presumptions were. Or, at least, they were not inclusive of ALL the facts, data.

    Guess what? You may not have all the facts and data to make those predictions with 100% certainty, like ever. Knowing this sort of eases the burden somewhat. At least to myself.

    For instance, I can think a part will perform very well under X conditions based on fact, on the material, on the strength of it as being PROVEN. All right. Then the part may fail under certain loads. Why? Good questions....

    Should I doubt the part? No. The part IS. It's structure is factual. It's an object. It's neutral.

    You can now utilize that information to trust that part MORE because you know when you put it up against that X condition(s), it has range. Now you are seeing the conditions change but not the part. Even though the part is included to create the condition. You know HOW it acts against other objects (which are neutral, objective in themselves).

    The reactions of neutral objects (facts) against conditions (not 100% conclusive all the time because conditions are never completely the same twice) aren't predictive with CERTAINTY. Even though the material is known with CERTAINTY.

    Ugh...this is SO hard to explain

    I'm trying to show you how my Dom Ti works....it recognizes where objectivity stops and where it starts. Point blank.

    Take the puzzle piece out of the puzzle you can describe the shape, colors in it. Those are objective facts. You cannot change those qualities.

    Put the piece into where it fits in the puzzle it doesn't change the objective facts, but it makes the picture clearer. You can still manipulate the picture tho. You can put them where they don't belong like a mosaic and make something else out of it entirely but you have to know that no matter what manipulation you do, those individual pieces aren't changing their shape, color....their objective qualities.

    EDIT:

    I also think you're putting a lot of pressure on yourself and your Ti is going nuts. Also, perfectionism is a bitch

    Just be confident in WHAT YOU KNOW (the facts) then if something doesn't act right, realize it's not the facts not acting right/perfect, it's the conditions.
    Ugh... perfectionism always, ALWAYS comes up with me. WHY .

    This really add some prospective to this, because I think this helps illustrate quite well that inferior Ti tries to use black and white thinking/logic, and it causes stress. It feels like objective figures are/should be fully right, or fully wrong, and nuance between them is confusing and stressful. It takes a lot of effort to go through it, and there is no sense of feeling of peace when going through it. I think you explain it well. You go through the same lines of thinking I have to / make myself do in my work (and other areas where it applies). The difference is you see the nuance, know that's ok, and only seem to get frustrated at situations like that because, well, it's frustrating when things don't work for seemingly no reason! With inferior Ti, it's not just a feeling of frustration, but it's scary when that stuff happens. I've trained myself to do this because it's nesscessary in life, and I do it well. It just never becomes natural feeling unless it's all purely smooth, and it always seems to be terrifying when it becomes nuanced. You're so familar and comfortable with Ti that going through it's machinations feels natural and comfortable. Discomfort isn't connected to what you have to think. With inferior Ti, what you have to think causes immense discomfort.


    Quote Originally Posted by geedoenfj View Post
    @Hard I can refer to what you're describing, I get emotional and panic when something goes against my expectations, when I am sure that I followed the instructions but yet cannot get the results that I am expecting, on the other hand, I prefer to not follw the instructions and just do it my own way, testing the significance of the rules, I don't know if this is stupidity or brilliance, but I just find myself more learning from expreinces and mistakes than the written rules..
    I also get overwhelmed and emotional over too many details, the only way that I can go through things is that you give me a brief general explanation, and when I get it, you'd be amazed of how far I would go through the details, searching, exploring and analyzing (of course if I find the subject interesting)..
    As for consparicy theories, if I see the validity and motivations, and analyze the reality, I take a consparicy hypothesis into consideration, I think of ways to reverse thier effect rather than getting induldged in the idea of consparicy itself..
    I'm sure @uumlau and @Coriolis will have a bit of a fit when I say this (cause I KNOW I am being a bad scientist for doing this), but like you I tend not to follow instructions. Not completely though. Obviously I will follow protocal and methods to do something. I tend not to follow instructions on checking things. In my line of work, you typically take NMR spectra to tell if you made a compound or not. Once I have done something a few times and establish a qualatiative test to know if I made something, I'll skip doing the NMR. It's simply good enough as it is. The notion of taking an NMR always fills me with a sense of "oh god what if it didn't work". It's a lack of faith in Ti thought. The "WHAT IF" comes up, and I'd rather avoid the process, because if it turns out right, I'll have just experience extra stress that I could have avoided. I'd rather just take a gut assumption, say "ok that's good enough" and move on. It goes against protocol and instructions, but it gets me by. It's a lot of detail that utterly overwhelms me.


    It's interesting to see/think that inferior functions can be learned to be used quite effectively and well, but there always seems to be a persistent weak point with it. Though, the weak point isn't really associated with lack of skill, but lack of faith/trust that it will be done correctly despite historical precedent.
    Likes geedoenfj, ChocolateMoose123 liked this post

  6. #16
    The more you know.. geedoenfj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    3,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    I'm sure @uumlau and @Coriolis will have a bit of a fit when I say this (cause I KNOW I am being a bad scientist for doing this), but like you I tend not to follow instructions. Not completely though. Obviously I will follow protocal and methods to do something. I tend not to follow instructions on checking things. In my line of work, you typically take NMR spectra to tell if you made a compound or not. Once I have done something a few times and establish a qualatiative test to know if I made something, I'll skip doing the NMR. It's simply good enough as it is. The notion of taking an NMR always fills me with a sense of "oh god what if it didn't work". It's a lack of faith in Ti thought. The "WHAT IF" comes up, and I'd rather avoid the process, because if it turns out right, I'll have just experience extra stress that I could have avoided. I'd rather just take a gut assumption, say "ok that's good enough" and move on. It goes against protocol and instructions, but it gets me by. It's a lot of detail that utterly overwhelms me.
    Oh no! INTJs tagged in
    My mom is an INTJ 6w5 and is obsessed of accuracy, she can't stand my habit of not being punctual about the instructions, but on the other hand, she resort to me for comforting when she's on the phase of freaking out because she unintentially skipped one detail..
    My aunts are calling her "Miss Precisely"

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post

    It's interesting to see/think that inferior functions can be learned to be used quite effectively and well, but there always seems to be a persistent weak point with it. Though, the weak point isn't really associated with lack of skill, but lack of faith/trust that it will be done correctly despite historical precedent.
    Yes it's a bit unconventional, you just gotta understand the mechanics and mean of access to it..
    When I was at school, I was often told by my teachers and mom that I am intellegent and can do much bettet if I only concentrate, specially in math, since I hate numbers and I seldom try to solve problems, I read mathematics as if I'm reading a novel , anyways, one day at 9th grade, preparing for a monthly mathantics exam, my mom was like "That's it! I'm gonna prove to you that you GOT IT, you're gonna sit on this table, grab a pencil and do the problems, and I will keep an eye on you" I got 99% in that exam, but meh, I still hate maths , so it's not that I lack the skill, it's that I lack something else, a passion in this case..
    “You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions.”
    - Naguib Mahfouz



    6w7 > 1w2 > 2w3

    Likes Hard, ChocolateMoose123 liked this post

  7. #17
    Liberator Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    24,336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    I'm sure @uumlau and @Coriolis will have a bit of a fit when I say this (cause I KNOW I am being a bad scientist for doing this), but like you I tend not to follow instructions. Not completely though. Obviously I will follow protocal and methods to do something. I tend not to follow instructions on checking things. In my line of work, you typically take NMR spectra to tell if you made a compound or not. Once I have done something a few times and establish a qualatiative test to know if I made something, I'll skip doing the NMR. It's simply good enough as it is. The notion of taking an NMR always fills me with a sense of "oh god what if it didn't work". It's a lack of faith in Ti thought. The "WHAT IF" comes up, and I'd rather avoid the process, because if it turns out right, I'll have just experience extra stress that I could have avoided. I'd rather just take a gut assumption, say "ok that's good enough" and move on. It goes against protocol and instructions, but it gets me by. It's a lot of detail that utterly overwhelms me.
    In my work, I try to find a balance between strict adherance to established procedures and knowing when to freelance, cut corners, or do something in a a different way. Sure, precision is good, but sometimes it isn't necessary. Or to elaborate, the amount of time and effort it would take to improve the precision of a certain measurement isn't worth it because, for instance, the uncertainty in this measurement is dwarfed by the larger uncertainty in another measurement over which we have no control. In other words, the confidence level of our results will not be improved by spending the extra time and effort on this particular step.

    I had a colleague (ISTP) who was a meticulous experimentalist. He was an expert at all the established procedures in his field, and applied them consistently and faithfully. Even when he didn't need to. We used to argue at times over this, with me pushing him to try a simpler approach when necessary, or showing him why it might be necessary to go outside established procedures. Our arguments would usually end up with me telling him, "Just go into the lab and try it. It will be clear within an hour whether I am right, and if not, you can do it your way." I was generally right.

    In my own work, I can sometimes short-circuit procedures for doing something. The nature of the work is such that I will know immediately if that has worked, or if I need to go back and run the complete standard procedure. One does get a feel for how things turn out based on the observations one makes along the way. Not foolproof, but reliable enough to follow.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes Hard liked this post

  8. #18
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    SEI Fe
    Posts
    7,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    The other thing that I've noticed about analytical Fe types (Fe dom or aux working in a technical field), is that in the end, they never trust their logical analysis. They ALWAYS go by gut feel. If their feelings don't match the objective results, they can't rest until they determine the source of that feeling or otherwise the objective evidence becomes overwhelming.
    I'm pretty sure I absolutely do this
    Likes Hard liked this post

  9. #19
    climb on Showbread's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Enneagram
    3w2 so/sp
    Posts
    2,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post

    I was incredibly stressed about this, and despite telling myself "ok, think of this rationally, everything else says it's fine", I couldn't relax. There seems to be this distinct lack of ability to learn how to properly assess information like this without a sense of distrust/panic over data. I've been at this for 5 years, and this is perhaps the most major thing I have been unable to learn despite tons of experience and countless examples. It seems like due to being inferior-Ti, it's almost beyond my ability to learn how to fully trust objective information in the wake of stress.
    I definitely experience this, however my first instinct would be to attribute to anxiety, rather than personality type. Anxiety is like a radar constantly sweeping your environment for things to fix/protect you from. And once any tiny detail sets it off, it's going to keep beeping at you until it has actual evidence that everything will be fine. Logic/data/facts don't mean a thing once that part of your brain is activated no amount of logical analysis is going to shut it off.

    Now, this could be type related because Fe doms are very in tune with how people work, and people are unpredictable. You can kind of apply logic and data to predict human behavior, but ultimately there are SO many factors that need to be considered to accurately predict behavior. Perhaps we expect more objective situation to also be unpredictable?

    The common pattern I have noticed with inferior Ti in myself, is that unless everything along the way goes perfectly, and precisely within range of what is expected, objective information can't be trusted. It must be 100% correct with no anomolies. If there is one? Trust goes away. Further, there is a failure to consider the weight of the individual anomoly and proceed to think if it indicates of the data is to be trusted or not. My reaction/experiment illustrates this. Everything was right except for one minor detail, on something that is only qualitative. When this is noticed, I begin to think "this is off, and it shouldn't be. Because it's off, I can't trust any of the remaining data points". This process can be applied to a number of things, not just with science. I will be aware of the irrationality of this, and know what I am thinking isn't correct and even say "no, that's not rational". Despite that though, I still can't shake it. That little "what if...", however slim the odds, will not shut up. Not with everything of course, but if there is a significant amount riding on something (whether it be health related, financial, etc), it's more difficult to disregard this feeling of distrust.
    This also sounds a lot like anxiety to me. The constant "what iffing" and ruminating on possible bad outcomes, even though logically most information points to a good outcome. When I do this I find myself trying find security in things that supposed to be objective and 100% reliable. But then I ask myself, is anything 100% reliable? To which my answer is generally "no". I'm not a scientist, but I would imagine that even with something tried and true there is still variability. How old are my components? Could something have been tainted? What if something happened in the lab where it was prepared? Did I actually measure that correctly? Even Te users are subject to this if anxiety is present. My INTJ brother who has OCD/GAD finds himself in this mindset from time to time.


    I wonder if there is a connection to mental well being as well. I have noticed that if everything is going smoothly, it's fairly easy to mitigate this issue with distrusting data. However, if there is a lot of external stress/pressure, it's challenging. This comes up in financial areas as well. Everything hinges on money. If you don't have enough you can't pay rent or feed yourself; basic needs. As a result it's very "sensitive" and unless everything is stable, consistent, and expected. It's immensely uncomfortable and there is a distinct lack of rational thinking associcted with it. I simply don't trust it, and is a major reason why despite being 27, I have never owned a credit card.
    I really wouldn't consider money to be something objective or data related. Sure, you could know exactly how much money you need to meet your needs on a monthly basis. Even if you secure a job that provides enough money, with a little bit of a buffer to keep you in the green, shit happens. Cars break down, illness can cause you to miss work/rack up medical bills, pets get sick and have to go to the vet, etc. Even if you carefully calculate how much money you need, things can always change. I have anxiety, so I worry about stuff like this, even though logically I know that most months will be normal, and I'll have enough money. And if something does happen, no amount of worrying will actually help when it does.

    It's strange to me that I can be aware of all of this, and see the irrationality of it all, but can't seem to learn to deal. It can be dealt with on a mental level, but it doesn't address the feelings with it. I know that the correct thing to do is to simply trust the data, trust the facts, because they simply are. You aren't supposed to read into them. Curiously though, it's the fact that they just are that is a problem. Fe is used to finagling stuff to make it work. It's why it does so well in the social world. Things that just are, can not be finagled. As such they feel incredibly rigid and scary. Like there is no loophole, way out, talk out, work around, etc should something go amiss. There is a lack of security blanket with it. There's a feeling of "you fuck up once and there is no second chance".
    Maybe this is just confirming all your theory, but I just don't always trust data. Data said that Donald Trump wouldn't make it this far. Well, he did. Data says he won't win, but he very well still might. I don't trust data related to people, because people do crazy things. Which is probably why I will never get tired of studying them. Most data related to human beings is really just calculated guess work. So much goes into the accuracy of data. Who funded the study? Did they have a desired outcome in mind? Did the researchers actually follow all of of the protocol? Did the people in the study actually do what the researchers suggested? What would happen if they extended the study to 10 years instead of 5? Would the results change? I distrust data because I know how much potential for error there is in collecting data. Not to mention that people fake data, all the time and then get busted for it years later. Just look at the vaccine situation. At one point there "was data" that suggested vaccines caused Autism. But it turned out to be a load of crap because the researcher didn't follow protocols correctly and faked his data. Things like this make it very difficult for me to trust science immediately. Because ultimately, the accuracy of science depends on the accuracy of the people conducting the experiment. And people are never 100% accurate. We screw up, it's unavoidable.
    Friends, waffles, work

    "The problem is, when you depend on a substitute for love, you can never get enough" - Louis Cozolino

    3w2 6w7 1w2
    *Gryffindor*


  10. #20
    Fe this! Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,528

    Default

    The way FJs process objective data has sorta been on my mind for a while now. It's like there's not much ability to process objective data holistically- meaning, to see all the details at once and to be able to pick out the ones that matter (in a 'shared reality' kind of way- they obviously matter to the individual FJ). It's a "can't see the forest for the trees" kind of thing, where experience of one tree seems to give all they need to know about the forest; whereas other times, one whole forest is not a big enough sample size. It's almost like sometimes the lens of perception is concave, sometimes it's convex- so, there's a constant "objects in mirror are closer/further away than they appear" going on with details- and the only way to know if the lens is curved is to give it time and check it later or to ask someone else whose judgment has been established (with the particular FJ) as sound. I think it's more visible (and accessible) in ExFJs. I see something a lot like this in myself and other INFJs (possibly ISFJs), but there's additionally an absolute unwillingness- to the point where I'd say it's an incapability- to go forward until we have a better idea of whether the 'detail' we're looking at is as significant as it feels, or even until we have a better idea of what the offending 'detail' is in the first place.

    I had an ENFJ mom, and it could be infuriating at times to deal with the way she seemed to think her own gut instinct should be 'clear' to everyone else. In her mind, she thought she was presenting linear reasoning. And I had a close eNFJ friend who would react much the same way (emphasis on "had", it got to be too much for me to deal with). I don't know how to describe it except to say that it seemed like there was no objective rhyme or reason for why certain details blew up to be so incredibly important and why other details were dismissed. That, in itself, wasn't the infuriating part- it was that there was an obliviousness to that lack of rhyme or reason and an aggressiveness in pursuing their point incommensurate with the validity of its logic. Trying to point out how something didn't make sense would get interpretted as some kind of willful misunderstanding (on the other person's end) of their point. [I'm not saying every ExFJ does this, I'm saying some ExFJs do this.]
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    INFJ 5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari -or- disagree with my type?

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] Quotes, Sayings and Words of Wisdom to Inspire, Encourage and Challenge
    By Ene in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-27-2015, 08:38 PM
  2. Peer directed behaviour and lack of a self
    By Lark in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-19-2013, 02:42 PM
  3. Ps and (lack of) work ethic
    By simulatedworld in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-03-2009, 11:19 PM
  4. [MBTItm] NFs and (lack of) sense of direction
    By WobblyStilettos in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 04-24-2008, 10:48 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
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO