[MBTI General] INFJs - do INTJs seem too "thinky" to you to be "really intuitive"?

[cafe]

IMO, when you're dealing with Ni doms, you've going to get a spotty combination of brilliant insights and huge blind spots. We're kind of wonky like that.

I believe my oldest daughter is INTJ and there have been times when I have assumed that she has known was was going on in a people situation, but was just keeping things close to her vest as she has a perfect right to do, only to find out later she had no idea what was going on with a person and probably could have used some of my Fe if I'd only known.

And sometimes she'll tell me something and the light will come on and I'll be like "How did I not know that?"

 

[OrangeAppled]

In layman's terms "intuitive" is often used to refer to people-relations. This kind of intuition is probably more related to Feeling in MBTI though. I've met SFs who were very intuitive about people. Many NTs have a blindspot there though. So the issue is probably a poor grasp of what intuition is in MBTI & Jungian theory.

 

[21%]

Would you say this is trying to interpret people using Te, or trying to use Fi (or even Fe) and doing it badly?

I almost see what you mean. I know I sometimes try to predict outcomes (he will do X because of reasons A, B, and C), and someone will tell me some quite different outcome will happen based on other reasons which, to me, seem quite "unreasonable". In other words, I would never even have taken those motivations into account. Often they are correct, and I am left wondering what the connection was; how P and Q could have outweighed A, B, and C to lead to Q instead of X.

That's a good question. I don't know if it's a result of Ni+Te or Ni+(lack of)Fe or something else. To me it seems that Te people are quite focused on 'face value' details -- which is what I perceive as literalness. I know you've corrected me on this before, and perhaps it's not the best word, but I really can't think of a better term to describe how I feel. Even my INFP boyfriend, with inferior Te, has a degree of 'literalness' when he interprets my words. For example, my habitual "no" at the beginning of the sentence can signal an added detail or a slight shift in perspective of what is to follow, but INFP always interpreted it as "disagreement". So for ages he thought I was disagreeing with him, when I was actually agreeing. In the same situation, maybe another Fe user would pay more attention to my tone of voice and the direction the conversation was going, and that would override the literal meaning of "no" and they would come to the conclusion that I was in agreement.

I think a lot of the time people don't mean what they say, but their real meanings can be discerned from how they say it, when they say it, how often they say it -- the whole context. I might be wrong about this, but maybe Te is more focused on the 'what' aspect and tends to disregard other clues?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I think a lot of the time people don't mean what they say, but their real meanings can be discerned from how they say it, when they say it, how often they say it -- the whole context. I might be wrong about this, but maybe Te is more focused on the 'what' aspect and tends to disregard other clues?

I might understand what you’re getting at here. Maybe. With my ex, something that I never really got used to was the way he could do something really hurtful and even cause someone to cry and he wouldn’t see the connection unless it was very plainly stated to him. While we were together, I just assumed he knew he was being hurtful and didn’t care/didn’t have the patience to investigate it- yet after we’d broken up, I eventually came to the conclusion that he truly didn’t see it.

Example: if I’m really terse with someone- suppose I yell something like, “Just leave it alone, I’ll do it later!”- I will pick up on it if they shrink back because of it. And when I notice someone shrink back- that’s when I realize “oh crap, I was totally unfair right there and made this person feel like they were being unreasonable when really it’s about too many things going on in my head.” Or whatever the case is, I see the reaction and possibilities for why I caused that affect will start pouring forth- but he needs “It hurts my feelings that you’re yelling at me” stated clearly or it completely flies under his radar.

Really, I think it’s the biggest reason it would not have worked out between us. I don’t think I could ever get used to immediately articulating “that hurt my feelings.” I can immediately articulate it in plain terms when I’m observing it happen in someone else: if he snapped, I would notice the other person shrinking back and I’d pull him aside to tell him- and when I did, he always showed concern and wanted to amend it. <- That is how I came to the conclusion that he actually just truly didn’t see it. Because it did seem to take him by surprise. That’s so foreign to me, I don’t begin to understand needing things plainly stated like that and it would never ever occur to me to actually state something like that aloud about my own experience. It’s easy to articulate when I’m not the one experiencing it, which is why I can be a good mediator for him regarding other people- but when I am upset myself, I can't begin to articulate it.

I want to liken it to being rushed into an emergency room- because, say, my arm got ripped off by a polar bear- and having the person behind the desk say “take a number” and point me in the direction of the waiting area. It would never occur to me that they actually need me to say “I am bleeding profusely, and also I am missing an arm.” I would take their behavior to mean something like, “Yes I see you are bleeding, and missing an arm, we will get to you as soon as we can.” But that’s not what it means at all. [And an unfortunate twist to this language barrier is that I think it actually feels (to Fe/Ti'ers) like we're treating people like they're stupid to lay things out like that.]

eta: I should add, I realize that one eNTJ ex-husband doesn't make for a very good sample size for generalized statements. I'm just trying to explain the "cluelessness" as I've experienced it. And frankly the INTJs here seem more aware than the few I've known irl.

 

[Coriolis]

That's a good question. I don't know if it's a result of Ni+Te or Ni+(lack of)Fe or something else. To me it seems that Te people are quite focused on 'face value' details -- which is what I perceive as literalness. I know you've corrected me on this before, and perhaps it's not the best word, but I really can't think of a better term to describe how I feel. Even my INFP boyfriend, with inferior Te, has a degree of 'literalness' when he interprets my words. For example, my habitual "no" at the beginning of the sentence can signal an added detail or a slight shift in perspective of what is to follow, but INFP always interpreted it as "disagreement". So for ages he thought I was disagreeing with him, when I was actually agreeing. In the same situation, maybe another Fe user would pay more attention to my tone of voice and the direction the conversation was going, and that would override the literal meaning of "no" and they would come to the conclusion that I was in agreement.

I think a lot of the time people don't mean what they say, but their real meanings can be discerned from how they say it, when they say it, how often they say it -- the whole context. I might be wrong about this, but maybe Te is more focused on the 'what' aspect and tends to disregard other clues?

Perhaps YOU can discern the "real" meaning from these other cues, but not everyone can. At least for me, Te is focused on the content of what someone says. It is the only thing I can rely on; everything else feels like guesswork. Sometimes I do get a feeling that someone doesn't really mean what they are saying, but if I cannot rely on their words, even less can I rely on anything else about the interaction. I can point out that I think they are not being candid and ask what they really mean, but that feels like an unsupported accusation. I could be wrong, and they really did mean what they said. So, I give them the benefit of the doubt and take their statement at face value - perhaps the "literal" aspect you see. I have never understood why someone would say something they do not mean, unless they are deliberately trying to lie. In reverse, I also expect people to take what I say at face value. One of my pet peeves is when someone tries to "read into" my comment or behavior something that is not there.

I might understand what you’re getting at here. Maybe. With my ex, something that I never really got used to was the way he could do something really hurtful and even cause someone to cry and he wouldn’t see the connection unless it was very plainly stated to him. While we were together, I just assumed he knew he was being hurtful and didn’t care/didn’t have the patience to investigate it- yet after we’d broken up, I eventually came to the conclusion that he truly didn’t see it.

Example: if I’m really terse with someone- suppose I yell something like, “Just leave it alone, I’ll do it later!”- I will pick up on it if they shrink back because of it. And when I notice someone shrink back- that’s when I realize “oh crap, I was totally unfair right there and made this person feel like they were being unreasonable when really it’s about too many things going on in my head.” Or whatever the case is, I see the reaction and possibilities for why I caused that affect will start pouring forth- but he needs “It hurts my feelings that you’re yelling at me” stated clearly or it completely flies under his radar.

This is exactly what happens. Again, I might sense something odd about the person's reaction, but reactions can be caused by many things. When I do ask, it is rarely related to what I think the cause is (or the person is not being truthful). I assume if I did something the person doesn't like, they will tell me so, just as I would do for them. To look at your example with the roles reversed, if someone snaps at me that way, I consider first the content: does it make sense for me to leave it for them to do later? If not, I will address this, but either way, I will attribute their raised voice, etc. to whatever is going on with them today, and go about my business.

Even in your emergency room example, it is wise to point out to that number-dispensing receptionist the nature of your injury. Most ERs operate on a triage system, which requires some knowledge of each patient's problem, which may not be obvious if you just show up with a bundled up arm-stump. There are plenty of cases of people who got worse or even died from being overlooked, or who avoided such a fate by speaking up.

P.S. What type was your ex?

 

[Tiltyred]

Tangent: sometimes INTJs don't even seem all that "thinky." In associating with a group of them, I notice a lot of knee-jerk discounting of other people's ideas on the grounds of "logical fallacy, therefore untrue, therefore you're wrong." Sometimes it seems like the effort is "how fast can I prove this person wrong," rather than "how can I understand what this person is trying to contribute," so the effect is really UN-thinky.

Also, yes, I think "intuitive" to the lay person gets lumped in with "feely people person," so it's not a word that jumps to mind in reference to someone to whom you have to articulate why you are crying after they yelled at you.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Even in your emergency room example, it is wise to point out to that number-dispensing receptionist the nature of your injury. Most ERs operate on a triage system, which requires some knowledge of each patient's problem, which may not be obvious if you just show up with a bundled up arm-stump. There are plenty of cases of people who got worse or even died from being overlooked, or who avoided such a fate by speaking up.

P.S. What type was your ex?

I do agree that, to a certain extent, it's important to be able to explain the nature of the injury. But I think the crux of the problem is understanding how much isn't obvious. When I walk through the door- and get passed a number and told to sit down in the waiting area- I assume a ballpark estimate has been made of the injury (and the subtext I hear in 'go sit in the corner and try not to bleed to death' is that I'm not very important- but in truth, no estimate was made because there was an assumption on his end that I'd say something if it was important (?), or something). The thing about speaking up- if I have a job to do and someone gets in my way expecting special treatment, it annoys me and makes the job more difficult. I don't want to be 'that person'. So I feel the need to pay attention before speaking up- like if I notice people getting priority medical attention for paper cuts, then yeah, I'll say something. But for the most part- I don't want to get in the way, my assumption is that they notice a 'ballpark' and that they'll iron out the particulars (collect more specific knowledge about this specific injury) on their own terms, with their own questions.

My ex identifies as INTJ. He has told me that he tests practically on the E/I cusp though, and I personally think he's slightly more E. But I also think he's e8, which could probably make an INTJ come across as more forceful. So . He's NTJ, that's all I know for sure.

 

[Coriolis]

So I feel the need to pay attention before speaking up- like if I notice people getting priority medical attention for paper cuts, then yeah, I'll say something. But for the most part- I don't want to get in the way, my assumption is that they notice a 'ballpark' and that they'll iron out the particulars (collect more specific knowledge about this specific injury) on their own terms, with their own questions.

See - this is the question, whether it is better to risk making the staff upset by distracting them, or to risk further harm to yourself through inaction. Te will evaluate: there is a receptionist. She is not involved in direct patient care. If I give her a 30-second summary of why I'm here as I take that number, I will be sure she at least has the necessary information to triage me correctly. Yes, she may be busy, too, and annoyed at having to pay attention to me, but I will evaluate that as the lesser risk. (I also know enough to thank her for her help when I am called for my turn, or when I'm ready to leave.)

 

[Tiltyred]

This is why associating with INTJs is helpful to INFJs -- it forces us to articulate, which becomes easier with practice.

 

[21%]

Perhaps YOU can discern the "real" meaning from these other cues, but not everyone can. At least for me, Te is focused on the content of what someone says. It is the only thing I can rely on; everything else feels like guesswork. Sometimes I do get a feeling that someone doesn't really mean what they are saying, but if I cannot rely on their words, even less can I rely on anything else about the interaction. I can point out that I think they are not being candid and ask what they really mean, but that feels like an unsupported accusation. I could be wrong, and they really did mean what they said. So, I give them the benefit of the doubt and take their statement at face value - perhaps the "literal" aspect you see. I have never understood why someone would say something they do not mean, unless they are deliberately trying to lie. In reverse, I also expect people to take what I say at face value. One of my pet peeves is when someone tries to "read into" my comment or behavior something that is not there.

I understand your frustration. It took me the longest time to finally realize that some people really mean exactly what they say. That was a totally foreign concept for my Fe to comprehend. Growing up in an Fe family, I was trained to always look for clues and anticipate people's intentions.

Now I have developed a switch-on/switch-off mode for context-scanning, so as long as I guessed the type of the person I'm dealing with correctly, communication can go smoothly.

 

[CuriousFeeling]

To connect to the OP, INTJs don't seem too thinky to be intuitive. Their intuitive process is linked towards quantifiable data, rather than focused on the interpersonal level. It still connects with an overall concept map/ web of thoughts that links to a centralized idea. It takes the external data observed and proves a hypothesis that Ni gets a hunch over.

I find INTJ style intuition in conjunction with Te to be helpful when I end up focusing on internal logical references and make conclusions based on data that isn't there. Ni-Te takes the general concept and searches for data to actually show proof that what is happening is true. NTJs in general seem to lasso in my own Ni-Ti thought process and searches for better terms to explain my own thoughts, and I have to present evidence to prove it. They do have an assured confidence that their intuitions are right, and often times, they are. It's like they come up with a rationale/theory in a burst of insight, and can come up with the data to back it up. It doesn't lack intuition in the least bit in my perspective. It's just more of a focus on "things".

I actually like the INTJ intuitive process, it seems less clouded by Fe based judgments to me. Often times, I feel that my intuitions and conclusions can be obscured by Fe-based people understanding, which is great with understanding others, but it's really not good when you're analyzing a system (and want the best outcome for everyone involved). INTJs can come up with a solution that focuses on solving the problem. It counterbalances my Ni-Fe process. It allows me to refocus more on an Ni-Ti perspective, being more objective. Sometimes my Fe can get the best of me, and Ni-Te rakes through the b.s.

In sum, INTJs don't seem too "thinky" to me to be intuitive. It's a different way of making a judgment based off of Ni-insights.

 

[Werebudgie]

I'm wondering whether INFJs have a concept of what is "intuitive" (as a generic word, not a Jungian one) that tends to be inclusive of Ni-Fe but not Ni-Te. This is occasioned by a person whom I believe to be an INFJ (she had characteristic Ni pauses as she tried to synthesize ideas before she spoke) who observed that if I really were that intuitive, I wouldn't be as clueless about human relationships as I am. I didn't want to argue typology with her, so I let it go, but my response would have been along the lines of "I'm intuitive about things, not people."

So, in general, does INTJ intuition not really feel like intuition to you, as an INFJ, based on the INTJs you have known?

Yes, for me it does. But for me, I would understand intuition in that sense as Ni. I don't have a generic definition for intuition.

I've had some great experiences in dialogue with INTJs on the basis of both being Ni-doms. The key to the great dialogue seemed to be a willingness to be somewhat suspicious of our respective aux functions. When we can focus on Ni and the Ni/Se-inf dynamic, I've had some amazingly great insight-packed discussions with INTJs.

I think an INFJ who identifies intuition with human relationships would be speaking from a really Fe-heavy place. Taking a step back, centering in Ni in a very deliberate way (and Ni-Se if possible) opens up possibilities for perceiving the Ni-dom-ness of a Te-aux. But the Te-aux would also have to be willing to take a similar step back from being really Te-heavy in the interaction.

Hope that made sense.

 

[greenfairy]

To me the general sense of intuition can fit with several functions. Fi can provide intuition about the self and people, Si with something else. I guess I think of it more along the lines of Ni. Everyone has an N function in the top 4, and it works with their other functions, and everyone has intuition in the general sense; so it stands to reason if you believe in typology that it would be colored differently according to type, but it seems to fit Ni most closely.

I guess on the whole INTJ's and INFJ's would direct their intuition in different ways, but Ni dominance gives them more commonalities than differences ime. It also probably is influenced by the degree of judging preference. Strong thinkers will be more thing-driven and strong feelers will be more people-driven.

 

[grey_beard]

INTJ intuition feels very much like intuition to me. Ni is Ni, no matter whether it's challenged through Fe or Te.

 

[Ene]

Wow! A live audience! (Well, sort of)I've been saving my BEST stuff for this. Thank you gray-beard

 

[EvangelineEmma]

I suppose I tend to alternate among the two; regardless of how sensitive and emotional a being I truly am, I'm also prone to detaching relatively easily when analyzing or assessing a particular situation via my tertiary Ti, which is usually stimulated by the need to resolve the ideas and visions my subconscious Ni function provides me with. Compulsive thinker that I am, I tend to process the images and influences of my surroundings at a particular instances, maintain the observed image in mind continuously as I try to decipher lurking or underlying meanings, possibilities, and truths beyond it all, and spend extended periods of time reflecting upon circumstances and deliberating options or potential explanations in my head (more frequently than not to a headache-inducing extent, mind you). All in all, however, I am by no means nearly as inclined to do left-brained activities or engage in repeated sessions of logical/ scientific deduction as some other INFJs might (perhaps due to in part to my 4w5 enneagram as well).

As for INFJs vs INTJs usage of intuition, I believe that INTJs are more predisposed to use their visions from Ni to better determine how to organize their environment systematically and efficiently, in order to logically achieve their objective or particular goal; INFJ however seems more likely to use their Ni either to perceive a vision to better improve society and interconnect it harmoniously into one (based upon the golden "truth" they've identified from their insights), or, when considering more apprehensive, cautious people as myself, predict happenings, conclusions, and interactions during social encounters (under some circumstances). Whereas INTJ wants to organize the world methodically and with precision (to explain why things logically occur as they would, as a scientist so often does), INFJ seeks to interconnect the people in their environment harmoniously and explain why we are morally prone to reacting in certain ways (or motivated by certain desires) under varying occasions.

Similarly to how INFP seeks moral purity and the presence of a strong value system and inner code of conduct (parallelled with INTPs personal desire for a solid, logical background to develop for themselves to rationally explain the universe's events), INFJ and INTJ seek similar motivations and goals, but in an inverse fashion.

Analogously:

INFP attempts to develop moral purity and personal understanding from within, based upon the ideas from the external world; INTP seeks a strong personal system of logical beliefs to better rationalize and explain their surroundings, based from the observations they've encountered externally.

Likewise, INFJ sees the general picture, develops an ambiguous image beyond it, and slowly has this image become clearer and more concrete based upon their interactions with others and what society has opinionated (hence leading to that "aha!" moment as they somehow determine the root cause, for instance, to the dissatisfaction several employees experience in a working environment due to a common void/ desire that has yet to be fulfilled, yet can only be accomplished by interconnecting the staff into one to slowly work together in achieving their purpose); INTJ, due to tertiary Fi, is much more single-minded and self-interested in certain arenas, desiring to observe the external world and systematically mold it according to their inner vision, motivated by the need to efficiently achieve said objective; they desire logic and the most methodical, precise means for accomplishing the task at hand, whereas INFJ may be slightly more prone to appearing impressionable against the moods and vibes of others in their environment, feeling discomfited by a lack of accord or cooperativeness among their coworkers (or otherwise).

 

[rav3n]

Ni-Te predicts outcomes of objects/concepts. N-Fe predicts outcomes of social interactions.

I think OrangeAppled nailed it with the difference in definition of intuition vs. iNtuition.

As a generality from observing thousands of INTJs online, their Fi gets in the way of their Se observations of people. Ni-Fi idealises people and social interactions. People and social outcomes are THIS and if they're not THIS, they get confused, upset or angry. Plan/vision gone to shit which they'll fight tooth and nail to resist, since this is their inner vision of what must/should be.

 

[uumlau]

Ni-Te predicts outcomes of objects/concepts. N-Fe predicts outcomes of social interactions.

I think OrangeAppled nailed it with the difference in definition of intuition vs. iNtuition.

As a generality from observing thousands of INTJs online, their Fi gets in the way of their Se observations of people. Ni-Fi idealises people and social interactions. People and social outcomes are THIS and if they're not THIS, they get confused, upset or angry. Plan/vision gone to shit which they'll fight tooth and nail to resist, since this is their inner vision of what must/should be.

These are very apt observations! Thanks!

The recipe (for INTJs, not others!) for this problem is to "go with the flow." Deal with social interactions by engaging in them more frequently than usual, thus gaining reactive social skills that work well with people in general. PLANNING how social interactions should work will (almost) always go wrong for INTJs.

 

[rav3n]

These are very apt observations! Thanks!

The recipe (for INTJs, not others!) for this problem is to "go with the flow." Deal with social interactions by engaging in them more frequently than usual, thus gaining reactive social skills that work well with people in general. PLANNING how social interactions should work will (almost) always go wrong for INTJs.

Yes. Relax or as Se would say, just do it. Forget outcome control.

 

[five sounds]

I understand your frustration. It took me the longest time to finally realize that some people really mean exactly what they say. That was a totally foreign concept for my Fe to comprehend. Growing up in an Fe family, I was trained to always look for clues and anticipate people's intentions.

Now I have developed a switch-on/switch-off mode for context-scanning, so as long as I guessed the type of the person I'm dealing with correctly, communication can go smoothly.

REALLY interesting. i'm often surprised and sometimes offended when Fe users think i mean something besides what i'm saying. like they're suspicious or untrusting. i can see how it's not necessarily indicative that they're doubting my sincerity. by the same token, i get frustrated when they expect me to read their intent. it's amazing how many different manifestations of Fe/Fi differences i seem to keep stumbling upon. always happy to understand them better.