[INFJ] INFJs being refered to as illogical

[meowington]

Hi

One thing that has always baffled me is how the introverted intuition primary function of INFJs is often refered to as magical or illogical.
In the sense that we, INFJs, come to our conclusions and sometimes witty insights through an irrational process.
I used to excel in logic back in high school ! (mathematical logic : true / false questionnaires etc.) !

Introverted intuition is often explained as an inner realm of "possibilities" that constantly change depending on context. I think that it's more a matter of "probability" rather than "possibility".
It's like internally I'm constantly making assumptions, based on exterior information, but also based on the likeliness that the assumption is correct. Like having an internal statistical gradesystem which is constantly rooting out the lower, less valuable assumptions and meanwhile creating new scenario's or connections between remaining information. Ultimately "guesswork", I admit, yet through strictly logical deductions.

That doesn't sound illogical now or does it ? So that's what I was wondering...does this still make sense to anyone, or resonate with anyone ?

 

[WALMART]

Yeah, as Jung thought, they are worthless to the extroverted type, their concerns so nuanced and arbitrary apart from the individual they warrant little attention.

It is an irrational process.

I like it. I think it's a personal taste, and as such, warrants little attention.

 

[yeghor]

Check here

 

[greenfairy]

This sounds a lot like my inner thought process. And I exceled in logic in college too. I sometimes think I am irrational at the same time as being logical or whatever, because I often change my mind completely about what I thought was absolutely true or I'll make a generalization and then find out it was wrong. We just have to remember to ground our Ni and not let it run away, and we'll be great.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I think the difference occurs when you transcend the logical realm and still need to find an explanation or answer for something. That is where Ni shines and thrives, in finding the probable truth [good point!], whereas rational types just keep creating more possibilities fueled by Ne or Se.


I see this with my INFP friend. She continuously cranks out tons of possible explanations for something, which to me usually sound far-fetched and unlikely, whereas I'll come up with one most likely reason, to which she then tends to think I'm making too much of a leap...

 

[skylights]

I tend to see it in the Pi/Ji combo. You guys run both Ni and Ti, and so especially to someone who uses Te the Pi/Ti combo can be a bit confusing, because we can tell it's being led by Pi, and so it seems like the cart is running before the horse, and you're reverse-engineering Ti onto it to support your Pi conclusion.

I have an INFJ coworker who operates this way. She'll point something out, then she'll reason it. Like today when she quite amusingly pointed out that one of our coworkers hadn't been having sex lately. And it was true, of course. And we pressed her so she spent some time breaking down the clues that made her know. But for the most part she just said, "I just know".

It happens with my ISFJ too. He's very logical/rational. But he leads with Si and I can tell that, because the Ti framework doesn't lead him to the conclusion. The Si sets up the scene and the Ti traces threads, or something like that, so he can make a coherent rational argument. But he was able to see that conclusion already via Si. Si is a little easier to "see", being concrete to Ni's abstract, but it's the same format.

The P processes are illogical/irrational, but they're not unreasonable.

 

[cafe]

I'm pretty good at logic. But I don't think it's the right tool for every job. I've got it on tap whenever I want it, anyway. Married an INTP. That means I get to be the flakey one as long as I am willing to also be the one who remembers to pay the electric bill.

 

[21%]

I don't really want to be rational/logical -- it's no fun that way.

 

[á´…eparted]

I don't really want to be rational/logical -- it's no fun that way.

Does not compute.

 

[meowington]

I have an INFJ coworker who operates this way. She'll point something out, then she'll reason it. Like today when she quite amusingly pointed out that one of our coworkers hadn't been having sex lately. And it was true, of course. And we pressed her so she spent some time breaking down the clues that made her know. But for the most part she just said, "I just know".

Good example. That sounds familiar.

Sometimes I even have to fend for myself to people who can't grasp how I deducted something. They refuse to accept my wizardry !

 

[meowington]

I'm pretty good at logic. But I don't think it's the right tool for every job. I've got it on tap whenever I want it, anyway. Married an INTP. That means I get to be the flakey one as long as I am willing to also be the one who remembers to pay the electric bill.

hehe

Good thing my ISFJ wife takes care of all the bills. I don't even have a clue who our energy provider is

 

[greenfairy]

I tend to see it in the Pi/Ji combo. You guys run both Ni and Ti, and so especially to someone who uses Te the Pi/Ti combo can be a bit confusing, because we can tell it's being led by Pi, and so it seems like the cart is running before the horse, and you're reverse-engineering Ti onto it to support your Pi conclusion.

I have an INFJ coworker who operates this way. She'll point something out, then she'll reason it. Like today when she quite amusingly pointed out that one of our coworkers hadn't been having sex lately. And it was true, of course. And we pressed her so she spent some time breaking down the clues that made her know. But for the most part she just said, "I just know".

It happens with my ISFJ too. He's very logical/rational. But he leads with Si and I can tell that, because the Ti framework doesn't lead him to the conclusion. The Si sets up the scene and the Ti traces threads, or something like that, so he can make a coherent rational argument. But he was able to see that conclusion already via Si. Si is a little easier to "see", being concrete to Ni's abstract, but it's the same format.

The P processes are illogical/irrational, but they're not unreasonable.

Well said.

 

[autumnandtherain]

I think the difference occurs when you transcend the logical realm and still need to find an explanation or answer for something. That is where Ni shines and thrives, in finding the probable truth [good point!], whereas rational types just keep creating more possibilities fueled by Ne or Se.


I see this with my INFP friend. She continuously cranks out tons of possible explanations for something, which to me usually sound far-fetched and unlikely, whereas I'll come up with one most likely reason, to which she then tends to think I'm making too much of a leap...

I have this experience with my mom a lot. She's INTP.

 

[FemMecha]

I scored in the 92 percentile on the logic/analytical reasoning portion of the GRE, so it's definitely not a weakness for me.

I don't even know if I map to everything Jung or MBTI says about each function, but I find the primary reasoning dangers I face are the opposite of being too individual, rigid, or nuanced, but more because I am too driven to comprehend the big picture and so I will attempt to take into account extreme possibilities as well as the norm. I find that my reasoning is like looking at a mountain range through a smaller lens of logic, and continually panning over and over, back-and-forth to make sense of the entire range of possibilities. In this way, at any point in time the data that is going through my internal logic machine might not have the correct statistical distribution. It would be similar to someone just using personal experience to reason with, although for me it pans outside of personal experience. Because of this I rarely experience feelings of certitude until it is a subject where I know that I have processed it to a far, far, far greater extent than the person I am speaking with. Then I feel relative certitude, although that is still different from absolute certainty.

Reality is forever shifting in my mind which is especially dangerous for me on a personal emotional level because I can be convinced of destructive, even irrational things if being specifically brainwashed into it. The positive is that even those irrationalities never form an inner core of certitude, but have the capacity to eventually breakdown. Most everything I have ever held to be true has gone through the process of inner dismantling through my logic machine. I have sacrificed a great deal in pursuit of having a coherent sense of inner and outer reality, but I still don't presume to have arrived at truth.

 

[meowington]

I don't even know if I map to everything Jung or MBTI says about each function, but I find the primary reasoning dangers I face are the opposite of being too individual, rigid, or nuanced, but more because I am too driven to comprehend the big picture and so I will attempt to take into account extreme possibilities as well as the norm. I find that my reasoning is like looking at a mountain range through a smaller lens of logic, and continually panning over and over, back-and-forth to make sense of the entire range of possibilities. In this way, at any point in time the data that is going through my internal logic machine might not have the correct statistical distribution. It would be similar to someone just using personal experience to reason with, although for me it pans outside of personal experience. Because of this I rarely experience feelings of certitude until it is a subject where I know that I have processed it to a far, far, far greater extent than the person I am speaking with. Then I feel relative certitude, although that is still different from absolute certainty.
.

That kind of resonates well with me. I also need a profound understanding of something before I can even begin to feel (obiously) certain about it. Particulary for my own practical expertise with a certain new skill, for instance.

 

[RosieJones]

I don't understand how my INFJ friend comes to conclusions on things as to me they don't make sense but she stands by them firmly. For example, the other day unfortunately I had to miss an event we were both involved in as I had something very important I had to do. I had rehearsed for the event many times before and I didn't play a big part in it or anything. My part was a group effort with five other people so my absence wouldn't make any difference. Also my part was minuscule and the it didn't matter very much how well the event went. The other thing I had to do was more important to me so in my eyes it was logical to stay and do that instead. However, my INFJ friend said I was letting everyone down if I didn't turn up and it was selfish of me and what would happen if no one turned up? Although she made some valid points, what is the probability that no one will turn up? Pretty low. There were 40 people involved in this event. And my absence would literally make no difference so how is that selfish? I wouldn't be missed so how am I letting others down? I tried to explain this but she stood firmly by her ideas.

Another time, I remember our year had our GCSEs in a few days but we weren't yet on study leave. We weren't doing anything important in lessons so most people were taking the day off to study for it. I was planning to do the same. She said to me 'well everyone else has to study too so it's not fair if you stay off to study'...how is it not fair? They can also stay off if they want that is their choice. Also is it fair that some people are smarter than others? Is it fair that some people have more supporrtive parents? No. Since when did it have to be fair? Since when was it my responsibility to make sure everyone else had an equal chance to me for doing well in our exams?

It is just stuff like this that I don't get. She tries to make me feel guilty for things like this that I don't see why I should feel guilty about. Seems a bit illogical to me.

 

[Kheledon]

Hi

One thing that has always baffled me is how the introverted intuition primary function of INFJs is often refered to as magical or illogical.
In the sense that we, INFJs, come to our conclusions and sometimes witty insights through an irrational process.
I used to excel in logic back in high school ! (mathematical logic : true / false questionnaires etc.) !

Introverted intuition is often explained as an inner realm of "possibilities" that constantly change depending on context. I think that it's more a matter of "probability" rather than "possibility".
It's like internally I'm constantly making assumptions, based on exterior information, but also based on the likeliness that the assumption is correct. Like having an internal statistical gradesystem which is constantly rooting out the lower, less valuable assumptions and meanwhile creating new scenario's or connections between remaining information. Ultimately "guesswork", I admit, yet through strictly logical deductions.

That doesn't sound illogical now or does it ? So that's what I was wondering...does this still make sense to anyone, or resonate with anyone ?

I like to think of Ni as a "filter." For an INFp (in Socionics), Ni evaluates all the powerful and explosive Ne in the Ni dom's id that's constantly and unconsciously imagining possible futures, feeding them into the ego where Ni implosively limits and then selects the "most likely" result of a given action and may then choose to either act or not act based upon the INFp's sophisticated and highly-developed Ni sense of the "most likely" outcome of a given choice.

This is utterly logical and wise, as far as I am concerned. Te and Ti may be weak for an INFp, but F is a rational function. Fe is in the INFp's ego as well. It acts rationally in response to the irrational but highly-accurate "advice" of the INFp's primary and most sophisticated cognitive function--Ni.

 

[meowington]

It is just stuff like this that I don't get. She tries to make me feel guilty for things like this that I don't see why I should feel guilty about. Seems a bit illogical to me.

I don't think she's out to make you feel guilty. I think she just has strong principles on equality. I wouldn't take it too personal. For an INFJ it doesn't matter that there are still 40 other people involved. To her it's about you turning down the others. That's not something to feel guilty about, but I understand her point : if everyone would reason the same way, nobody would show up, right. On the otherhand INFJs do blow stuff like that out of proportion. I think I understand the both of you.

 

[RosieJones]

I don't think she's out to make you feel guilty. I think she just has strong principles on equality. I wouldn't take it too personal. For an INFJ it doesn't matter that there are still 40 other people involved. To her it's about you turning down the others. That's not something to feel guilty about, but I understand her point : if everyone would reason the same way, nobody would show up, right. On the otherhand INFJs do blow stuff like that out of proportion. I think I understand the both of you.

Okay I think I understand. Maybe it is the Fi vs Fe thing. In my view it is not my responsibility for everyone to have the same chance at something like an exam because exams aren't fair. Some people are born more stupid and you could say that isn't fair too. I just get confused with the whole event thing why she thinks about it in theoretical terms like 'what if everyone thought this way...' Etc. For me I look at the situation in practical terms. Realistically, not everyone will think that do why does it matter? Thank you for your answer anyway and do you have any suggestions of what to say back next time? Instead she just walks away looking ashamed of me and guilt trips me and I'm just quiet because I don't know what to say back? It turns out she didn't even go to the event anyway so it was a bit hypocritical

 

[RosieJones]

Oh yeah sorry one other thing, she seems to always target me with the guilt trips even though other people do the same things I do. Why is it me especially?