Understanding invisible threads that change how actions are judged.

[Carebear]

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.

Ah. Well, speaking for myself, subtleties of definitions isn't something I respect much, except when writing academical papers. (I see that I should, but get too impatient to get to the bigger understanding. If I walk on a road and it takes a bend around a patch of grass, I often walk over the grass. Sure it's not technically following the road, but I see where the road is leading. Yes, I know this frustrates a lot of people.)

And it's not that I can't understand the subtleties of defs, it's just that on a forum I'm trying not to invest too much time and energy, so I'm in a bit of a hurry and take shortcuts. If I appear to deal better with the subtleties of def than FL did, it's only because I'm investing more time and effort in this thread right now than he was. I know he's perfectly able to do it as well, but since he never intended to "sell" you anything, just offer his view, he didn't feel the need to be super accurate (Don't take my word for it, I'm just assuming and jumping to conclusions about his motivation now. Hm... and realize I phrased it as "fact" instead of as "perhaps FL could have just been...").

As for the works/doesn't work mentality, I guess you see it that way, but it's not really an accurate description of how we think. We see the subtleties. But I guess on a forum we can have a tendency to boil it down to that just to get more quickly to our points.

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.

Again, lack of investment in the thread probably caused that one. As his motive wasn't to change you but just offer his thoughts, he probably didn't feel like engaging in a long debate over it. Instead he gave you a link to use if you didn't understand what he was saying and wanted clarification.

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).

Well, there are several. Most concern NFs in general. Overly emotional, irrational, stuck up, weak, lame, fluffy, flaky, sensitive to criticism. IRL INFPs and INTPs do get along very well, but on a pure INTP board the group think changes how some act and perceive. Most NFs who endure over there are considered exceptions from how NFs really work (instead of the view of NFs being refined.)

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.

In my eyes he was totally open about his intentions right from the start, but I guess this could be connected to the invisible lines you're speaking of in the OP. He wanted to present his take on your situation, not to change you but to see if his POV was of any help to you or others who wondered about your robotic feel, arguing how you could still be INFJ. Had you been a RL friend, he'd have sat down with you and explained where he came from etc in detail, but he said from early on he didn't really have time for that, so he only made a few attempts to explain, then, sensing your resistance, he dropped it. So yes, he adopted a working/not working attitude and decided it didn't work for you.

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.

Hm... could this be Fe at work? You feel you in some way SHOULD come to agreement with others, so you get angry if you can't? Personally I have no way to get angry over disagreement like that. I'll consider other people's thoughts, but if I can't make sense of them or don't think they are justified, I just think "hm... I guess we're coming from different angles and experiences". Unless it's a close person, I won't invest any energy into trying to reach an agreement. There are more than one truth and I will always disagree with someone.

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.

Hm... I guess we've learned from experience that in order to test something you have to stick your neck out and just present the hypothesis before you test it. And when you test it, you'll have to test it as if it will work. You know it might make you look like a fool, but you also know people generally regard you as a wise person, so you have room for some failures. INTPs are more methodical in their approach, slowly adding more and more ingredients, while INFPs generally add them all at once, shake and see what happens.

A problem we meet on a forum however, is that IRL we both use and perceive a lot of non-verbal cues and communication. This is often crucial information lost, which leads to misinterpretation at both ends. Do you have problems with RL INFPs as well, or only online ones?

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.

He offered it to you but targeted it to anyone who were interested in how dom and aux can influence each other. Check the link. It's interesting stuff. (Even more interesting reading about other types.)

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?

Absolutely. The only thing that didn't make sense was the seemingly allergic reaction to what was being said instead of open inquiry. I see where it's coming from now, however (though it's still strange to me as I only get such allergic reactions IRL, and only from horses, cats and other furry animals ).

 

[Xander]

If I walk on a road and it takes a bend around a patch of grass, I often walk over the grass. Sure it's not technically following the road, but I see where the road is leading. Yes, I know this frustrates a lot of people.)

This is officially my favourite quote of the thread. An excellent summation of the whole process

May I just add... me too

As for those INFP people... we keep them as pets sure. They're okay as long as they're logic trained. Otherwise they're just a pain!



Oh and Athenian, perhaps you find me more acceptable because I tend to postulate at 100mph. Like I said I don't believe in answers, it's the questions which I find most useful.

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.)

Raining on an INFPs parade can often get you shot yes. I get that for my critical thinking at times. It seems that once the INFP in question is comfy that the criticism is just your way of looking at things and you're not attacking them then they'll open up and relax. I have an INFP friend who comes over every week brimming with ideas. It used to be he'd try and sell them to me and I'd point out the flaws and then weather his fury. Now he asks me if he's missed anything and we often go through an idea together with the other offering insight and the proposer considering and offering counter insight. It's quite useful really...

He is still just a pet though of course

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.)

Ah the hard sell. Yeah I get that. The way I figure it is the idea at some point becomes personal to them and to refute the idea wounds them. Similar to if you say to an INTP that their idea isn't logical, you can get lambasted except with INTPs it's the flames of proof where as with INFPs they do the same but it's obvious that it's a foil and what they should say is "ouch".

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?

Oh no... Now see if you'd checked my blog you'd see I've been trialling Vista recently. Firewalls have been a major sticking point as has the new user access control.

See with NTs it's much simpler, no firewall just black ICE. Hack the system wrong and they'll fry you from a remote terminal

Anyhow I'm glad we're starting to get on the same page now.

Athenian, it does seem you are quite defensive. Perhaps that's why you're tentative or perhaps it's the result... who knows. All I'd say is you could do a lot worse than be confident in yourself.