[NF] INFPs, what do INFJs do that drives you nuts?

[Glycerine]

[Please note that I'm using your word choice. Replace "why" with "the Ni question" and "how" with "the Ne question" to get closer to the truth.]

hmmm interesting. I admit it wasn't the best word choice. What is the "Ni question" vs. "Ne question"? Or is more of a theoretical representation so as not to dilute the essence?

 

[Fidelia]

What I mean, is that unless I've become very personally invested over a period of years, I probably am more likely to disengage from interaction than try to relate to someone with whom I know I have such fundamental differences that friction is inevitable. The only exception would be in a case where I do not have a choice - family member or someone I have to teach or work with - in which case, it helps me to understand how they tick, so that I can make appropriate adjustments.

I don't want to make people feel bad. I wouldn't purposefully do so, and if there is no way I can figure out how to stop inevitably stepping on the person's toes without altering my basic identity, then it is kinder to them to disengage.

In the case of [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION] for example, she I think initially hoped that her and I could have a different sort of relationship where she took some turns "driving" in my inner world. I'm pretty fussy about who I even allow to ride as a passenger in my internal world (let alone driving the car!), and I don't invite just anyone to do that, except for my closest, nearest, dearest people. That's something that takes absolutely years to build and not something I'm likely to do with a casual friends. So, the fact that I don't want that kind of relationship feels like a rebuff or that I want things only on my terms. However, I don't see it that way. There's already an inherent assumption of the other person's value and worth and the validity of their point of view, so that's not what's up for grabs if I decline someone's offer to "guide" me.

Whoever has the most "restrictions" is going to in some way define the perameters of the relationship. I believe the problem is that my "restrictions" are the first step in the process (I filter first and then allow more and more freedom), while NFP "restrictions" come later on in the relationship (they are open at first and then filter more as time goes on). Therefore, it looks like I'll only play in their sandbox if I get to make the rules and that appears unfair. It's not really that though, because if I met someone with greater "restrictions" than my own, then I would have to evaluate whether it is worth it to me to accommodate and whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks to relating in that way. In many cases, I am quite comfortable adapting to meet the other person where they're at. In other cases, it is more hassle than it is worth, so I am cordial, but don't attempt to become any closer.

I feel like the NFP outlook is that you have to accept the other person's rules if they impose them and so it is hurtful when the other person seems to do more imposing than you. What I'm saying is that you have the option of deciding whether the benefits outweigh the restrictions and you will meet the person on their terms to some extent, or else you can seek out someone who is more like-minded and be a more compatible interactive match.

I can kind of understand the feeling a bit, as I tend to accommodate like crazy for some thinking types (especially te doms), and they seem oblivious to just how much accommodating I am doing. When it comes up, they react similarly to the way I have to this - don't give any more than you feel comfortable with. No one has asked you to. And to my ears that seems cold and inflexible, especially when by nature I am compelled to do so! I can't help it, and so it still doesn't feel fair to me that my sacrifices are not only unrecognized, but they are also not valued. I'm not sure what to say to that, as I haven't figured a way around it myself yet...

 

[Tiltyred]

I'm going to print ummlau's post out and frame it.

 

[Tiltyred]

A quick question: Does it strike you that some people aren't looking to 'get' anything out of the conversation? Can you sense when there is no goal? How does that affect your interaction?

I do not believe there is such a thing as a conversation without a goal. It may be a miniscule goal -- maybe it is to make each other laugh, maybe it is just to hear each other's voices -- but there is always a goal -- otherwise, why talk?

I can't even conceive what you might mean by it.

I'm finally starting to see all this as funny.

Regarding the proprietary aspect, whose sandbox it is, whose rules they are -- would it be fair/accurate to say that INFJ assumes that You = Not Me, and INFP assumes that You = Me? If I proceed from the point of view that You = Not Me, then I think it's natural that if you approach me, you come into my yard, or want into my house, I will extend you appropriate courtesies, but I don't expect to see you rifling through my drawers. INFP seems not to even have a door to knock on sometimes. If you live in a culture where there's not even a door to knock on, and we all live in one big room, I can see how having a door, expecting you to come only when invited or at least only drop by at reasonable hours, etc., would seem like a lot of rules.

 

[Starry]

[MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]
I read your psychoanalysis of me and my motivations(?) and I honestly could not tell if you were being serious or not which may be due to the fact I recently came down with pretty bad cold.

If you were serious then we should probably discuss it outside of the thread. I haven't been talked to or warned (yet) by mod staff but from all the 'in-thread' messages posted yesterday...and how many times I've seen honest questions & comments get turned into something they are not... I could totally see an innocent question taken as something that might insult your intellegence or something.

But if you were just fooling around... I'd just say 'No' to what you put forth. I am truly, truly embarrassed by what I am seeing here in this thread.

 

[uumlau]

hmmm interesting. I admit it wasn't the best word choice. What is the "Ni question" vs. "Ne question"? Or is more of a theoretical representation so as not to dilute the essence?

Ni question = "What is it for?"
Ne question = "Where does it fit in?"

More specifically, Ni has a dynamic model (concrete instantiations of the model change over time), while Ne has a more "static" model. As a dynamic model, Ni thinks in terms of how things start, how they develop and how they complete. The Ne model isn't static in the sense that there is no concept of time, but rather that the key ideas are necessarily timeless: it isn't really true if it isn't always true.

Dario Nardi refers to Ne as being good at cross-contextual thinking, while Ni excels within a particular context. In order to handle cross-context thinking, the truths that link all these different contexts must be independent of context, which tends to result in effectively universal truths.

Ni types don't regard such universal truths as unimportant, but prefer to manifest truths within context. When searching for new truths, Ni starts within a single context and gradually builds an understanding of how the truth "changes" as one expands to a larger and larger context (that takes more cases into account).

Take the branches of science as an example of different (but overlapping contexts). The Ne inclination is to regard it all as "science", and that the purpose of science is to find the truth. The various branches are merely "special cases" of an overall generality. The Ni inclination is to specialize in a branch (or two, or usually a sub-sub-sub-set of a branch) and build knowledge from there outward. Ni fully recognizes that all these branches of science are related, some more, some less, but the connections that Ni sees tend to multiply too fast to keep in the mind. For example, it's theoretically possible to use quantum electrodynamics to explain every phenomenon known to man aside from gravity and nuclear reactions, but it would be absurdly difficult to use quantum electrodynamics in everyday chemistry or biology or thermodynamics. There are "macro" laws that describe these other sciences far more succinctly. It's nice to know that it's all interrelated, but the interrelations aren't useful to Ni.

 

[sorenx7]

At a more abstract level, using a concrete example, this is Fi:

This is Fe:

Fi - You like me, in spite of knowing my darker side. Fe - All the things that I might have had with you. Fi is about the subject, so it's always messed up by the darker aspects of the subject. And thus Fi feels most appreciated when accepted in the entirety. Fe is about the object, thus can be placed upon a pedestal (or in the garbage bin, though not in this song). There is a (not necessarily bad) distance between the subject and the object.

I have an INFJ friend who is always sending me videos like that one (of Bocelli.) Evidently, she loves it and can't understand why I don't. I suppose that's why she keeps sending those videos maybe hoping eventually I'll understand or something. I've told her I'm much more oriented toward blues and blues rock. Her response to that is that she can't stand the blues and doesn't even understand that kind of music at all. I'm sure there are INFJs out there who do love the blues and INFPs who don't, etc. But for the purposes of illustration, this is what a musical collaboration between an INFJ and INFP might sound like--

INFP--B.B. King
INFJ--Pavarotti

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE_NEO2UfBQ

 

[Glycerine]

Ni question = "What is it for?"
Ne question = "Where does it fit in?"

More specifically, Ni has a dynamic model (concrete instantiations of the model change over time), while Ne has a more "static" model. As a dynamic model, Ni thinks in terms of how things start, how they develop and how they complete. The Ne model isn't static in the sense that there is no concept of time, but rather that the key ideas are necessarily timeless: it isn't really true if it isn't always true.

Dario Nardi refers to Ne as being good at cross-contextual thinking, while Ni excels within a particular context. In order to handle cross-context thinking, the truths that link all these different contexts must be independent of context, which tends to result in effectively universal truths.

Ni types don't regard such universal truths as unimportant, but prefer to manifest truths within context. When searching for new truths, Ni starts within a single context and gradually builds an understanding of how the truth "changes" as one expands to a larger and larger context (that takes more cases into account).

Take the branches of science as an example of different (but overlapping contexts). The Ne inclination is to regard it all as "science", and that the purpose of science is to find the truth. The various branches are merely "special cases" of an overall generality. The Ni inclination is to specialize in a branch (or two, or usually a sub-sub-sub-set of a branch) and build knowledge from there outward. Ni fully recognizes that all these branches of science are related, some more, some less, but the connections that Ni sees tend to multiply too fast to keep in the mind. For example, it's theoretically possible to use quantum electrodynamics to explain every phenomenon known to man aside from gravity and nuclear reactions, but it would be absurdly difficult to use quantum electrodynamics in everyday chemistry or biology or thermodynamics. There are "macro" laws that describe these other sciences far more succinctly. It's nice to know that it's all interrelated, but the interrelations aren't useful to Ni.

It definitely makes sense why those differences would be hard to reconcile without A LOT of patience and listening (even moreso online). I am the only Ni/Se user in my immediate family (3 NFPs, 1 STJ, 1 ESFJ along with me an ENFJ) and it's still sometimes difficult for me to comprehend Ne/Si.

 

[Tiltyred]

If you can't respond with your soul to BB King's "The Thrill Is Gone", you're not human.

 

[uumlau]

I do not believe there is such a thing as a conversation without a goal. It may be a miniscule goal -- maybe it is to make each other laugh, maybe it is just to hear each other's voices -- but there is always a goal -- otherwise, why talk?

I can't even conceive what you might mean by it.

I'm finally starting to see all this as funny.

Ji "goals" tend to be much more broad and general than Je goals, and this is especially so for a Ji dom. Just the same way that "Ni" is simply what you automatically do without thinking about it, so Fi is for PB. Having a goal, a purpose, for everything is just how Ni is wired. Fi is more about a state of being, and if you try to turn it into a singular Ni-style cause, you either end up being totally wrong, or you learn (fairly truthfully) that it's a never-ending fractal pattern of multiple causes and effects. Fi takes an overall reading of what things are, which enables handling the vast multiplicity efficiently, but it renders the question of "goal" almost meaningless. This is how Fi "building blocks" work.

Ni building blocks are made out of the threads of cause and effect, and so long as the threads of cause and effect are manageable, Ni is well within its area of mastery.

Regarding the proprietary aspect, whose sandbox it is, whose rules they are -- would it be fair/accurate to say that INFJ assumes that You = Not Me, and INFP assumes that You = Me? If I proceed from the point of view that You = Not Me, then I think it's natural that if you approach me, you come into my yard, or want into my house, I will extend you appropriate courtesies, but I don't expect to see you rifling through my drawers. INFP seems not to even have a door to knock on sometimes. If you live in a culture where there's not even a door to knock on, and we all live in one big room, I can see how having a door, expecting you to come only when invited or at least only drop by at reasonable hours, etc., would seem like a lot of rules.

Note how this is parallel to SK's comment about INFJs' walls. INFPs don't have walls like that, and find the INFJ walls to be awkward and puzzling, not realizing that there is a door. (Remember, as mentioned in my prior post, the door is invisible to the INFP.)

A more abstract way of looking at it is to think in terms of the different realms of mastery. When you get two real experts together, there are two different kinds of reactions that the experts can have. The more positive one is collaborative: the knowledge is shared and becomes greater for both than it was before. The more typical negative one is blindness. Let's say the experts have about 10% of their knowledge in common, but instead of acknowledging that the other expert knows things that oneself does not, one assumes that the 10% in common is ALL the knowledge of the other person. Thus to this kind of blind expert, all other experts look stupid, because they only know 10% of what he knows.

The analogy applies to the INFJ/INFP interaction, in that there is only a small area of understanding in common, and huge areas of mastery where the other type cannot (easily) see. If the INFP only sees the INFJ being an arrogant ass who needs to be right all the time, and the INFJ only sees the INFP as being whiny and emotionally manipulative, then that's being like the blind experts, certain of their own mastery, while denying the mastery of others.

Perhaps it might help to read masters in Fi, Fe? Here are a couple, in my opinion (I think I've mentioned these to you before, Tilty, but this is more for the forum in general).

Fi: Don Miguel Ruiz's The Four Agreements (and associated books)

Fe: Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving

Ruiz works from the inside, showing how one can subjectively achieve a high level of emotional maturity (though he wouldn't call it that). Fromm works externally, explaining love and love's role in society, and deducing from that what mature, true love looks like.

And their writings are completely compatible, arriving at very similar conclusions. Fromm provocatively states that true love is an act of will ("provocative" to those who believe that one just "falls in love", that love is just a feeling). Ruiz provides a subjective guide as to how one actually arrives at the state where love is an act of will.

 

[Tiltyred]

I will read these books.
Edited: I am reading Don Miguel Ruiz, available for instant download on Nook
Fromm is ordered, can't download it, so it will be next.

 

[sorenx7]

If you can't respond with your soul to BB King's "The Thrill Is Gone", you're not human.

However, it does seem that as a genre blues is more in decline now. My friend's views are probably not far-fetched.

 

[sorenx7]

Fromm's book was required reading in one of my psychology classes. But that was so long ago I can't remember many details.

 

[Tiltyred]

The INFPs should read The Four Agreements. (It's only 70 pages.)

 

[PeaceBaby]

The INFPs should read The Four Agreements. (It's only 70 pages.)

Why do you think so?

 

[Southern Kross]

I don't know what I think yet about that...

I guess, yes, I would agree with PeaceBaby, that I absolutely will dictate the terms of interaction, as I would also expect others to do as well. If we agree about how to interact, then we'll interact. If we don't, then we won't. They have exactly the same right as me to decide that they don't like the terms of interaction and choose not to engage. I think this is one of the reasons why I find it so difficult to interact with larger groups of people. I'm trying to figure out what all of them are hoping to get out of the conversation, how to address those needs best and decide if I can work with it. What if I arrive at the conclusion that I can with some and not with others? Then that means that I'm being unkind or excluding some people, when it is really just that I don't see how it can turn out well, or else I just have to water it down to something that is non-offensive to anyone (and therefore not all that stimulating).

Hmmm. I don't usually like to dictate the terms of interaction - not consciously anyway. I suppose it's entirely possible that I do dictate without knowing I do. I realise my manner and nature might put people in a position where they feel an obligation placed on them to adjust to my way. Anyway, I find that pure, unfiltered, unedited me is not really palatable to most people - so I try to adjust a little to what others need (I'm So-first though - and probably not the best INFP example). This can only go so far though; I feel like that 'pure me' is like a wild animal on a leash; it's going to want to do what it wants to do and there's only so much you can do to tame that.

Do you really go around wondering what people are hoping to get out of a conversation? That sounds exhausting; trying to anticipate what people want that much. But then maybe it's not for you - maybe it's natural.

I didn't consider before that the "where did I go wrong" idea was necessarily an invitation to let the other person take over. Usually that is the fundamental question that I want to answer for myself (as I am focussed on the goal I am heading towards and how I got lost on the way). I would see it a bit like making sure someone knows their way around the place (hence my filtering for credibility) and then getting advice from more than one person about where I took a wrong turn. That doesn't necessarily mean I'll just take one person's word at face value, or even that I am conducting a poll. More like accessing expertise that I don't have access to, and then making an informed choice about what I want to do with the information. I would still reserve the right to decide what I wanted to do with it. However, if it does feel like surrendering control to you guys, that's something that's really helpful for me to know, as I know I have reacted negatively to someone offering to "guide" me, when I hadn't picked them for the job.

Oh, absolutely. This is the most reasonable response - I'm saying I know my reaction isn't reasonable, but it's so strong, it's hard to let go of.

It's still not a question I would ask and I don't entirely know why. Perhaps my previous answer encompassed the reason, but maybe it didn't get at the root of it. It's just too direct and yet knowing/cautious at the same time - this means it fits with Fe more than Te in my eyes. Te would ask instead, "what do you want from me?", and Fi says, "I think we're not on the same page" (I have said this exact phrase when in a confused argument). I realise the Fi phrase is not even a question at all and maybe this is the problem. I prefer to make observations or give possible answers than ask questions in such circumstances. Perhaps if I asked questions it would seem more deferent and open-minded.

I guess I should confess that I want to understand what you guys see differently from me, not so much as a way of validating individuals, as to create generalized rules for myself of interaction that will best accomplish everyone's aims in interacting with each other and so that I do not offend needlessly. I also want to add that knowledge to the structure that I am creating in my head of how things work, as it creates a sense of both satisfaction and security to know how the pieces fit into a larger whole. I think maybe this seems a little cold and impersonal. Maybe even mercenary?

I see no problem with this at all. I'm totally for trying to grasp a general trend and applying that to real life - I do this myself. Any effort to learn about others without a devious goal in mind (eg. like the best way to con them) can't seem wrong to me.

I've found this thread some of the most interesting, real discussion that I've seen on here in a long time and I think at the end of it, I will come away with several points that help inform my perspective courtesy of you folks being willing to help out in the way you have.

Yes, it is stimulating. I think we have a lot to thank [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] and [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION] for - there's been some real development and insights as a result of what they've said (whatever you think about their posts).

 

[Tiltyred]

Why do you think so?

I think you would enjoy it and find it edifying and empowering. [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION], if you want, send me your email address and I will lend it to you.

 

[SubtleFighter]

I wasn't going to reply to this thread although I'm getting a lot out of reading it, but something felt off about some of the comments recently that I couldn't figure out. Then I realized that there were no sx-dom INFJs in the mix, and here I am. (BTW, I am NOT one of the INFJs who were communicating secretly with [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION].)

Regarding INFJs having walls up compared to INFPs and feeling separated from people:

I agree that the majority of INFJs have some kind of system for letting people in that is unlike how INFPs do it. (Other threads have called it circles of trust or somesuch.) You must pass those gateways in order to get into levels of personal information.

However, there is something to be said about the differences in instinctual variants too. When I first was reading what was said about this subject in this thread, I was confused as to what the INFJs (especially [MENTION=5723]Tiltyred[/MENTION]) were saying because this hasn't been my experience. This isn't an exaggeration to say that the majority of Fe-users I know are sx-doms and the Fi-users I know are all sp-doms (one is so/sp). And from this sample, it's the Fi-users who are "I am me" while the Fe-users are "we are a unit." Since the INFJs in here are sp-dom or so-dom while the INFPs who are still around are so-dom, this will make a slight difference. I don't really think of myself as self-contained as much as others are saying they do, and I love connecting with others and sharing things. I know this isn't a huge point in the overall content of this thread (as it stands now), but I wanted to put that out there that there are other INFJ POVs.

Also, I do want to understand Fi and Fi-users--this is why I've been following this thread and I've followed others like it. I know a lot of Fi-users IRL and want to understand/connect to them better.

fwiw

P.S. So many a-ha moments when reading [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION]'s recent posts . . . *goes to ponder them for a month*

 

[Tiltyred]

Do you really go around wondering what people are hoping to get out of a conversation? That sounds exhausting; trying to anticipate what people want that much. But then maybe it's not for you - maybe it's natural.

A person is in the room with you, sitting quietly. Then she raises her head, looks at you, and begins to speak.

She goes from not doing something to doing something. Moving from no action to action implies a reason -- there's something that happened between the being quiet and the speaking that caused her to speak.

That's all we're saying we're looking at. What prompts you. It's usually immediately apparent from the words. Sometimes it isn't, though.

 

[Southern Kross]

That's a good description of the Ne approach. The Ni approach isn't revelation so much as immediately perceiving a truth as being obvious. To debate the truth feels as absurd to Ni as debating whether a red apple is red. "The apple is red, isn't it obvious? Why are we even debating whether the apple is red?" Ne instead notes that the apple isn't completely red, and points out that its insides are white, with black things, and even the skin has speckles of various non-red colors.

You make us sound so nit-picky

The thing is, if someone said to me, I'm looking for apples with mostly red skin, I would probably lay off and help them. The thing is the Ni+Fe statements are even more cryptic than that to me.

Fe vs Fi is an easier barrier to cross than Ne vs Ni. Ne and Ni see different things, but Fe and Fi merely start reasoning from different places. Fe and Fi eventually meet in the middle with very similar conclusions, but if it's Fi-Ne vs Ni-Fe, they will disagree about WHY those conclusions are true, and that means they'll have a hard time arriving at the common ground.

Interesting.

And THIS is why the Ni/Se vs Ne/Si divide is the most difficult barrier to cross. Ne complains that Ni is all walled off and defensive, even as Ni keeps shouting, "Why are you banging on my wall?! The door is over here!" Ni's door is often invisible to Ne, and vice versa.

And Ne users wonder why the Ni-users close the drawbridge and then leave this tiny, hidden door around the back unlocked, when it's so hard to find. It feels like a test we're bound to fail.

I like your apple analogy and I'd like to offer another of my own of what it feels like on the other side of that.

To me Ni+Fe posts are like treasure maps. They give us a vague outline of an island with an x marking the spot. However, the details are scant, there is no scale, the direction of north is not indicated, and many features that would help to orient us seem to be unmarked. The INFJ then drop us on of top of the mountain in the middle of the island and says to point out where the treasure will be.

INFP: Well, I don't know. All I can do is guess from the few clues you've given me where it might be. I suppose it could be under that large palm tree way over there.
INFJ: WRONG! STUPID! You don't know anything. It's actually 3 feet to the left of that.
INFP: Jeez, give me a break. You made me speculate with very little to go on and actually I got pretty close in the end. Surely, I deserve a little credit for that.
INFJ: But the point was to find the treasure and if you dug in that spot, you wouldn't find it.
INFP: But if you had given me the chance I would have gone over there and examined the area around the big palm tree. I would have looked for possible markings, or signs that something has been buried recently, or that something was being been concealed. If there weren't any signs I would dig around in that area until I came across the treasure. I would have found it eventually.
INFJ: The point was to work it out straight away and you didn't. This makes you a bad treasure hunter.
INFP: