[INFJ] When INFJs Dismiss Outside Input Because of the Source

[Esoteric Wench]

I am more likely to only consider those people I consider reliable sources (screening is first rather than later). The flaw I see with my way is that sometimes I discount some things of value because of the source they originated from, and I also tend to be reluctant to discount someone whom I trust, even if their behavior has changed since I started trusting them.

I wanted to start a thread on the aforementioned topic because this is a flaw in the INFJ persona that I've noticed from day one. Please know I'm not saying I'm issue free. I'm just saying that INFJ's can sometimes refuse to interpret information because it goes against their preconceived notions of how that information should be presented.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[sulfit]

Any thoughts on this?

yeah, this is enneagram type 1, competence triad
both 1s and 5s will dismiss you and what you're saying you can't factually back it up or rely on dubious sources, then your information doesn't look "solid" enough and gets rejected

this has very little to do with INFJs as a type, except that many INFJs are 1s and 5s or have wings into these types

 

[KDude]

I figured Te types have a keenness for source.

 

[cafe]

I only dismiss it if it's information that doesn't hold much interest to me. If it does hold interest, I'll have my doubts, but I'll factcheck or watch for new info that either confirms or contradicts it.

 

[Fidelia]

What I mean by source is not where the source of objective facts comes from (that's more of a Te thing). It's more, whose judgement or opinion or impressions I trust, based on my past observations of them, their interaction style, and decision making. Also, how close I am to them determines how open I'll be to their input in my own life.

 

[cafe]

What I mean by source is not where the source of objective facts comes from (that's more of a Te thing). It's more, whose judgement or opinion or impressions I trust, based on my past observations of them, their interaction style, and decision making. Also, how close I am to them determines how open I'll be to their input in my own life.

Oh, yeah, that. To not do that is crazy illogical to me. My God, I would have blown my brains out by now if I took everything people said to me or about me to heart.

 

[KDude]

So it's more about their general "character"?

I can eventually tell when I've made someone comfortable, merely to presentation. I don't know what's worse. Being written off as a reliable information source (due to ideology), or lacking someone's trust (often due to perceived lack of "morals"). They're too different things though, I agree.

 

[cafe]

For me, it's past history (if it's a person I know), ideology, motives, cultural perspective and character that I take into consideration when evaluating the reliability of information.

If it's a personal relationship, I may believe a person about their feelings or motives (or rather I'll believe that's what they believe their motives are) or whatever but that may not change the nature of my relationship with that person. Other information I've accumulated or other considerations may make information they have to offer irrelevant to me for some reason.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

For me process is as important (or moreso) than the product. Even though a stopped clock is correct twice a day, it's process is not something to be depended on simply because it was correct at some point. If a correct process is in place, then an occasional wrong answer will not throw you completely off track. For me credibility has a lot to do with stable thought processes.

 

[Fidelia]

For me, there is an element of trust involved before I am open to working closely with someone, taking their advice, or allowing them input into something that matters a lot to me. I am willing to accept input in areas where the person is competent, while excluding them from areas where I think they are not.

I have a hard time imagining how you would operate otherwise, but from my time on here, I can see that some types are definitely more open to considering any person's idea or feedback, regardless of what they think of the person. For me, it is not even so much a matter of how long I have known them, or even if I like the person personally, but whether I feel they are a reliable and knowledgeable person about the subject they are wanting me to consider.

Sometimes I do write off a person's opinion completely due to their approach or what seems to me to be a demonstrated lack of competence in the area they are attempting to give advice in. This is a filtering mechanism that I use to prevent the man, the boy and the donkey syndrome. From what I've seen, Ne users or types that appear more open also have a filtering system, except it happens at the other end of things.

Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses. I think sometimes that with that openness also comes some fickleness (leading people to believe you are open to them, only to filter them out once they think you like them, as opposed to letting them in gradually), or leaving yourself open to opportunistic people whom you know very little about and feeling blindsided.

I realize my way has some downsides, but for me, the upsides outweigh them. I think I've gotten more willing to step outside my comfort zone and be a little more open than I once was, but I don't really have any yen to change who I am either. I can't operate like an ENFP, because I'm not one, so I have to minimize the problems inherent with my INFJ approach and try to balance it out a bit, while still remaining true to who I am.

 

[Fidelia]

For me, there is an element of trust involved before I am open to working closely with someone, taking their advice, or allowing them input into something that matters a lot to me. I am willing to accept input in areas where the person is competent, while excluding them from areas where I think they are not.

I have a hard time imagining how you would operate otherwise, but from my time on here, I can see that some types are definitely more open to considering any person's idea or feedback, regardless of what they think of the person. For me, it is not even so much a matter of how long I have known them, or even if I like the person personally, but whether I feel they are a reliable and knowledgeable person about the subject they are wanting me to consider.

Sometimes I do write off a person's opinion completely due to their approach or what seems to me to be a demonstrated lack of competence in the area they are attempting to give advice in. This is a filtering mechanism that I use to prevent the man, the boy and the donkey syndrome. From what I've seen, Ne users or types that appear more open also have a filtering system, except it happens at the other end of things.

Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses. I think sometimes that with that openness also comes some fickleness (leading people to believe you are open to them, only to filter them out once they think you like them, as opposed to letting them in gradually), or leaving yourself open to opportunistic people whom you know very little about and feeling blindsided.

I realize my way has some downsides, but for me, the upsides outweigh them. I think I've gotten more willing to step outside my comfort zone and be a little more open than I once was, but I don't really have any yen to change who I am either. I can't operate like an ENFP, because I'm not one, so I have to minimize the problems inherent with my INFJ approach and try to balance it out a bit, while still remaining true to who I am.

 

[Fidelia]

Regarding the OP - this is a perfect example. Had EW come in initially with a quote from me taken out of context and offering uninvited perceptions of the negative traits INFJs have, I would have taken offence.

However, after having it out in a few threads and having a better sense of where she is coming from, I wouldn't necessarily take the advice as definitive truth, but I would be willing to factor it in as one of many considerations as I consider my approach to other people. Knowing her background with INFJs, as well as her perspective as a Ne user makes it easier to understand her interpretation of what seems to me a logical and sensible approach to life. Overall, I have more respect for her input in the context of the time I have known her than if she had the same thing to say and was unknown to me.

 

[skylights]

I am willing to accept input in areas where the person is competent, while excluding them from areas where I think they are not.

I have a hard time imagining how you would operate otherwise, but from my time on here, I can see that some types are definitely more open to considering any person's idea or feedback, regardless of what they think of the person. For me, it is not even so much a matter of how long I have known them, or even if I like the person personally, but whether I feel they are a reliable and knowledgeable person about the subject they are wanting me to consider.

Sometimes I do write off a person's opinion completely due to their approach or what seems to me to be a demonstrated lack of competence in the area they are attempting to give advice in. This is a filtering mechanism that I use to prevent the man, the boy and the donkey syndrome. From what I've seen, Ne users or types that appear more open also have a filtering system, except it happens at the other end of things.

As far as I'm aware, I filter like this too. I tend to identify strengths and weaknesses and trust people as information sources accordingly. I'm always interested in new information if it seems plausible based on what I know, or if it's coming from a source that seems trustworthy.

I do think it takes me longer in general to write someone off as a non-reliable source. It's a Si thing, maybe, in that they typically have to prove themselves inaccurate over and over. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt, because inaccurate information isn't really anything new when you're used to sorting through huge amounts of external information. I'd generally rather sort through a pile of useless slush than miss out on a gem.

I assume it's a little different for Ni because good results come more from quality than quantity. It seems to make sense that an INxJ would need to be a more selective N information-gatherer.

I also assume things flip when it comes to S information, with ENxPs being much pickier about what sensory detail they become attached to over time, while INxJs are probably more welcoming of grand-scale Se exposure.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I’m currently reading Pinker’s The Language Instinct- this line caught my attention a couple days ago as an interesting problem:

Keeping a forty-year-old in prison for a theft committed as a teenager assumes that the forty-year-old John and the eighteen-year-old John are “the same person,” a cruel logical error that would be avoided if we referred to them not as John but as John1972 and John1994, respectively.​

It comes to mind as perhaps a useful springboard for this conversation. I actually did think about Pe vs. Pi when I first read it (and supposed that a Pe probably asserted it).

 

[PeaceBaby]

I wanted to start a thread on the aforementioned topic because this is a flaw in the INFJ persona that I've noticed from day one. Please know I'm not saying I'm issue free. I'm just saying that INFJ's can sometimes refuse to interpret information because it goes against their preconceived notions of how that information should be presented.

I would agree that INFJ's in particular can appear the most closed of any type to information that does not meet a certain "protocol" standard. The "wrong" facts, said the "wrong" way, at the "wrong" time, by the "wrong" person ... I think what makes it stand out too is that (especially to Pe types) we just accept all input and sort through it after. It's quite startling to us I think to imagine dismissing anything in an initial evaluative gathering of information. Or dismissing information because of anything related to "decorum". Naturally, I still examine the source of the information I gather, but the source does not prevent my consideration of the ideas for their inherent value alone, independent of their origin.

I think what makes it stand out more is that INFJ's in particular feel more flexy to me externally than they really are internally ... their intuition kind of sends out these (almost seemingly false) openness signals to information gathering, so it can be a surprise to realize and learn that in execution, all input is not considered equally valid from the get-go, and that their minds have (to us, what seems prematurely) closed to certain options and appear intractable to revisit those options.

INxJ's in particular seem often drawn more to information that they are unconsciously looking for. The way they perceive the world has to go in through the Ni filter then come back out to the outer world as judgement on that information. So, they skim, evaluate and thus limit input in order to aid or speed up that process. IxxJ's overall have (in comparison to how I feel about such things) a sense of inner rigidity which can, at times, make the inception of new information into their "inner grid" challenging.

Of course, we Pe types can tend to take in too much info, not be discerning enough about source, consider too many things of equal value when we should narrow focus earlier to our benefit and occasionally dismiss a source as hokey off the hop. "Squirrel?" We simply don't have that initial filter to information that Pi types do. Everything in the direct environment just comes in as it is experienced, everything is initially fair game. Judgement and evaluation only comes later.

Fe / Ti types, in general and in my experience, do tend to assign source credibility a higher value overall and seem more impressed by that. Once you "prove" a certain competence to Fe / Ti, you get to enjoy the benefit of that in a role or as a person for an extended time, whereas an Fi / Te user tends to look more to individual events to form trends that either tend to play out over time or diverge. An example for clarity: as a web developer, I have worked with many INTP's, and if you've got the paper credentials, and then prove to them that not only can you "talk the talk", but "walk the walk" (through the successful completion of a suitably impressive task) you are IN. And then your competency is simply assumed moving forward, sometimes shockingly so haha. INTJ's and ISTJ's, however, want to look more at each individual project you work on and although they form a picture in their mind of what you can do, and there's a sense of trust attached to their belief in your competency, there's never that same sense of being "off-leash".

Hope my vantage point helps contribute to an overall picture here.

 

[garbage]

We all live in a world of information and sensory overload. One helpful heuristic that helps filter for good information is considering the source, though that filter may sometimes miss the mark.

 

[Fidelia]

I think part of this phenomenon also has to do with the fact that Ni keeps generating further possibilities, so each piece of information we accept is really 10 times as big as it initially appears and takes quite some time to process. If we accept all the information that's thrown out there without filtering some of the most obvious stuff out by source, then we would never be able to come to any decisions. As it is, Ni already takes a dreadful amount of time to work through ideas to make it possible to come to a decision.

 

[EJCC]

Excellent, excellent thread.

I had heard this phenomenon described as "Ni tunnel-vision", but I know so many more INFJs who have it, than INTJs, so the term has felt flawed from the get-go. This makes much more sense. (I have one INFJ friend in particular who I've been struggling with, who is so blind to contrary opinions that he will make himself forget that conversations ever happened. )

[MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION]'s post and several others ring very true with my experience with the INFJs in my life. And I'm also pretty shocked when that happens, because for me, facts are facts, and context doesn't change how true the information is*, even if it changes how the information makes you feel. Any viewpoint contrary to that, makes very little sense to me. (But obviously I want to understand, which is why I am subscribing to this thread!)

*Though, to be fair, I do put a lot of emphasis on the source of the data, if it contradicts what I previously understood/believed -- but that, as stated earlier in the thread, is a Te thing, and it also has nothing to do with decorum.

 

[Ginkgo]

There's a difference between accepting that a source gave out information, and accepting that the source's information reflects the truth about what it denotes. Gathering source material with the source in mind allows one to categorize perspectives to avoid confusion once one comes to their own conclusions. The "argument from authority" fallacy is a different matter.

 

[Fidelia]

Accepting emotional advice from someone who seems to be unqualified is the same to me as considering wikipedia a reliable source to quote. Even if some of the information is correct, the fact that some of it is not makes it hard for it to be taken seriously as a source document. I feel the same way when someone wants to tell me how to think of something or organize my emotional world (or worse, do it for me) and I don't see them as a reliable resource. I can deal with information I dislike, as long as I believe it to be reliable and true. It came up in another thread, but there is sometimes a tendency for NFPs to throw a bunch of stuff out there - some true and some more tainted and declare it as truth at the beginning. I find it hard then to trust them if they don't make the distinction at the beginning that some is subjective and some is objective. I'm not saying this is true of all NFPs, but it did seem to be a reoccurring sticking point between INFJs and them, so I wonder if it is a basic Ne/Ni conflict (Ni requires everything to fit into a cohesive whole, double checked by Ti for accuracy, while Ne generates a huge volume of different ideas and then sorts them afterwards.).

In the other thread, someone compared it to building a machine. The Ne users are looking for any interesting and possibly useful parts with which they could build something, but they don't know what they could make out of it until they see all the parts. The Ni user wants to define what exactly they are making first and then sorts the parts accordingly for what is going to be useful for making that particular machine. They may recognize that some of the parts are useful for something, but it seems a waste of time to look at them all carefully if the end goal is creating a particular machine which doesn't utilize those parts. I found that a useful analogy for understanding our very different perspectives. Either approach if taken to an extreme, is not good. However, if both are tempered a little, they can be very complementary and helpful to one another.

Anyway, I think it helps to explain why Ni/Ti users are often so stuck on what the end goal of the conversation, statement, project is, while Ne/Te seems more open to seeing what emerges from the whole thing in the end. It would have been very helpful for me had I understood this earlier on as a moderator. I still have trouble getting my head around the other approach in practical terms, but at least I can understand it intellectually and give it more legitimacy in my mind than I used to.