[MBTI General] INFJs - Why we hold back

[nightning]

It seems to be a deep need to keep a white centre, where you could be still, calm, and untouched, in a way... but at the same time, there's a need to empathize with others, but also a kind of fear that the empathy would stain you?

In contrast, the ENFJ would go out seeking to be stained, and find their meaning and reason for being in the colours, no?

Yours would be to have a white centre with the colours swirling around, outside then?

Makes sense?

*nods* Yes I agree with that.. white centre... I need an internal framework setup before I can do anything. It's not just for empathizing with others... but also for handling pretty much everything.

Oh! That's funny, because I say the *exact* opposite: I don't do empathy, I do sympathy. Empathy is what INFPs do, in my view: feel what the other feels, even when the other doesn't tell them how he feels. Sympathy is what I do: I can feel what someone tells me they feel, or what I imagine they feel, but I can't directly *know* what someone feels. But maybe I don't use empathy and sympathy in the right way?

I dunno, somehow the word sympathy to me is passive... Hmmm subtle meaning behind words I suppose. Differences in connotations. But then again, I sit on the fence for J/P anyhow... so meh.

Black ! I said "black", as in black box! Where are you coming from with your white center ??

lol black box... I like black box too... It's a good description of what's inside an Ni dominant mind.

 

[disregard]

Ah.. it all makes sense now.

It is introverted intuition that causes/allows for this foresight and avoidance of unfavorable consequences in the future.. this why INFJs are so private with their inner world... I could never grasp what it was exactly.. it is Ni!

This is why the two most mysterious types are INTJ and INFJ! They are much more aware of the information they are gathering through their Intuition.. and so they bear a burden of having to hold back, because they have been given reason to do so.

Whereas a type like me, with Ne, it is a bit harder for me to judge character.. I tend to suspend judgment because I am not very good at it. But Ni must give you a whole lot of insight into others.

 

[cascadeco]

Ah.. it all makes sense now.

It is introverted intuition that causes/allows for this foresight and avoidance of unfavorable consequences in the future.. this why INFJs are so private with their inner world... I could never grasp what it was exactly.. it is Ni!

This is why the two most mysterious types are INTJ and INFJ! They are much more aware of the information they are gathering through their Intuition.. and so they bear a burden of having to hold back, because they have been given reason to do so.

Whereas a type like me, with Ne, it is a bit harder for me to judge character.. I tend to suspend judgment because I am not very good at it. But Ni must give you a whole lot of insight into others.

Well...I do think you've gotten to the heart of much of it.

That said....I tend to be more careful/cautious these days, and try not to rely too much on it, and will sometimes try to suspend judgment and put aside initial conclusions for at least a bit...because quite frankly, I HAVE been wrong in the past. I think usually I have good insight into others, but the times I have been wrong have really hit me hard, shooken me up, and it's then taken me a long while to feel I can 'trust' my intuition again. Cause it's not always right.....

On the other hand, there have been several instances where my intuition has been 'right' from the very start, but I have ignored it and given people a lot more chances, only to ultimately realize I would have been better off 'listening' to the Ni right from the start.

 

[disregard]

Yes.. but just as an INTP finds sharpening one's Ti a lifetime process.. so will the INFJ with Ni. The point is.. you have the natural capabilities.. With me, I would have to expend effort, it is unnatural for me to be hyperaware with my intuition.. whereas, for you, it is always working for you, you only choose when to ignore or respond to it.

 

[Wandering]

That said....I tend to be more careful/cautious these days, and try not to rely too much on it, and will sometimes try to suspend judgment and put aside initial conclusions for at least a bit...because quite frankly, I HAVE been wrong in the past. I think usually I have good insight into others, but the times I have been wrong have really hit me hard, shooken me up, and it's then taken me a long while to feel I can 'trust' my intuition again. Cause it's not always right.....

The way I see it: our Ni insights are only as good as the information they are based on. Only problem is: because it's *Introverted* iNtuition, it's hard to know just what pieces of info it's been considering, and/or to force it to extend this basis. With Extraverted iNtuition, you can deliberately read more stuff, ask more people for their opinion, things like that. Not so with Ni, which makes it hard to know just how "grounded" an Ni insight actually is. Sometimes it's obvious, because Ni will "export" its findings to the "conscious" mind, showing what it linked together and how they just fit perfectly, but when this doesn't happen and Ni just delivers the finished product without explaining how it created it, it's harder to know whether to trust it or not.

In my experience anyway

 

[cascadeco]

Yes.. but just as an INTP finds sharpening one's Ti a lifetime process.. so will the INFJ with Ni. The point is.. you have the natural capabilities.. With me, I would have to expend effort, it is unnatural for me to be hyperaware with my intuition.. whereas, for you, it is always working for you, you only choose when to ignore or respond to it.

Yes, I suppose that's true. No one ever said just because something is your primary function means you've 'mastered' it completely, or even that you EVER will!

The way I see it: our Ni insights are only as good as the information they are based on. Only problem is: because it's *Introverted* iNtuition, it's hard to know just what pieces of info it's been considering, and/or to force it to extend this basis. With Extraverted iNtuition, you can deliberately read more stuff, ask more people for their opinion, things like that. Not so with Ni, which makes it hard to know just how "grounded" an Ni insight actually is. Sometimes it's obvious, because Ni will "export" its findings to the "conscious" mind, showing what it linked together and how they just fit perfectly, but when this doesn't happen and Ni just delivers the finished product without explaining how it created it, it's harder to know whether to trust it or not.

In my experience anyway

I think I'll have to ponder the whole Ni thing a bit more before I can respond to this...because to be honest, I sometimes don't even know what exactly I'm *doing* when I'm Ni'ing! I haven't thoroughly analyzed or broken down all of my thought patterns, etc. But what you write makes sense.

My only immediate response is that my 'hunches' tend to be based off of a series of details/input, built over time, or even fairly quickly, if I factor in previous learnings and input-- and the combination of all of it together yields my impression. But to verbalize any of this would just seem completely ridiculous or off-the-wall to most people...you know, like, 'Oh, you're reading WAY too much into X or Y' - but truly, I tend to think one can read a lot into certain things, or rather, it's the combination of *many* things together that yields the impression/iNtuition (and yes, the things taken in individually wouldn't mean much - but it's the combo of the details that does it)...and to verbalize it would be impossible. So perhaps that's another reason I tend to keep things to myself.

 

[nightning]

The way I see it: our Ni insights are only as good as the information they are based on. Only problem is: because it's *Introverted* iNtuition, it's hard to know just what pieces of info it's been considering, and/or to force it to extend this basis. With Extraverted iNtuition, you can deliberately read more stuff, ask more people for their opinion, things like that. Not so with Ni, which makes it hard to know just how "grounded" an Ni insight actually is. Sometimes it's obvious, because Ni will "export" its findings to the "conscious" mind, showing what it linked together and how they just fit perfectly, but when this doesn't happen and Ni just delivers the finished product without explaining how it created it, it's harder to know whether to trust it or not.

It's a very sad thing... but all too true. I think of it as that Ni create many many links inside the mind to form a model. And that Ni insight arises when it comes up with a new pattern, or it simply find something that doesn't fit within the existing system. But the input is always inside the mind. You're never certain just exactly how much of what you came up with actually reflects what's out there in the real world. I think both Ni and Ne just delivers the results without explaining anything, however at least Ne is using what's observable in the world. Ni just pulls whatever from memory. I have a lot of difficulties trusting in my intuition because of this unknown. Although I really should give it more credit.

Yes, I suppose that's true. No one ever said just because something is your primary function means you've 'mastered' it completely, or even that you EVER will!

+1... You're always learning... even something as familiar to you as your dominant function.

My only immediate response is that my 'hunches' tend to be based off of a series of details/input, built over time, or even fairly quickly, if I factor in previous learnings and input-- and the combination of all of it together yields my impression. But to verbalize any of this would just seem completely ridiculous or off-the-wall to most people...you know, like, 'Oh, you're reading WAY too much into X or Y' - but truly, I tend to think one can read a lot into certain things, or rather, it's the combination of *many* things together that yields the impression/iNtuition (and yes, the things taken in individually wouldn't mean much - but it's the combo of the details that does it)...and to verbalize it would be impossible. So perhaps that's another reason I tend to keep things to myself.

I can't readily explain my intuition very well either. It's like Ni comes up with an answer... and I have to go back with Ti in order to figure out how I derived that, so I can explain it to people. If only I can say to them "because my Ni said so" and have that as a valid reason.

 

[Wandering]

I *totally* know what you're talking about, Cascade !!

 

[cascadeco]

I *totally* know what you're talking about, Cascade !!

Ah..sweet!!! No need for further explanation!! INFJ's unite!!!!

 

[Athenian200]

It's a very sad thing... but all too true. I think of it as that Ni create many many links inside the mind to form a model. And that Ni insight arises when it comes up with a new pattern, or it simply find something that doesn't fit within the existing system. But the input is always inside the mind. You're never certain just exactly how much of what you came up with actually reflects what's out there in the real world. I think both Ni and Ne just delivers the results without explaining anything, however at least Ne is using what's observable in the world. Ni just pulls whatever from memory. I have a lot of difficulties trusting in my intuition because of this unknown. Although I really should give it more credit.

One thing I really don't agree with so much is that I don't know where my ideas come from. Sometimes it's based on something a bit far-fetched or unusual, but I can usually explain it. Occasionally I become aware of events as or before they happen by suddenly remembering various patterns at just the right time to interpret their meaning. I can always tell which patterns those were, though. People saying that Ni is "hazy" and hard to express like this is the one thing I always disagree with... I've always been fairly good at articulating my insights if I were asked to do so.

So are you saying that Ni pulls Se from memory, in a way?

 

[wedekit]

Maybe I've been a little misleading with my explanation of Ni. It not that I can't articulate where I draw my conclusion, it's more like people will rarely understand the validness of it, causing me to go through lengthy monologues so they can understand a concept they don't see as reliable (except my INTJ friends).

I had a friend (ESFP) ask my opinion of someone we had recently met. I replied that he seemed like a creep that was lying to try and impress her, due to his tone and the arrogant look in his eyes, and probably some other key things I don't remember. She got slightly offended and said that she didn't think my inference was well grounded, as well as "You're not psychic so don't judge people".

Needless to say she pursued some kind of relationship with him and discovered he was indeed arrogant, a liar, and a creep. She still doesn't believe that my way of interpreting people by things other than their overall appearance and what they tell you is a legitimate way of interpreting people.

Not the best example but I think it touches at the point I was trying to get across. Also, because I had to type all of this to explain the concept illustrates how I conversation about my Ni usually ends with people looking at their watches and finding an excuse to leave.

 

[will5250]

lol black box... I like black box too... It's a good description of what's inside an Ni dominant mind.

I must have overlooked this description earlier in the thread. This is a good description of my shadow Ni also. It takes in info, and I'm not really prevy to it's process, but conclusions bubble up from deep inside, only my Ni functions more like a separate being, perhaps like a muse; it teaches me how to be, and responds to my bidding, but kind of independent from me; like a black box process.

 

[nightning]

One thing I really don't agree with so much is that I don't know where my ideas come from. Sometimes it's based on something a bit far-fetched or unusual, but I can usually explain it. Occasionally I become aware of events as or before they happen by suddenly remembering various patterns at just the right time to interpret their meaning. I can always tell which patterns those were, though. People saying that Ni is "hazy" and hard to express like this is the one thing I always disagree with... I've always been fairly good at articulating my insights if I were asked to do so.

So are you saying that Ni pulls Se from memory, in a way?

The way my Ni works is like this. Usually one of two cases happens.

1. Somebody started telling me something. I noticed something within the argument attracts my attention. Sometimes it's the feeling that something is wrong, or incomplete. Or that I see parts that seems to missing key to my internal model. The initial awareness is fuzzy. Like my mind is telling me there's something more there that I should look for, yet I cannot explicitly say exactly what it might be. Although, usually, if you give me sufficient time to think things over, I can go back and explain the connections (Ti analysis).

2. This one I think is similar to what you've described. At the first go around, I couldn't figure out an answer. So I let the idea sit at the back of my mind. Then while I'm doing something else, like washing dishes for example, the relevant pattern comes into my mind and I figure out the solution. I can see the pattern and know which one it is... but I cannot tell you how the said pattern floated into my consciousness, not without spending time to think it over.

Ni pulls Se from memory? I don't quite understand what you mean by that. Ni can pull snippets from memory. Like remembering particular instances that stick out (usually Se stuff I've flagged as of potential interest). That would be Ni drawing from Si though would it not? How those two functions can interact is a big unknown to me.

Ni interacting with Se. I think of that as Ni noticing missing pieces in the pattern and wants to fill them in. Either Fe or Ti determines what is the best way to obtain the additional information, then have Se fish it out by observing people and things. Because Ni is dominant, you can say all the other functions essentially acts as slaves to serve its whim.

Maybe I've been a little misleading with my explanation of Ni. It not that I can't articulate where I draw my conclusion, it's more like people will rarely understand the validness of it, causing me to go through lengthy monologues so they can understand a concept they don't see as reliable (except my INTJ friends).

Not the best example but I think it touches at the point I was trying to get across. Also, because I had to type all of this to explain the concept illustrates how I conversation about my Ni usually ends with people looking at their watches and finding an excuse to leave.

I've also found it difficult trying to explain my "hunches" to people (in particularly sensors). A lot of times they want concrete reasoning... the facts so to speak just don't really exist. There are just patterns, of fitting and not fitting. Sometimes too much talking to them influences my own thinking so I tend not to share much unless I feel that it's necessary.

 

[wedekit]

I've also found it difficult trying to explain my "hunches" to people (in particularly sensors). A lot of times they want concrete reasoning... the facts so to speak just don't really exist. There are just patterns, of fitting and not fitting. Sometimes too much talking to them influences my own thinking so I tend not to share much unless I feel that it's necessary.

Or these facts they request only exist in reality, which is not where we focus our attention. The opposite can be true for me as well: they use facts to support what they are saying, and sometimes these facts don't mean much in my realm of thinking.

 

[Wandering]

I've also found it difficult trying to explain my "hunches" to people (in particularly sensors).

Explaining Ni hunches to Ne people can also be pretty difficult. Unlike Sensors, they don't have a problem visualising the pattern I show them, but they don't understand what's so special about this particular pattern that I should hold it above the other possible patterns. And half the time, I don't know either why my Ni "chose" this pattern and not another, so...

 

[will5250]

Explaining Ni hunches to Ne people can also be pretty difficult. Unlike Sensors, they don't have a problem visualising the pattern I show them, but they don't understand what's so special about this particular pattern that I should hold it above the other possible patterns. And half the time, I don't know either why my Ni "chose" this pattern and not another, so...

I'm an Ne person, but hunches to me aren't like it might be this or that. They are feelings that one particular outcome or explanation is the solution. I don't understand why you have trouble explaining that to Ne folks.

 

[wedekit]

Yeah... I feel confused about what some people are talking about when they refer to their Ni in these last few posts. I wouldn't try and tell people something if I couldn't even explain it to myself first.

 

[Wandering]

I'm an Ne person, but hunches to me aren't like it might be this or that. They are feelings that one particular outcome or explanation is the solution. I don't understand why you have trouble explaining that to Ne folks.

From my experience, it's because their Ne sees all the different possibilities as equally valid (which is perfectly normal Ne), and me saying "I just feel/know that this one possibility is somehow better than the others" just isn't enough to sway them (which, again, is perfectly normal. After all, I am doing nothing more than saying "just take my word on it", and I don't see why they should.)

I wouldn't try and tell people something if I couldn't even explain it to myself first.

I don't do it on purpose It's just that, for example, I'm having this discussion with someone, and as we explore each other's position, it turns out that mine is based in part on some Ni insight of mine, and then I have to explain why I consider this insight that seems to come from out of nowhere to be valid.

 

[tovlo]

Pretty much, yes. To continue with the black box analogy, here is more or less how I see myself:
* At the center, there is this undestructible black box.
* Around it, there's this huge layer of puffy matter. It's made up of my own home-grown stuff, but also of stuff imported from the outside: expectations, appreciation, and so on. (That's what Cascade explains so well in her post, for example.) Press upon it from the outside, and you can easily mold it, punch holes in it, cut through it, whatever.
* On the outside, there is the crust, the walls put up to protect the puffy insides.

Without the walls, anyone, and I mean *anyone* could pass by me and punch me, cut me, hurt me, deeper and deeper and deeper. The only thing that would eventually stop them would be when they reached my black box core. But that's a LOOOOONG way down!! The damage done on the way would be of monumental proportions!! I'd be a total wreck.

So there's no other solution but to build and maintain those walls, and let in only the people I can trust to not poke and punch too much around.

This describes very well my own internal experience.

 

[batumi]

The truth is that Ni inclines them to keep a part of themselves in reserve--to locate their true identity outside of the expectations and definitions of others. Unlike INTJs, however, their sense of the unexpressed is not impersonal and causal; it is intensely personal and oriented by emotional awareness. Their intuition takes them into psychological areas that other types are likely to keep at bay."

I think this is absolutely true. And one of the things I really notice about
myself is that I can take into myself the personhood of others. They share
deep feelings with me and I absorb them and it's like there is a piece of them
that becomes part of me.
Then they seem to just move on at times and leave that piece with me,
without really minding.
So I think it is self-protection on my part to hold back. I hope this makes
sense.