This is the point I was trying to make earlier. This is something Ni does internally- we compare contexts first, then apply our own judgment (which is *why* the processing is so slow), whereas Ne does this work aloud- focusing instead on applying introverted judgment to the isolated and immediate context and then bouncing the product of that off others. It can come across (at times) as hypocritical, like they are trying to propose some half-assed, self-serving resolution because putting forth raw theories without attempting to put it in context first is foreign to us; we *see* someone presenting raw batter and ‘trying to pass it off as cake’ because it’s so hard to imagine not ‘cooking’ things before saying them aloud.
Nice analogy. This helps clarify it.
I’m not quite sure how to reconcile this. I think on our end, at least part of this reconciliation means trying to remember that what looks like *playing stupid* (or ‘trying to enforce a really self-serving, short-sighted pov’) is actually just ‘presenting raw batter where we would be presenting finished cake’. Getting offended by it is, I believe, projecting a tendency to prioritize doing that work internally (I suspect seeing Fe’ers as ‘believing we are RIGHT’ is similarly about projecting a tendency to prioritize introverted judgment about an immediate/isolated context….and expecting us to be able to share brand new judgment immediately- which we can’t do because it isn’t our priority to investigate new judgment immediately.....eta: and the truth is rather that we've just put judgment completely on hold). So we can try to keep this in mind, but it really doesn’t make it any less taxing to be pummeled by someone needing to work through raw Pe aloud (
especially overzealous Pe’ers).
It seems like playing stupid? Wow. That's a really manipulative thing to do, and it's not something I want to come across as at all.
Can you offer advice on presenting that "raw batter" in a way that's not seen as a finalised conclusion? I thought OA did that (in some places) and that I've been doing it too by offering disclaimers, but now I wonder if this is not the way to get it across to Pi users.
Could you elaborate on what you said in brackets? It sounds like a pretty interesting insight but it's not something I've heard before. I don't think it deserves to be glossed over.
eta: The thing is though, some Pe'ers really are just trying to relentlessly enforce a self-serving, short-sighted pov as 'the whole truth'.....just like some Je'ers really do believe they are RIGHT. How do people of the opposing team learn to tell the difference? I can generally tell with Je'ers- the difference between someone being slow on the uptake and someone being completely resistant to new information.....but with Pe, I have a hard time knowing.
Oh, I've no doubt that happens. My old boss used to do it all the time and it was the most unfun thing in the world. I generally don't see it as subtle as the Pi version. It tends to be angry and outright accusatory. However, there can be an underhand version where they 'logic' you into believing you're the source of the problem. Sometimes it's only the bitter unease and dissatisfaction that you feel afterwards that can let on you've been manipulated. The latter version might be harder for Pi to pick up on and I'm not sure I would know how to explain how to spot it. I will admit that OA does appear to tread that line, but the fact that she still make some statements that show she's open to more than one version of the truth, makes me think she isn't attempting to manipulate. I would also expect to see more stonewalling.
Anyway, it's a hell of a lot harder to pick this up in writing because tone of voice etc can really make the difference.
Well, yes, I think that's definitely some of it.
Maybe in the end it's a lot of it, and you're just using different words to convey the same idea. It's really more about a 'mismatch' in intention from my pov.. maybe it's the same as Z Buck's and fidelia's 'mixed signals' phrase used throughout this thread; like, it's frustrating to be told by a person that they're wanting to discuss theoreticals (thus bringing in a supposedly all-encompassing List), when that isn't really the case and they can't be neutral or fully able to discuss theory objectively because if they were neutral/objective they wouldn't have such a strong angst or complex with an entire type in the first place. I realize though that OA never claimed to be neutral/objective, but yeah, to echo some others there was a lot of bias already built up from past experiences. Same for Mane.
See, "mixed signals" is so vague to me that it didn't really get through. It never occurred to me that INFJs need to categorise an issue in the form of "venting" or "objective discussion". I've heard the word "venting" thrown around a lot here before and was always confused by how much leeway INFJs (and perhaps FJs in general) seem to give a person in when they're in that mode. Now that I get that they're basically acknowledging that it's irrational discussion and that means we need to be relatively judgement free about it. It's Fe acting not unlike Ne, in realising the need to work through provisional things externally (again, I've heard that said before but never fully clicked). And I suppose equally, "objective" discussion means there can be judgement involved because it implies there are conclusions to address and that there aren't going to be any free passes handed out for irrationality.
So any Ne-thoughts thrown out there are going to have a strong bias towards the already preconceived notions that they have. It's difficult on the receiving end to just take that and still continue to be 'objective' and logical, while also learning later on that part of their aim is very selfish in nature, in wanting to shift their own perceptions. The result is many of the things you're trying to discuss aren't even being framed in a purely logical light, they're very layered with emotion and that bias resulting from hurt as well, so it's a very bizarre situation to be placed in, to be discussing theory, whilst in the process also being prompted to 'prove', and so on, to heal someones' own wounds.
Wow. It's surprising that you see it like that. It's rather troubling to me that it appears selfish.
From our perspective Ne thoughts are only skewed by preconceived notions if the Si data isn't broad and varied enough. A perceived pattern can only be a hypothesis until it is can be confirmed by a vast range of information. Say you're standing on a Paris street and see two red cars go past one after the other. You don't want to leap to the conclusion that, "People in France tend to drive red cars". You might need to sit there all day and see a lot more cars go past before you want to even venture that statement. Proper use of Ne also requires a testing procedure, where we imagine hypotheticals or examine a particular individual experience (not necessarily our own) that might call into question the hypothesis. In other words, you might need to try different streets or suburbs in Paris and at different times of day to see if you can replicate it. You also need to go to other regions in France to see if the results are similar. We need to know that we can defeat, explain away or re-categorise the outliers in order to have confidence in the overall accuracy of the theory. You might, for example, notice that a lot of the people who live on the border with Germany drive blue cars. You might then have to go to Germany to see if they tend to drive blue cars as well. The outlier is then explained away as German influence on people in that region. That way you can still say "French people tend to drive red cars" but also that "Germans tend to drive blue cars". Of course this is not to say the hypothesis is always exactly right. Maybe you'll find most people drive red cars in Paris but not in the rest of France. Or maybe you might have been proven entirely wrong simply by sitting on that first street for 10 minutes more and seeing very few red cars. That's why we don't attach to much importance to that very early hypothesis because we don't know if we can stand behind it yet.
The emotion can skew the data as you say. If I passionately hate both red cars and French people, I might be more inclined to believe that, "French people tend to drive red cars", without bothering to check if they actually do. This is why correct usage of Ne requires the Si testing phase, as that is how we can build up a 'rational' picture. Asking for data when I think my conclusion is perhaps irrational/skewed, is a call for your help - not a smug taunt like, "Ha! How about that? Just try and prove me wrong, sucker!". It is me admitting, "I think I may have got it wrong" or at least that I am not certain of the accuracy of my Ne hypothesis. It also demonstrates that I consider you a potentially valuable source of Si data; that I trust and/or respect your input. I'm not asking for you to heal my wounds; I'm inviting you to potentially set me straight. The thing is, the only way you can do so, is to provide alternative Si data or a convincing alternative reading (effectively Ne) of the existing data. This is not a demand that you do things my way; it is the only way my brain will really truly click. Otherwise, I just won't get it and that will sound like I'm not listening.
Yeah, that may be a lot of it.
A hell of a lot. If INFJs struggle to see how that would work, I wonder that they've ever believed or valued a single thing a INFP ever said!
It may be one of the most central things to understanding how we think.
We see emotions as signs, just like data are signs. The emotional sign doesn't necessarily have a complex conclusion attached to it. It might only be, "when that INFJ says ____, I feel hurt" - which is just a individual case of cause and effect to us. It's relatively meaningless: "I feel hurt" is no different to, "that car is red". It doesn't mean, "INFJs are hurtful" or that, "that when INFJs say ___, they intend to be hurtful". Say that sign becomes a regular occurrence among other INFJs you know and Fi+Si might start to draw inaccurate conclusions, like, "INFJs = hurt" or worse, "INFJs are hurtful". That's when it starts to become a problem. However, if Ne is working well, it functions as a fail safe for that. It asks for us to look past what seems obvious and think of other explanations. It says, "Maybe if you understand why the INFJs do it, it won't seem hurtful any more".
I don't know if that's going to make you feel more confidence in INFP use of emotions. Maybe I haven't explained it well.
The Waste Land
for hurt brains and hurt hearts everywhere!
that is just way too hard to read. i really tried, i wanted to find a gem. there's just not enough venom.
