Understanding invisible threads that change how actions are judged.

[Xander]

Knowledge.

Aha! Thought so. What I call experience is actually, to you, a combination of experience and learned knowledge.

The picture becomes clearer.

I guess you're not a fan of "I think, therefore I am?"

:steam: Hate it. It's illogical and non sequitous.

It should be "I think, therefore I think". Any other extracted meaning involves so many assumptions as to be inadequate. Mind you though that is applying the whole INTP critical thinking to about eleven (that won't make sense unless you know Spinal Tap, think maximum instead of eleven).

That actually made a lot of things fall into place for me, but I can understand why it might seem meaningless to some people.

Please do tell me what it made sense of. Personally I found it quite useless.

But then how would you explain my test results, my posting on a forum like this one, and being interested in things like philosophy?

Ah but you don't like possibilities only confirmed lines, no? Ergo you're not interested in philosophy, only answers. Personally I find answers disappointing, it's the questions which drive me.

If you pay attention to connections frequently, don't you end up spending a lot of time hesitating and second-guessing what you think you know? How could you get anything done if you did that?

Think "soft focus". I try not to find THE answer, only a probable solution based on the guesstimations of outside forces. You ever heard of an educated guess? That's probably the best approximate.

I'm fine with complexity, but not ambiguity. I'm willing to pay attention long enough to memorize something elaborate in structure, and apply it, but I get too confused to act if I'm expected to infer and react to information that isn't obvious just because other people do, and I don't happen to see the inference right away (although occasionally I do see it). Especially since people are wrong about half the time in such inferences, but they like to pressure you to interpret it their way (this is especially bad if they have authority, which thankfully has been rare).

So you probably wouldn't appreciate "There is no such thing as truth"? The thing is that if you analyse your processes far enough you will find assumption. Assumption is not proved as true even if it works, that only proves that the assumption worked in this case and with these parameters. Even then you cannot say for certain that it will work again given those same parameters unless you can measure precisely enough what the parameters were and follow the same procedure exactly. Any variation may prove the assumption wrong.

I don't really use probability, I just try to learn what I need to be prepared for, and then prepare by knowing how to deal with those situations if they come up. I don't plan exactly what I'm going to do at a particular time, I just try to figure out how to do everything I'll need to do in a specific situation I'm going into, and make sure I get all of it done.

You may not think of it as probability but it seems that your methodology is not that dissimilar.

Well, if problems or complexity arise, everything gets messed up, I don't get anything done, and I look bad to everyone else who expected me to get it done.

So? If you have never made any mistakes then you just aren't trying hard enough.

I'm so sick of that theory. I'm not going to violate myself by constantly forcing contradictory information that doesn't make sense and that I can't possibly apply into my way of dealing with things, and accepting it as good just because it's there. I'm tired of being told that's the right/only way to move forward, and that I have no choice if I want to so. I really disagree, and feel that whoever wrote that didn't understand how I work at all, or they never would have suggested that. I'm sick of INFP's trying to force their truths on me, and then getting irritated and ignoring me when I balk at it, as if I were the one who was at fault.

I think you're being a little harsh there. Carebear is postulating a possibility which matches the criteria and parameters he has witnessed. I know what you mean by "forced" but I have always read it as encouragement. After all would he not be doing you a disservice by advising you other than what he thought was the best advice? Regardless of whether you agree with it or not that is advice. Perhaps you find it to be wrong, perhaps not but personally I rarely find anyone's advice to be entirely without use.

Btw, why do you think that INFPs try to force things upon you? I've always found them, as a weird and nonsensical subrace ( ), to be quite affable and open to negotiation... well at least until they get a bee in their bonnet about something but we're all like that somedays.

 

[Carebear]

You're seeing the N?

I'm kinda guessing it's there by the absences of evidence of an S and some vague suggestions...

Hm.. I think you're equating N with Ne to a large extent (as do many people on INTPc). I don't see the Ne. But I do see the Ni...

I'm so sick of that theory. I'm not going to violate myself by constantly forcing contradictory information that doesn't make sense and that I can't possibly apply into my way of dealing with things, and accepting it as good just because it's there. I'm tired of being told that's the right/only way to move forward, and that I have no choice if I want to so. I really disagree, and feel that whoever wrote that didn't understand how I work at all, or they never would have suggested that. I'm sick of INFP's trying to force their truths on me, and then getting irritated and ignoring me when I balk at it, as if I were the one who was at fault.

... and the Fe.

Sorry, Athenian, I think the theory makes a lot of sense and disagree with your interpretation of it. To me it looks like you're confirming it by using Fe to write it off instead of trying to understand it and see what it really means. Why else get so worked up over the theory or over INFPs presenting it and saying they personally think it makes sense. I don't see anyone trying to force anything on you, just stating their subjective interpretations and testing their views.

If you said red was green on this forum, I'd say, no I think it's red. Not because I tried to force you to see it as red, but because I'd feel that
a: it would be unfair to you not to inform you that this might not be so
b: I'd feel it was wrong towards others who saw it as red not to support them
c: I'd be aware that I might in fact be wrong and red was green, so I test my perception to see if anyone offers valid reasons to reconsider. In this case I've gotten several rep comments and PMs from people who agree red is not green, and haven't really seen any reason to reconsider, so I stick with my view.

You're totally free to disregard it, though. I will sleep just as well tonight if you do, and wouldn't have gotten any provision from "selling" you my view either, so I lose nothing. It won't stop me from believing I have a good "product" either.

 

[Xander]

Hm.. I think you're equating N with Ne to a large extent (as do many people on INTPc). I don't see the Ne. But I do see the Ni...

Oh great... your good.. I can see why you're such a genius...

Can't you give me Ne pointers?

... and the Fe.

Ah yes... that makes sense. The double barrelled response I kinda like that one. Mind you I'm used to ENFJs doing it. The flavours are different but the intensity is the same

It won't stop me from believing I have a good "product" either.

Several psychiatrists have tried Athenian.. they're all stark raving bonkers now.. Carebear is still fine but their just left in padded cells writing "Kill Carebear" all over the walls with crayons gripped between their feet

 

[Carebear]

Carebear is postulating a possibility which matches the criteria and parameters he has witnessed.

Pexactly!

I know what you mean by "forced" but I have always read it as encouragement.

After all would he not be doing you a disservice by advising you other than what he thought was the best advice? Regardless of whether you agree with it or not that is advice. Perhaps you find it to be wrong, perhaps not but personally I rarely find anyone's advice to be entirely without use.

And even if it's entirely without use, why not simply say, "nah, that doesn't fit. That probably won't work."

Btw, why do you think that INFPs try to force things upon you? I've always found them, as a weird and nonsensical subrace ( ),

Hey! Below the belt! Referee!

to be quite affable and open to negotiation... well at least until they get a bee in their bonnet about something but we're all like that somedays.

 

[Xander]

Pexactly!

And they complain about being referred to as nonsensical

And even if it's entirely without use, why not simply say, "nah, that doesn't fit. That probably won't work."

Tried that with an ENFJ. It comes out too quick with them. I get "Rah rah rah rah rah rah.... I'm sorry to say". Then he wonders why I'm in stitches instead of trying to defend myself

Hey! Below the belt! Referee!

If you poke them, do they not run around crying and telling mom "Hey he poked me!!".

 

[Athenian200]

Sorry, Athenian, I think the theory makes a lot of sense and disagree with your interpretation of it. To me it looks like you're confirming it by using Fe to write it off instead of trying to understand it and see what it really means. Why else get so worked up over the theory or over INFPs presenting it and saying they personally think it makes sense. I don't see anyone trying to force anything on you, just stating their subjective interpretations and testing their views.

I'm just saying that I don't want to do what you're telling me to do, because I don't think it's the right/only way for me to live. I think that it's reasonable for me to refuse to force information in that makes no sense whatsoever, and allow everything I understand to become so muddied with contradictions and nonsense that I can't accomplish anything. I think I'm justified in refusing to incorporate information into my way of doing things until I comprehend it and have assessed its relevence to me. Deal with it, that's how I feel. Existence is not justification. Stop telling me I'm wrong, because you can't prove what you're asserting.

If you said red was green on this forum, I'd say, no I think it's rednn. Not because I tried to force you to see it as red, but because I'd feel that
a: it would be unfair to you not to inform you that this might not be so
b: I'd feel it was wrong towards others who saw it as red not to support them
c: I'd be aware that I might in fact be wrong and red was green, so I test my perception to see if anyone offers valid reasons to reconsider. In this case I've gotten several rep comments and PMs from people who agree red is not green, and haven't really seen any reason to reconsider, so I stick with my view.

This isn't as simple as that. There's a lot more room for interpretation and disagreement here than in that example. You're making me look like a fool who doesn't know their colors, and that isn't a justified mockery of me. It isn't as simple as true/false. Every part of the theory works a particular way, and you just want to force-fit it onto me and assert that it's justified, without even checking to see if anything about it might be different for me. You're completely willing to dismiss my choice not to incorporate information in that particular way as immaturity, and thus take away my right to behave that way by condemning it.

Asking me to incessantly incorporate all those pieces of raw information that haven't even been processed into the way I deal with things, as I receive them... wow. How could you be so sadistic as to ask me to do that to myself? You clearly don't see information the way I see it, you don't know what you're asking.

 

[Carebear]

I'm just saying that I don't want to do what you're telling me to do, because I don't think it's the right/only way for me to live. I think that it's reasonable for me to refuse to force information in that makes no sense whatsoever, and allow everything I understand to become so muddied with contradictions and nonsense that I can't accomplish anything. I think I'm justified in refusing to incorporate information into my way of doing things until I comprehend it and have assessed its relevence to me. Deal with it, that's how I feel. Existence is not justification. Stop telling me I'm wrong, because you can't prove what you're asserting.

I'm not telling you to do anything, I'm offering you my interpretation for your consideration. You don't think it makes sense, that's fair. I do however disagree with your summary of the theory. It's not a matter of forcing anything in, it's a matter of not immediately discarding anything that on first impression doesn't seem to fit. And I'm not telling you you're wrong, I'm telling you I disagree with some of what you're saying (and therefore think you might be wrong on those unless there's something wrong with my understanding (which I haven't seen any reason to think up till now, but which I'm always considering.))

This isn't as simple as that. There's a lot more room for interpretation and disagreement here than in that example. You're making me look like a fool who doesn't know their colors, and that isn't a justified mockery of me. It isn't as simple as true/false. Every part of the theory works a particular way, and you just want to force-fit it onto me and assert that it's justified, without even checking to see if anything about it might be different for me. You're completely willing to dismiss my choice not to incorporate information in that particular way as immaturity, and thus take away my right to behave that way by condemning it.

Ok, red is green wasn't precise enough. What I meant was we both saw the same color and disagreed on whether or not it was red or green. It's an oversimplification to illustrate how I work. Perception is subjective, governed by experience and theory and can vary. So if I see red and someone say green, I say "no, I see red". Not because I think I'm necessarily right, but because I think the matter can't simply rest. Am I color blind? Are you? Do everybody perceive colors differently? Interesting, here's my perception. (The reason why I came up with red/green is that I was arguing a couple of years back with a stubborn INTP over this. Turned out he was R/G colour blind. )

And no, I don't want to force-fit you into anything, but I like to jump to conclusions (read: hypotheses) or read theories and then test them. (Probably the Ne way.) And thus far (in my eyes) you haven't really objected to parts of the theory but to your misrepresentation of the theory. Which doesn't really convince me the theory has no merit.

And no, it's not my intention to make you look like a fool. That was just me being too imprecise in the red/green example. The same goes for dismissing you as immature. Not my intention. My intention is to test whether your way of looking at things is an example of Ni dismissing info via Fe and in other words whether or not the theory fits.

 

[Athenian200]

I'm not telling you to do anything, I'm offering you my interpretation for your consideration. You don't think it makes sense, that's fair. I do however disagree with your summary of the theory. It's not a matter of forcing anything in, it's a matter of not immediately discarding anything that on first impression doesn't seem to fit. And I'm not telling you you're wrong, I'm telling you I disagree with some of what you're saying (and therefore think you might be wrong on those unless there's something wrong with my understanding (which I haven't seen any reason to think up till now, but which I'm always considering.))

Now you're being reasonable. Not immediately discarding is a bit different than saying force everything in, even if I don't yet understand what I'm even looking at. But you probably misinterpret my dismissal a lot, and so do some of the people who made the theory. The thing is, refusing to act on and accept as valid information I become aware of the moment I get it is not dismissal for me. It simply means that since it contradicts what I already know, or isn't obvious based on what I already know, I've got to keep it separate from the information I act on, and the information I accept as true and meaningful until I've had time to examine it. Doing otherwise would result in constant doubting, inaction, and instability.

And no, I don't want to force-fit you into anything, but I like to jump to conclusions (read: hypotheses) or read theories and then test them. (Probably the Ne way.) And thus far (in my eyes) you haven't really objected to parts of the theory but to your misrepresentation of the theory. Which doesn't really convince me the theory has no merit.

And no, it's not my intention to make you look like a fool. That was just me being too imprecise in the red/green example. The same goes for dismissing you as immature. Not my intention. My intention is to test whether your way of looking at things is an example of Ni dismissing info via Fe and in other words whether or not the theory fits.

Well, you didn't make it clear that it was an idea that you weren't completely sure of, a lot of what you said gave the tone that you believed it was absolutely true, and I had no right to disagree or question. Perhaps I'm just blind to Fi and Ne, so I only saw very negative Te being "forced" on me arbitrarily. Almost like all I can see is your shadow, not you.

And I don't know what I'm objecting to that wasn't in the theory. All I can be aware of at any given time is my perception of something, not the thing itself. So if my perception is wrong, you have to tell me why it was wrong, otherwise I won't know that there's anything wrong with it. And of course, I have to know why it was wrong, because I'm not just going to take your word for it that it is so.

 

[Carebear]

Now you're being reasonable. Not immediately discarding is a bit different than saying force everything in, even if I don't yet understand what I'm even looking at. But you probably misinterpret my dismissal a lot, and so do some of the people who made the theory. The thing is, refusing to act on and accept as valid information I become aware of the moment I get it is not dismissal for me. It simply means that since it contradicts what I already know, or isn't obvious based on what I already know, I've got to keep it separate from the information I act on, and the information I accept as true and meaningful until I've had time to examine it. Doing otherwise would result in constant doubting, inaction, and instability.

Yes. I think I've always spoken about not immediately discarding and not saying force everything in. And the way I'm interpreting the theory, the point is not to act on everything or force it in, but to not dismiss it outright. Collecting it in a separate archive sounds very sensible, as I agree anything else would result in constant doubting, inaction and instability. (Sadly Ne doesn't quite work that way, so you'll see a lot of doubting, inaction and instability in some of the Ne-people while we sort through all the garbage we've let clutter up the office.)

Your clarification here directly addresses some misconceptions I had about you. I didn't see the second archive. Thanks. (Now I'll have to jump to a new conclusion once I've sorted out what it all means and tidied up the office somewhat. )

Well, you didn't make it clear that it was an idea that you weren't completely sure of, a lot of what you said gave the tone that you believed it was absolutely true, and I had no right to disagree or question. Perhaps I'm just blind to Fi and Ne, so I only saw very negative Te being "forced" on me arbitrarily. Almost like all I can see is your shadow, not you.

Yes, you're right. I know I and other INFPs hear this a lot from Js. For us it's just throwing out ideas, and even if we sound certain this is the way it is, we're never anywhere near. I guess we should always say "This is the way I suspect it might be:" in front of any theory, but it gets too tiresome and nobody takes you seriously if you do, especially since we're never even certain of the established truths like gravity always working, so instead we just phrase it as "facts" and rely on others being independent enough and intelligent enough to see that we're just testing ideas. (Appearing like ignorant know-it-alls when we're wrong.)

And I don't know what I'm objecting to that wasn't in the theory. All I can be aware of at any given time is my perception of something, not the thing itself. So if my perception is wrong, you have to tell me why it was wrong, otherwise I won't know that there's anything wrong with it.

You objected to the part about forcing everything in and acting on it. That's not what the theory says. The theory says try to consider it objectively before totally dismissing it and forgetting it. Collecting it in a separate place for further consideration is in line with what the theory advises. Some INFJs don't. You seem to do, but I didn't see it and you didn't specify it. You attacked the theory based on something I didn't see it saying.

 

[Xander]

Deuce!



Side 1 is Neutral Good, verging on chaotic neutral.
Side 2 is Lawful good, verging on lawful neutral.

Hmm all we need is some chaotic evil and we have the full set...

Athenian,
You're making high on my favourite posters list now. Brilliant reasoning.

Forgive the parallel but it's quite similar to watching more mechanical systems, like computers, make sense of the universe.

I think the story so far goes...
Athenian :-
10010110011101
Others:-
3104695A
Athenian :-
!!!100010101000111!!!
Other's :-
1001...A423964B10^16!!!
Athenian :-
010110110...2?



That's supposed to be a parody you know... not belittlement, just joshing.

Oh and btw, contrary to Carebear's postulation I don't think you've really got a problem Athenian. You are prone to forgetting to allow for unforeseen elements but you are aware of it, subconsciously for the most part it seems. Also, however, I disagree with you that you are comfortable in your methodology. I think you know there's a flaw and it's driving you mad because you can't see it.

Perhaps you are more N than S. You seem to be frustrated because you know you're on a path but it's not advancing fast enough for you and the feeling that there's more which you can't see is frustrating.

Oh and for the record, I have no clue how old you are (I'm thinking quite young at present). I think I knew once but I've forgotten..

 

[Carebear]

Oh and btw, contrary to Carebear's postulation I don't think you've really got a problem Athenian. You are prone to forgetting to allow for unforeseen elements but you are aware of it, subconsciously for the most part it seems. Also, however, I disagree with you that you are comfortable in your methodology. I think you know there's a flaw and it's driving you mad because you can't see it.

Perhaps you are more N than S. You seem to be frustrated because you know you're on a path but it's not advancing fast enough for you and the feeling that there's more which you can't see is frustrating.

Uhm...
"I don't think you have a problem, like Carebear postulates." (I thought I'd made clear that I didn't anymore.)
"Your only problem is..."

Now who's being nonsensical?

 

[Athenian200]

You attacked the theory based on something I didn't see it saying.

2) Mature use of Fe:

...they use their Fe to study controversial subject and force-feed their inner network with new ideas, even when the process is painful.

Eventually you will learn to use your Auxiliary in the way I described...

...The changing use of your Auxiliary is part of a natural progression; it will happen by itself and in its own time...


...I correctly represented current function theory.

 

[Xander]

Uhm...
"I don't think you have a problem, like Carebear postulates." (I thought I'd made clear that I didn't anymore.)
"Your only problem is..."

Now who's being nonsensical?

I can't help it if you keep doing a three point turn in your thinking. Pick the right direction first

 

[Xander]

Athenian,
You're an NF alright. Paranoid

You did the underlining both when you read it first and when quoting.

Now that's a flaw that most never get rid of.

 

[Carebear]

Ah! This explains a lot! I didn't read FL's post thoroughly enough, it seems, instead basing my posts on the theory instead. Yes, I see how "force-feed" would be a nono for you. I see what he meant by it, though, but agree it was a poor choice of words. I think I see where you were coming from now.

 

[Carebear]

I can't help it if you keep doing a three point turn in your thinking. Pick the right direction first

Well, even if I did a turn, your "I don't think you have a problem, but your problem is..." is still nonsensical. I'm supposed to be the nonsensical one. Get back to your own territory.

 

[Xander]

Well, even if I did a turn, your "I don't think you have a problem, but your problem is..." is still nonsensical. I'm supposed to be the nonsensical one. Get back to your own territory.

The difference is between a problem (ie "we need to address this") and a quirk ("yeah he's always doing that"). One is something which is being targeted as undesirable and the other is a characteristic which while it may be undesirable is accepted as part of that persons personality.

I realise you can't see this but think of it like your quirk is your "logic". Now I don't bother trying to change that (why waste time), I simply accept ( ) it as part of your personality... and ignore you.

I dunno, such a simple divide.

I'll put it down to that cheap dish water you innocently call "beer".

 

[Athenian200]

The difference is between a problem (ie "we need to address this") and a quirk ("yeah he's always doing that"). One is something which is being targeted as undesirable and the other is a characteristic which while it may be undesirable is accepted as part of that persons personality.

I realise you can't see this but think of it like your quirk is your "logic". Now I don't bother trying to change that (why waste time), I simply accept ( ) it as part of your personality... and ignore you.

I dunno, such a simple divide.

I'll put it down to that cheap dish water you innocently call "beer".

Yeah, I think they do miss a lot of those subtleties. For instance, FineLine assumed I had rejected their entire idea, when in reality I took issue with one portion of it. He interprets this in a way that revealed the way he often sees things... working or not working, for no particular reason. But for me, it's more complex. I think it is for you, too. There are a couple of other odd things about INFPs that make it hard for me to get along with them:

1. They don't appreciate skepticism. (INTP's seem willing to write it off as an aspect of my character without seeing it as a purely negative thing.)

2. They're willing to implicitly force an idea of what's true upon you unapologetically by stating it in a particular way (but apparently don't try to do this until later in making a point, although I perceive the hint of it earlier). (INTP's don't seem certain enough of themselves to do this most of the time, and often even tacitly fall all over themselves to let you know they wouldn't do such a thing.)

Anyway, one more analogy about force-feeding... can't you see how that would be a bit like a software vendor asking a network administrator to disable all their firewall and anti-virus software, just because they didn't take the time to write their software according to standards, and in such a way that it couldn't potentially compromise the system?

 

[Carebear]

Warning: A bit drunk now, but though it might cause a few typos, the content should be ok.

Yeah, I think they do miss a lot of those subtleties.

I'm not sure I agree. I'm normally am quite good on subtleties (except perhaps subtleties of definitions, which I see as "basically the same thing, only with a fancy twist that doesn't really change the whole". Pisses the INTPs and INTJs off bigtime. ). But yes, we keep Ne-jumping to conclusions occasionally and test whether or not our understanding is correct.

On a side note: You seem to be missing some subtleties in Xan's post (which you really have no way of seeing without knowledge you do not have.) Xander is mostly teasing and doing a standard INTPc routine here, playing on our common history on INTPc and bringing some INFP biases that reigned over there. Both to make fun of the bias and at the same time because he actually kind of mean it. But it really doesn't matter, as you agree with what he's saying, just wanted to let you know.

For instance, FineLine assumed I had rejected their entire idea, when in reality I took issue with one portion of it. He interprets this in a way that revealed the way he often sees things... working or not working, for no particular reason. But for me, it's more complex. I think it is for you, too.

I disagree with your analysis of FL. He did assume you rejected the entire idea and tested this assumption, but the rest doesn't fit at all in my eyes. I guess we'll know in a couple of weeks time when he gets back and can answer himself.

There are a couple of other odd things about INFPs that make it hard for me to get along with them:

1. They don't appreciate skepticism. (INTP's seem willing to write it off as an aspect of my character without seeing it as a purely negative thing.)

I actually agree with this to a large extent. I know several INFPs who fit this category and who use Ne to defend their precious Fi's from anything that might be upsetting instead of objectively trying to understand. But then again I also know several INFPs who don't fit this description as all, but who can't stop their love for questioning everything and want others to do the same.

2. They're willing to implicitly force an idea of what's true upon you unapologetically by stating it in a particular way (but apparently don't try to do this until later in making a point, although I perceive the hint of it earlier). (INTP's don't seem certain enough of themselves to do this most of the time, and often even tacitly fall all over themselves to let you know they wouldn't do such a thing.)

I think this is more a matter of communication issues and how you perceive them than of how they work. To force an idea on someone is something an INFP will find alien and unachievable. It's Fe and Te land. If anything INFPs are even less certain of themselves and their views than INTPs. We know that our truth might be just that. Only ours. An INTP will be more certain of his reasoning behind an idea, relying on the underlying logic of it, while an INFP will have gone mostly by Ne and subjective values. If anything the uncertainty of the INFP will make him state it more boldly to provoke reaction so he can get feedback and remodel the statement.

Anyway, one more analogy about force-feeding... can't you see how that would be a bit like a software vendor asking a network administrator to disable all their firewall and anti-virus software, just because they didn't take the time to write their software according to standards, and in such a way that it couldn't potentially compromise the system?

Yes, but force-feeding wasn't his main point. It was an exaggerated and a bit sloppy way of describing the process. You bolded it when reading and quoting, but it wasn't what he was really talking about and doesn't feature on the page he linked to. And though he didn't state it as explicitly as others might, it wasn't a "drop all thought, here's what you MUST do, Athenian, or you're doomed". It was a way of seeing it which made sense based on his experience and which he offered for others to do with as they pleased. It was a real eye opener to me and several others I've spoken with, including my INFJ wife.

Maybe it would be easier to get along with INFPs if you always assumed they didn't feel certain they knew the answer but only phrased it that way thinking that people are independent thinkers who won't feel too intimidated to dismiss something as nonsense or correct false assumptions if they think it doesn't fit?

 

[Athenian200]

I'm not sure I agree. I'm normally am quite good on subtleties (except perhaps subtleties of definitions, which I see as "basically the same thing, only with a fancy twist that doesn't really change the whole". Pisses the INTPs and INTJs off bigtime. ). But yes, we keep Ne-jumping to conclusions occasionally and test whether or not our understanding is correct.

I actually meant definitions... subtleties of how and why things work, rather than just perceiving what you think is the main element, and whether it works or not. There's more to something than just working or not working, things work for reasons, and you can often even see what a person was trying to do with an idea if they explain it rather than assert it, and where they went wrong. To me, that's like saying a computer "works" just because it powers on and runs applications, regardless of whether it can them well, or even crashes frequently, and simply "doesn't work" when there's one easily repairable component malfunctioning. It's a disregard for degree of accuracy, and the actual nature of the systems involved. That view seems rigid to me almost the way I seem rigid to you. I will say that you seem much better at dealing with the aspect I speak of than FineLine seemed to be, though.

I respect that you want to test conclusions. I just think you should consider revising the conclusions when I say they don't work, and considering the validity of the reasons I put forth about why it doesn't work, and whether I made a mistake in interpreting what you said, rather than just feeling like I've dismissed you. I have a bad habit of assuming everyone does this automatically, because I can't imagine not doing this when conversing about something.

On a side note: You seem to be missing some subtleties in Xan's post (which you really have no way of seeing without knowledge you do not have.) Xander is mostly teasing and doing a standard INTPc routine here, playing on our common history on INTPc and bringing some INFP biases that reigned over there. Both to make fun of the bias and at the same time because he actually kind of mean it. But it really doesn't matter, as you agree with what he's saying, just wanted to let you know.

Well, what was the bias against them? I thought INTP's and INFP's got along very well, and almost never misunderstood one another. (I thought it was strange I react so differently to them, even though they both use Ne to interact with reality).

I disagree with your analysis of FL. He did assume you rejected the entire idea and tested this assumption, but the rest doesn't fit at all in my eyes. I guess we'll know in a couple of weeks time when he gets back and can answer himself.

Yeah, but he tested it in such a way that I had no idea what he was testing for, and it ended up leaning towards him being right about that assumption, even though I would have negotiated and explained if he had just asked outright. If anything, I probably became guarded because I noticed he was looking for something he wasn't mentioning directly, and I felt like I was being manipulated into illustrating something he had already decided was true, even though that wasn't his intention.

I actually agree with this to a large extent. I know several INFPs who fit this category and who use Ne to defend their precious Fi's from anything that might be upsetting instead of objectively trying to understand. But then again I also know several INFPs who don't fit this description as all, but who can't stop their love for questioning everything and want others to do the same.

I feel intimidated by all that passion, and it makes me feel like I'm being attacked personally for not being passionate about the same things they are passionate about, even though they can't justify their passions in any reasonable way. Again, that's probably not really the case, but it's a hard impression to shake.

I think this is more a matter of communication issues and how you perceive them than of how they work. To force an idea on someone is something an INFP will find alien and unachievable. It's Fe and Te land. If anything INFPs are even less certain of themselves and their views than INTPs. We know that our truth might be just that. Only ours. An INTP will be more certain of his reasoning behind an idea, relying on the underlying logic of it, while an INFP will have gone mostly by Ne and subjective values. If anything the uncertainty of the INFP will make him state it more boldly to provoke reaction so he can get feedback and remodel the statement.

I'm just confused as to why uncertainty would make a person bold rather tha timid? I don't feel proud of myself when I don't know something, in fact I just feel stupid for not understanding what the other person meant, because the idea makes sense from some perspective, and I'm not seeing it, possibly because their understanding of some part of the idea was incomplete/inaccurate when they expressed it, or I misunderstood what they expressed.

Yes, but force-feeding wasn't his main point. It was an exaggerated and a bit sloppy way of describing the process. You bolded it when reading and quoting, but it wasn't what he was really talking about and doesn't feature on the page he linked to. And though he didn't state it as explicitly as others might, it wasn't a "drop all thought, here's what you MUST do, Athenian, or you're doomed". It was a way of seeing it which made sense based on his experience and which he offered for others to do with as they pleased. It was a real eye opener to me and several others I've spoken with, including my INFJ wife.

Ah, so he wasn't specifically targeting it at me, telling me that I was immature because I don't incorporate information into my way of dealing with things without examining it, or that seems false to me? I assumed he was, since the discussion was about me. I also didn't get how he could just present an idea he thought was related, and not believe everything it was saying applied to my situation. I never checked the link, because he explicitly said he was making his best efforts to represent function theory accurately, so I assumed it made the same assertions he did, in the same way and as strongly as he did, without checking, and therefore rejected it.

Maybe it would be easier to get along with INFPs if you always assumed they didn't feel certain they knew the answer but only phrased it that way thinking that people are independent thinkers who won't feel too intimidated to dismiss something as nonsense or correct false assumptions if they think it doesn't fit?

I guess that doesn't make sense to me, because I think the idea has to be corrected right there in the open, otherwise I can't be sure I know what they meant. If I take it, look at it a different way to correct the parts that seem wrong to me, and don't discuss that, how will I know if what I came up with internally even resembles what they had in mind?

Does this make sense?