Video: INFJ Communication Style

[greenfairy]

That's interesting because I would consider INFPs "why" people as well. Either it's a different kind of "why" or I'm missing something.

Can you give an example of situation where you doing this either for yourself or others? What was your basic thought process was?

Like say I have an unusual or strong reaction to something. Rather than focusing simply on the reaction itself and the feelings involved I will wonder why I had that particular reaction and what psychological processes triggered it. Like if I was hurt by someone saying they don't want to be in a relationship with me or with anyone right now I would begin dissection both their mind and mine. On my part I would ask myself if I want to be in a relationship with them right now. If the answer is both yes and no, which is usual, since this doesn't make sense, I ask myself questions until I can explain how I have these feelings. I get to such underlying things as wanting someone to make me not feel lonely or validate myself or thinking loving connections have to be all or nothing and are confined by space and time. That sort of thing. That's more Ni I think. I'm not sure about Fi, but I suspect they would pay more attention to the feelings themselves. In this process they don't exactly fit in in the same way as those who have described Fi say, they aren't analyzed in purely emotional terms as much. I think of everything abstractly usually, like with the chakras and stuff. If I have a fear reaction that means I need to work on the first chakra, if I don't trust or fear intimacy I need to work on the second, etc.

With other people, since I can't get completely inside their minds, it's more piecing together all the intuitive emotional impressions I've picked up from them combine with the nuances of their behavior and connecting it to other people having those same characteristics and seeing where it leads. What comes out is a picture of someone's psyche. I do that with myself too, but somehow it's less easy because of all the conflicting emotions. When you can see everything it's harder to decide what's relevant.

Really? INTJs are less interested in interpersonal dynamics, but you guys are often focussed on affecting people. Practically every conversation I have with my good INTJ friend is him trying to persuade me of something. It's not always a pushy, negative thing, it might be just about guiding me to a solution, and he can listen (with a degree of willingness to be persuaded) too, but it is generally very much about moving me towards a certain direction.

Perhaps the difference is that INFJs try to persuade the inner workings of people; access the more unconscious elements rather than the conscious. (Would the INFJs agree with that?)

Yeah INTJ's try to affect people with Te instead of Fe, so they work on the Thinking consciousness of a person and INFJ's focus on the Feeling consciousness. We both get at unconsciousness as well, but probably in different ways and more with Ni than with anything else. Of course we use both our Thinking and Feeling functions when interacting, but the primary execution of communication will focus on one or the other generally according to type. What [MENTION=16382]Ene[/MENTION] said with building systems makes sense according to whether it is people-focused or maybe process focused. (I don't know if that would best describe Te since I'm not that good with the function- INTJ's feel free to elaborate on this point.)

 

[Southern Kross]

Like say I have an unusual or strong reaction to something. Rather than focusing simply on the reaction itself and the feelings involved I will wonder why I had that particular reaction and what psychological processes triggered it. Like if I was hurt by someone saying they don't want to be in a relationship with me or with anyone right now I would begin dissection both their mind and mine. On my part I would ask myself if I want to be in a relationship with them right now. If the answer is both yes and no, which is usual, since this doesn't make sense, I ask myself questions until I can explain how I have these feelings. I get to such underlying things as wanting someone to make me not feel lonely or validate myself or thinking loving connections have to be all or nothing and are confined by space and time. That sort of thing. That's more Ni I think. I'm not sure about Fi, but I suspect they would pay more attention to the feelings themselves. In this process they don't exactly fit in in the same way as those who have described Fi say, they aren't analyzed in purely emotional terms as much. I think of everything abstractly usually, like with the chakras and stuff. If I have a fear reaction that means I need to work on the first chakra, if I don't trust or fear intimacy I need to work on the second, etc.

With other people, since I can't get completely inside their minds, it's more piecing together all the intuitive emotional impressions I've picked up from them combine with the nuances of their behavior and connecting it to other people having those same characteristics and seeing where it leads. What comes out is a picture of someone's psyche. I do that with myself too, but somehow it's less easy because of all the conflicting emotions. When you can see everything it's harder to decide what's relevant.

So introspection for you is more about searching for and understanding your underlying motivations? So you would ask yourself, "why am I behaving like this?" more than, "why am I feeling like this?"? Is it more about figuring out what you (or others) want out of things and which direction you want things to go?

If so, that clarifies the differences for me.

Yeah INTJ's try to affect people with Te instead of Fe, so they work on the Thinking consciousness of a person and INFJ's focus on the Feeling consciousness. We both get at unconsciousness as well, but probably in different ways and more with Ni than with anything else. Of course we use both our Thinking and Feeling functions when interacting, but the primary execution of communication will focus on one or the other generally according to type. What [MENTION=16382]Ene[/MENTION] said with building systems makes sense according to whether it is people-focused or maybe process focused. (I don't know if that would best describe Te since I'm not that good with the function- INTJ's feel free to elaborate on this point.)

But wouldn't you say that "Feeling consciousness" is by nature more unconscious because it's removed from the object? I use the word "unconscious" loosely here really. To me, Thinkers address the surface, factual elements and Feelers read between the lines and address what is implied. An opinion, for example, has a surface/conscious side and a underlying/unconscious side: it has the part that is driven by factual information and the part that is driven by 'reactionary' information (instinct/emotion/inclination/bias etc). My point is that INFJs seem more interested in affecting underlying reaction rather than to affecting one's logical conclusions.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Just out of curiosity, do you feel like this post is an example of you doing this (bolded) with greenfairy's post? It seems more like a reactive response to her post- to reciprocate some kind of perceived slight- instead of trying to clarify whether or not you understood it correctly. It seems to me like what I'm hearing is a reactive/defensive "here's why INFPs are actually the ones who are superior" reaction, as if it's in response to someone else trying to lay claim to being superior first- and what I don't see is you checking to see if that's what greenfairy meant in the first place. Am I mistaken?

I do agree INFPs have a lot of strengths that INFJs don't have, just like every type has strengths that others don't have. The topic of the thread though is about how to get through to an INFJ. So what exactly incited the above post? (Was it greenfairy's post, or OA's interpretation of greenfairy's post- and can't we maybe get into the habit of taking quotes over to new threads if it's going to cause this kind of derail?) I'm frustrated that INFJs can't even have a conversation amongst themselves about their own functions and/or experience without it quickly devolving into this FJ/FP bullshit. (This is beside the point that I don't understand why people who have established INFJs are not worth the effort would even bother clicking on the link and reading the thread? I don't even need to understand it, really, my only goal here is to see if there's some way to stop this from taking over every single conversation about INFJs.)

I'm not trying to be offensive or pick a fight, but why does this happen? More importantly, what needs to happen in order for this kind of thing to stop interrupting productive conversation? (This should probably be it's own thread, really.)

I don't agree with the perception that all or even most conversations about INFJs go or have gone in that direction at all. Most which have gone that way seem to BE about FJs & FPs and/or specifically asking what INFPs or others dislike about INFJs.

It does seem to me there is much readiness in INFJ conversations about INFJs to distinguish themselves from FPs. If this is to be done, then FPs must be represented accurately as well.

I was responding to that comment which was distinguishing INFJs from Fi types with my clarification on Fi types, as being a Fi type, I am the one in the position to clarify it. This is not about a personal feeling now, or else type loses all meaning. There has to be some external reference point for defining types.

There was no perceived slight, and I felt no offense from [MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION] 's post, because it's not personal nor did I find it to have a negative intent. It is a perceived error in understanding, however. If you want it to stop, then stop with comparisons to Fi, which opens the conversations to such necessary clarification (which I don't believe YOU do, so I mean "you" in the general sense).

So I was offering clarification of what I thought was a misunderstanding of Fi in comparison to Fe, and its a clarification which is important if people are going to actually type others correctly and use that as tool to communicate better. I also offered a thought on what I think is a problem in communicating with INFJs - poor listening, which is the opposite of what most profiles will say.

Also, I watched the guy's video on INFPs and he says almost exactly the same things as he does with INFJs, except he makes more comments about INFJs organizing people and more about INFPs being more lone wolf creative types. That's about the only difference he offers, which I don't find insightful or useful for either type. It's not that what he says isn't true in a general way (and hence, some positive reception of it), but it doesn't cut to the heart of significant differences between types which lead to real communication issues.

As noted, as an INFP and rational dominant, I seek clarity over closure, and clarity takes a lot longer, involves a lot of rehashing and revisiting, etc. Precision of expression is important, and my careful choice in words seems to get ignored in favor of someone analyzing my motives in order to reach a swift conclusion that avoids engaging the ideas. In these discussions, I end up saying the same thing over & over in different forms, and INFJs don't actually seek to comprehend it, but just keep looking for some angle to dismiss it.

I think this much better opens up dialogue on how to communicate with an INFJ.

How does one actually get an INFJ to hear what they are saying, in plain words & in many different forms, without the INFJ diverting back to "motive" in order to invalidate the words without consideration of them? How does one get an INFJ to separate their valuation of a person from a fair evaluation of their argument?

I already know my flippancy irritates INFJs.

Exactly. It is important to remember that in communications with an INFJ, they are nearly always strategic. Output is strategically delivered and what evolves (in order to manage output) everything coming "in" is desired in a specific format too. Ergo, their protocols for interaction. You must ascribe to these protocols in order to be "heard". I've talked about this need for control before in other posts so will not expand here.

Everything "other" people do and say is questioned for motive, yet what goes under-evaluated is an honest, deep evaluation of their own inner motives. For example, I will be ascribed a certain motivation in this thread by my mere presence, not really by what I am saying. Then, my words will be twisted pretzel-like to fit the desired conclusion as to why I am here saying what I am saying.

It's just the way it is. The INFJ level of emotional self-examination can be surprising shallow.

So, you have to decide this: do you want to fit into what the average-health-level INFJ sees you as? Is it that important to you? Until they have gained some rational, critical emotional self-evaluation skills, interaction will primarily be on their singular terms, not collaboratively.

This is TRUTH. And it foretells the end of this thread, if I were to stay, which I don't intend to (and I always reserve the right to change my mind). Let's be real though, it would've died off a lot faster had I not posted.

Edit: I want to clarify this and say I don't believe INFJ self-examination is shallow, but I don't think it touches on their own emotional motives much, more so on error in execution for desired result or some Ni-Ti stuff (which I don't claim to grasp fully at all).
Not to make this about comparison, but of course INFPs have a blind spot in detecting error in execution for desired result, or at least you do if you're 4w5 so last.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Well, no - in many measurable ways, INFJ's are far more effective in the world. I don't see INFP's as superior (we are all simply different) but Fi is lensed in a way that seems continually misunderstood to me so my desire for clarity is triggered. The way I point out issues is mostly where differences and problems lie, rather than building alliance on what commonalities we share. It's the contrast that is useful to me.

wrt my previous post, I think it is very hard for any P-type to appreciate the depth of J-type strategy, since P-types don't readily construct reality in that "if I do X, Y will happen" way. Likewise, to me it seems even harder for a J-type to be aware that P-types are not very strategic. That does not mean P-types aren't manipulative, but it does mean that P-type "strategy" typically doesn't go much farther than an in-the-moment manipulation. And since it's not well-thought-out, often causes trouble when those in the moment attempts to alter reality pile up.

So, to communicate with an INFJ you must especially be aware of the strategy behind every interaction because of Ni, that future-oriented function. Every word carries nuance and a desired affect, sometimes building to a very long-term outcome. And, if you want to build good rapport in environments where interaction is necessary (rather than friendship where people just "click") an ignorance of this is counter-productive.

eta: I should add what to do in these situations to foster a win-win. Sometimes a strategic vision is in your favor, but other times not and unfairly so. Maybe I'll put together a post on that.



Ni-types seem to listen when something pings their Ni. From my singular perspective, it seems that Ni takes something from in-the-moment and prepares to build a conclusion on it, that Ni-doms can feel pieces of a puzzle sliding together and focus in laser-sharp at those times for a certain length of time. To me, it feels uncomfortable because I do not know what conclusion is potentially being built. All of a sudden, I will sense a Je-judgment coming on, and this can feel limiting and uncomfortable.

Yes, the bolded are very good especially.

In communicating with an INFJ - when you directly state your motive, and they continue to question and/or disbelieve it - why? "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"?

Thanks for the clarification.

Well lo & behold - she got it!

I was going on communication with three NFP's I know well, particularly an ENFP (where the vagueness came from).

I don't see ExFPs as the embodiment of Fi actually. Vagueness is more common with Pe-dom - or rather, they are even more holistic.

That's good to know, and seems consistent with my experience. I for one suck at emotional consistency, and classification and order, and knowing what I want and all that, and though I may be worse at it than most, I suspect that many Fe users are as well- so we push for external organization so we aren't so confused.

This is perfectly valid. It's of course the blindspot of most Pe types. And it's the blindspots that seem to rub others the wrong way. In recognizing that, you surely can see how having your expressions gauged in terms of their external consistency

The question then is - how is this gap bridged with an INFJ? People can be very inconsistent, and this seems less tolerated when external with an INFJ, and less tolerated with an FP when internal. How much internal consistency will convince an INFJ that a person is, well, trustworthy? The lack of predictability in FPs seems to leave them uneasy. As an INFP, it leaves me uneasy to be boxed it so quickly so I can be summed up easily.

Where INFJ's get a reputation for listening is that we do it in an analytical way; we compare and contrast how a person is with how other people are, and look for the underlying psychological principles. This along with intuition makes us able to size a person up pretty well. For better or worse though, it's in a detached way which Fi users may find impersonal.

I don't find INFJs impersonal, but certainly strategic. They say this about themselves though, and I should believe it more. They come across as very personable, really. Regarding the bolded, this creates problems with dealing with rather idiosyncratic people, does it not? I realize Ni has a lot of depth and tends to look past surfaces, but what causes a misunderstanding then? I feel like my surface is very opaque, and it's disappointing when initially I think someone "gets" it and later I'm left feeling totally unknown to them.

I didn't take her post this way, only as speaking from her experience with NFJ's. Though there might be something there I missed. Anyway, I'm sorry INFP's if my post came across as offensive. It was just my sense of humor and frustration with a few experiences. As I said, I get equally frustrated with myself. Funny INFJ's spend so much time with so-called introspection, yet they never really seem to know themselves. I for one like these sorts of threads, even if people get offended, because it helps me understand how Fi users feel and not expect them to conform so much to my Fe expectations.

Indeed, it was not meant that way. However, I was not offended, nor was your post offensive. But I did find it inaccurate.

Thank you for responses here, because they have given me more clarity on INFJs.

Another thing, and I hope this isn't too off topic, but I was thinking about being personal vs. impersonal and how it differs with INFP's and INFJ's. I am interpreting Orangeappled's post as saying that INFJ's can be bad listeners because they aren't personal enough- so I wondered how I think of being personal. I don't really consider my emotions to be personal per se. I speculate that Fi users do, which is why they spend so much time being internally emotionally consistent. For me what feels more personal is what lies under that, why I am the way I am (Ni=why), so I project that onto other people. I think that to really get at the heart of someone is to figure out why they are the way they are, and to feel listened to in a personal way I want someone to pay attention to why I am the way I am- if I'm upset why, and if I'm happy why, and sometimes to help me figure it out if I don't already know. This may be important to do with INFJ's. But perhaps we need to realize that Fi users may value the "what" more than the "why" because it feels more personal to them, however they happen to be and feel. Does that sound accurate, [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION]?

As noted, I don't find INFJs "not personal enough", being that they tend to have a personal style. Perhaps that is what leads to such surprise in the following... There IS a lack of grasping individuality when interacting - it's as if you are being held agains some archetype to be understood. This is far different from shallow stereotyping, and archetypes have some validity, but they have limitations. There is a point where the individual needs to be understood apart from it. I can get the sense of being a "pawn" or an "accessory" with NFJs.

I agree with [MENTION=5871]Southern Kross[/MENTION] that INFPs are "why" people as well, but why is less focused on externals. It's not "why I act as I do", but why "I feel as I do", which is seen as the root of "why I act as I do". It's pretty clear to me why I act as I do; what's less clear is why some actions fail to achieve their desired intent. I suppose from my perspective, INFJs seem to focus on the action, and how to adjust it to achieve better result, but its like they lose sight of their own intent (which is why it seems odd to me how much intent they will project onto others...?). And I guess that is because "better" is determined with external measures anyway. "Better" is really abstract for an INFP - it's not something immediately measurable. Threads like this, often written off as train wrecks, are not seen as failures to me. This probably goes into the clarity vs closure file as well.

Yup.

When I express emotion it's almost never solely because I want to for my own sake, there is almost always a reason/purpose behind it. Granted, that is natural for me and it just happens as it is, but it's for the external world. But, I can assure you though there is lots of purpose to it. It's not uncommon for that purpose to be lost on the user though (more common for xNFJ's), since it's usually not needed as a conscious thought.

I don't doubt there is purpose....I'm saying I just don't get it, which is my own density at times.
But it's comparable to Te vs Ti logic or pragmatism vs coherence of principles. Of course, these overlap at times or draw on the other, which is why Fi & Fe are mostly NOT at odds.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

It does seem to me there is much readiness in INFJ conversations about INFJs to distinguish themselves from FPs. If this is to be done, then FPs must be represented accurately as well.

This is a fair point, but this is what I'm also saying could maybe be brought over to a new thread. Even if there's a post that says "I disagree with this quote, and I'm starting a new thread."

It's just a shame. I can't remember the last time there was an engaging conversation about INFJs that wasn't taken over and dominated by someone with at least a little bit of an axe to grind, quite often INFP. Or just someone who seems to feel the need to blame Fe for the quality of their life not being what it should, even though Fe plays a smaller role for INFJs than is normally preached. And then it just turns into a pissing contest over superiority. Or rather, it's just a cluster of people pointing out how a post- about someone else's take on your own thought process, and some passive aggressive insertion making their own sound superior- doesn't especially sound fair, instead of actually productively understanding other people. Which is really just too vapid a way to spend my time. I'll admit that I did start absorbing that behavior and throwing it back at people sometimes- because I can mirror stuff like that automatically when I'm not paying attention- but I refuse to keep doing it. I'm not saying that every single post in which an FP tries correcting a description of Fi they feel misrepresents them is when an interesting conversation about INFJs hits the proverbial iceberg, but every time an interesting conversation hits an iceberg it is because someone doesn't like INFJs (or Fe) and they felt the need to enter and assert their superiority. So it's just a shame there can't be a habit of starting new threads- perhaps posting a link to the new thread, and stating disagreement ftr- so that the engaging aspects of conversation don't get drowned out.

When I go back in my reps, I can find many INFJ conversations that I got a lot out of. But these days they always seem to get taken over and dominated by someone (who isn't INFJ) with something *extra* to prove.

 

[1487610420]

we just want to be loved. signed eberybodu

 

[grey_beard]

Really? INTJs are less interested in interpersonal dynamics, but you guys are often focussed on affecting people. Practically every conversation I have with my good INTJ friend is him trying to persuade me of something. It's not always a pushy, negative thing, it might be just about guiding me to a solution, and he can listen (with a degree of willingness to be persuaded) too, but it is generally very much about moving me towards a certain direction.

Perhaps the difference is that INFJs try to persuade the inner workings of people; access the more unconscious elements rather than the conscious. (Would the INFJs agree with that?)

I think INTJs are very focused on influencing long term direction and outcomes. People are a necessary part of that but persuading them is not necessarily a super strong gift. It's more of a brute force approach. We don't say words for specific effect really.

You're both right, but both missing something. (How's that for INTJ haughtiness, and towards a Moderator, to boot?)

INTJs ALSO are interested in *optimization*, and (despite their own tortured Fi), notoriously neglectful of *feelings*. They are seeking the shortest path between two points -- so they tell the other person *what* to fix, without any regard to the social appearance of doing so, and (unless warned), without realizing how the advice makes the other person FEEL. The INFJ has the advantage in their approach that (as [MENTION=5871]Southern Kross[/MENTION] said) they want to persuade the inner workings of people...like the old joke about how many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? One, but the light bulb really has to want to change...or perhaps the analogy to cutting wood along the grain rather than across it.

The INTJ focuses on what has to change, and then on which elements specifically are going to be most efficacious at accomplishing the change; the INFJ sees the desired direction (since they share Ni with the INTJ) but then hope to inspire the change to come from within, rather than directing it from without.

 

[highlander]

You're both right, but both missing something. (How's that for INTJ haughtiness, and towards a Moderator, to boot?)

INTJs ALSO are interested in *optimization*, and (despite their own tortured Fi), notoriously neglectful of *feelings*. They are seeking the shortest path between two points -- so they tell the other person *what* to fix, without any regard to the social appearance of doing so, and (unless warned), without realizing how the advice makes the other person FEEL. The INFJ has the advantage in their approach that (as [MENTION=5871]Southern Kross[/MENTION] said) they want to persuade the inner workings of people...like the old joke about how many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? One, but the light bulb really has to want to change...or perhaps the analogy to cutting wood along the grain rather than across it.

The INTJ focuses on what has to change, and then on which elements specifically are going to be most efficacious at accomplishing the change; the INFJ sees the desired direction (since they share Ni with the INTJ) but then hope to inspire the change to come from within, rather than directing it from without.

Re bolded - I think we are capable of being far more diplomatic than this on a routine basis. I am very sensitive to how my words and interaction are perceived or going to be perceived by others. I can tell immediately after I say something based on their reaction if I've slipped up. What I don't do is to calculate and weigh my words with any kind of precision. My way of dealing with people is to put myself in their shoes - how would I feel if I were them? I'm analyzing and intuiting people's reactions constantly. This may not be typical of INTJs but I basically engage in very two way collaborative type of communication. I want to know what the other person thinks. In a way, I can use that Ni/Se to gather all these different data points and thoughts from different people to help us as a group arrive at a direction that makes the most sense. It's using that synthesizing ability that Ni has and the Te orientation to make it real. As a leader, I have realized that there is an awful lot of stuff that I don't know and that perspectives that won't come naturally to me. If I follow my own singular vision without asking for any advice or input from others, I miss important things. People have so many good ideas and input on every matter of thing. Extraverts tend to verbalize pretty well but tend to dominate conversations. I find that you have to draw those things out of introverts or they will never be heard. Part of it is situationally engaging them in a conversation with specific questions. Part of it is helping to cast a role of their being truly involved and vested in the outcomes. Sometimes you have to push. In either case, my approach is one of caring about people as individuals, focusing on outcomes of what needs to be accomplished, and then collaborating with them to achieve the results we want to get while supporting them individually.

I think INFJs are fundamentally different than this. They have that Fe lens which cares more about the collective feelings of the group. They are more apt to inspire people through encouragement or affirmation. They are not as focused on mobilizing people and enjoy a democratic type of environment vs. hierarchical and directive. They are more quiet understated in leadership roles. Also, I think though they are very good at understanding other people, as stated here, they are not as good at understanding their own feelings, though it seems like they spend a lot of time introspecting or analyzing.

 

[Fidelia]

So introspection for you is more about searching for and understanding your underlying motivations? So you would ask yourself, "why am I behaving like this?" more than, "why am I feeling like this?"? Is it more about figuring out what you (or others) want out of things and which direction you want things to go?

If so, that clarifies the differences for me.

I would say, you are absolutely correct about the first statement, at least for me. However, I think the "Why am I behaving this way" is not so much to decide what direction I want things to go in, but more to uncover the motivating factors or the why behind my behaviour. Feelings sort of shift about, but I find that for me, even though I may be aware of many of the pieces that are in the mix, I'm not really sure which negative feelings merit weight. If they do merit weight, how much lasting weight they merit and how much/which ones are my own selfishness, tiredness, temporary frustration, immaturity, disappointment, past issues, collection of unresolved smaller things, takes time for me to sort out.

It speeds up the process if I have the right person to discuss it with and in the process of expressing it, usually it starts taking on a clearer shape. If I know that I am seeing something in a flawed way and that it is a factor that I can affect within myself (eat something, get some rest, get into a different mindset, consider other stressors that are impacting my emotional reaction, etc), that will naturally affect the course of action I take. The action part looks after itself. If I feel that there is a reason for some of the negative things I'm feeling, then that allows me to feel that I am seeing the picture accurately, and can get to work at whatever needs doing. The issue for me is more whether I am accurately seeing the whole picture and if I have taken everything into account that should be, as well as weighted the different factors correctly. If so, then I am confident enough to proceed. Otherwise, I just get stuck, avoidant, or so emotionally upset that I cannot take any action till the storm dies down. Similarly to the course of action taking care of itself once I feel that I have at least a working picture of what is going on (which of course can be amended but is basically reliable), what I want also resolves itself or clarifies fairly easily after I can determine what the situation really is.

Does that make sense?

How does it work when you are thinking over something? Do you get to the same place, but just do it in a different order, or is a different path/destination entirely that you are seeking when you look at what you are feeling?

 

[FemMecha]

I tend to be quiet, but easy-going in conversations and in general, so I tend to find a wide variety of communication styles interesting. During one conflict resolution with an INTP he compared our inner semantic spaces which I thought was really interesting and cool. I'm intrigued when someone's communication style challenges me and deviates from the norm. I'm worse than average at normative communication and compensate by listening and smiling and saying nice things. My strength is in atypical communication - whether overly polite or harsh. Once I calibrate to the person and get a baseline for what they mean when they speak a certain way, then I'm mostly just intrigued and fascinated by unusual ways of communicating.

There are a few things that alienate me in conversation and one is being told what I'm thinking, feeling, or what my inner motivations are. Inner space is private and respecting personal boundaries is a big deal to me which informs most of my social and political opinions. The audacity of just telling someone what is going on inside of them without asking and listening is nonsense to me. It implies a lack of desire to actually know or see, but rather to reinforce whatever happens to be pre-conceived. I'll leave a range of possibilities for what is going on inside of another person even when they are family or a romantic partner. I think it is an accurate way to deal with subjective data like the perception of another person. It has to remain fluid and hazy like viewing the shifting clouds or the process of a storm. It is better to sit, listen, perceive, and experience an overall impression.

Also, when I realize someone is manipulating me, I also distance myself immediately. In a way I've come to distrust language and find that those who excel at language use also excel at manipulation. I've reached a point in my life where I like the silence of sitting together, of being, without imposing upon another. Guilt-tripping is the biggest single turn-off for me because, like most human beings, I have issues with various sorts of guilt which can come from both regrets and from being violated or hurt in different ways. (strangely enough people who have been hurt unconsciously try to reason why it happened and end up with guilt issues.) People say that INFJs are manipulative, but I think my Ni-Ti is too personalized and detached to be that effective in the world to pull off calculated shit. I am rather vulnerable to being manipulated which is why I stay detached and distrustful of people. It's my theory that Fe-aux have a particular difficulty with needing to connect, but not having the same command of Fe as an extrovert, so they use it in a much more personalized manner.

 

[Ene]

I think this thread has been pretty awesome in a lot of ways. [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] said

The question then is - how is this gap bridged with an INFJ?

I think this thread has made inroads into doing just that. The first step to bridging a gap is to acknowledge that it exists. Then to discuss the conditions surrounding said gap so that erosion or earth movements [I'm speaking metaphorically here] don't wash it away or collapse it.

I love reading what INFPs, INTJs and INFJs each say about communication. This thread feels like a longhouse meeting to me with representatives from three different clans seated around the campfire. [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION], I guess that makes you the Peace Chief.

Perhaps the difference is that INFJs try to persuade the inner workings of people; access the more unconscious elements rather than the conscious. (Would the INFJs agree with that?)

[MENTION=5871]Southern Kross[/MENTION] well-stated. I would agree.

I think INTJs are very focused on influencing long term direction and outcomes. People are a necessary part of that but persuading them is not necessarily a super strong gift. It's more of a brute force approach. We don't say words for specific effect really.

Oooh.... [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] that's why you need an INFJ on board with you.

[MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION] said,

Yeah INTJ's try to affect people with Te instead of Fe, so they work on the Thinking consciousness of a person and INFJ's focus on the Feeling consciousness.

then [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION] said,

To me, Thinkers address the surface, factual elements and Feelers read between the lines and address what is implied. An opinion, for example, has a surface/conscious side and a underlying/unconscious side: it has the part that is driven by factual information and the part that is driven by 'reactionary' information (instinct/emotion/inclination/bias etc). My point is that INFJs seem more interested in affecting underlying reaction rather than to affecting one's logical conclusions.

Yes, I think that you are both accurate about this. I know for a fact that my real life INTJ friend really does target the Thinking consciousness of a person. He even told me that is why he likes to debate. He wants to make people think. He will ask them questions in the middle of a confrontation because he says that forces them out of their emotions into a state of reasoning. I, of course, congratulated his ingenuity but do not share his love of debating. However, I can read his mind Because, you know, a strong Ni is telepathic when in the presence of another strong Ni so we send unspoken messages across the room. [LOL...realize that I'm kidding, sort of.]

The INTJ focuses on what has to change, and then on which elements specifically are going to be most efficacious at accomplishing the change; the INFJ sees the desired direction (since they share Ni with the INTJ) but then hope to inspire the change to come from within, rather than directing it from without

[MENTION]greybeard[/MENTION] Yes! INFJ's and INTJ's are like martial arts. INFJs are like Tai Chi and Baguazhang, they work from the inside out! And INTJs are like Shaolin, Karate, Judo, etc., working from the outside in, but they are all based on the same energy principle [chi] just as both INFJs and INTJs are both based in Ni. May the force be with you, my fellow Jedi, and beware the dark side, least you loose an arm or something of that nature.

[MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] said,

I think we are capable of being far more diplomatic than this on a routine basis.

I agree with this. My INTJ friend is very diplomatic on a routine basis, even in a debate, he is diplomatic. I also find you, greybeard and Coriolis to all be diplomatic.

What I don't do is to calculate and weigh my words with any kind of precision.

I've noticed this with my INTJ friend, as well. I will often caution him about saying certain things, privately, of course. I would never do that to him in front of people.

I want to know what the other person thinks. In a way, I can use that Ni/Se to gather all these different data points and thoughts from different people to help us as a group arrive at a direction that makes the most sense. It's using that synthesizing ability that Ni has and the Te orientation to make it real.
As a leader, I have realized that there is an awful lot of stuff that I don't know and that perspectives that won't come naturally to me. If I follow my own singular vision without asking for any advice or input from others, I miss important things. People have so many good ideas and input on every matter of thing. Extraverts tend to verbalize pretty well but tend to dominate conversations. I find that you have to draw those things out of introverts or they will never be heard. Part of it is situationally engaging them in a conversation with specific questions. Part of it is helping to cast a role of their being truly involved and vested in the outcomes. Sometimes you have to push. In either case, my approach is one of caring about people as individuals, focusing on outcomes of what needs to be accomplished, and then collaborating with them to achieve the results we want to get while supporting them individually.

I think that it's time to watch that INTJ video, too.

I want to say this about INFP/INFJ communications. First let me establish that in real life my inner circle is made up of a female INFP, a male INTJ, a male ISTP and a male ISTJ. I am also fairly close to a male ENTP and a female ENFJ, but I don't really consider them my inner circle any longer because we don't talk on a daily basis. In communication with my INFP friend I've come to view our talks as a ramble through the woods. When I set out to walk through the woods I never know what I'm going to encounter, especially if I don't walk through the same woods each time, but I can simply enjoy the experience of the walk and the things I discover along the way. When I first started hanging out with her, I wanted to find an excuse not to, because she drained me, but it was only because I had never been close to an FP before and really didn't know what to expect or how to interpret her behavior. The randomness left me exhausted and frustrated, but then one day I stopped at her printing shop on my way home and she was talking. Her husband was sitting at a table in the back of the shop. She was taking a long time to tell about an experience she had had with a cat. It was insignificant and not even out of the ordinary. I kept wondering why she was telling it and was waiting for the "point" to her recounting when all of a sudden her husband blurted out, "Get to the damned point already? Or do you even have one?"

Her face looked as if he had shot her. She retorted something back at him. And I suddenly I realized something for the first time, "Her experience is the point," I said, quietly. There was dead silence for a moment. She looked at me and said, "That's right." She had just wanted us to stumble upon something with her, to take a walk in the woods. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've been walking through the woods with her ever since. I think we will have a life-long friendship.

Haha...my point in telling this is that I understand that with FPs it's going to take a little longer and the journey is more important than the destination, the nuances take time. One never knows how long a ramble through the woods might take so I have to leave flexibility time in my schedule so that she doesn't feel like just another item to cross off the "to do" list.

 

[highlander]

I'm worse than average at normative communication and compensate by listening and smiling and saying nice things. My strength is in atypical communication - whether overly polite or harsh. Once I calibrate to the person and get a baseline for what they mean when they speak a certain way, then I'm mostly just intrigued and fascinated by unusual ways of communicating.

Can you describe what you mean by normative communication?

There are a few things that alienate me in conversation and one is being told what I'm thinking, feeling, or what my inner motivations are. Inner space is private and respecting personal boundaries is a big deal to me which informs most of my social and political opinions. The audacity of just telling someone what is going on inside of them without asking and listening is nonsense to me. It implies a lack of desire to actually know or see, but rather to reinforce whatever happens to be pre-conceived. I'll leave a range of possibilities for what is going on inside of another person even when they are family or a romantic partner. I think it is an accurate way to deal with subjective data like the perception of another person. It has to remain fluid and hazy like viewing the shifting clouds or the process of a storm. It is better to sit, listen, perceive, and experience an overall impression.

This seems like a really important point. It helps to explain some of the conflict I've seen on the forum between INFJs and other types (especially NFPs). It just like this huge trigger.

Also, when I realize someone is manipulating me, I also distance myself immediately. In a way I've come to distrust language and find that those who excel at language use also excel at manipulation. I've reached a point in my life where I like the silence of sitting together, of being, without imposing upon another. Guilt-tripping is the biggest single turn-off for me because, like most human beings, I have issues with various sorts of guilt which can come from both regrets and from being violated or hurt in different ways. (strangely enough people who have been hurt unconsciously try to reason why it happened and end up with guilt issues.) People say that INFJs are manipulative, but I think my Ni-Ti is too personalized and detached to be that effective in the world to pull off calculated shit. I am rather vulnerable to being manipulated which is why I stay detached and distrustful of people. It's my theory that Fe-aux have a particular difficulty with needing to connect, but not having the same command of Fe as an extrovert, so they use it in a much more personalized manner.

It seems to me that the INFJs I've known are wonderful people to interact with. Everybody likes them. There is this thing though where they keep you at a distance and I can sense it pretty strongly. I think most people probably don't even notice it. It is as if there is a very slow process that involves building trust. I can see others opening up to the INFJ and the INFJ is wonderfully empathetic in return but the INFJ doesn't really truly open themselves up and show vulnerability. Once you get in then you are really in, but it takes a long time to get there. Does what you say above have something to do with that?

I think this thread has been pretty awesome in a lot of ways. [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] said I think this thread has made inroads into doing just that. The first step to bridging a gap is to acknowledge that it exists. Then to discuss the conditions surrounding said gap so that erosion or earth movements [I'm speaking metaphorically here] don't wash it away or collapse it.

Yeah, I think it's a pretty interesting thread.

I love reading what INFPs, INTJs and INFJs each say about communication. This thread feels like a longhouse meeting to me with representatives from three different clans seated around the campfire. [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION], I guess that makes you the Peace Chief.

I know for a fact that my real life INTJ friend really does target the Thinking consciousness of a person. He even told me that is why he likes to debate. He wants to make people think. He will ask them questions in the middle of a confrontation because he says that forces them out of their emotions into a state of reasoning. I, of course, congratulated his ingenuity but do not share his love of debating. However, I can read his mind Because, you know, a strong Ni is telepathic when in the presence of another strong Ni so we send unspoken messages across the room. [LOL...realize that I'm kidding, sort of.]

Kidding sort of means not really right . I have experienced this. I think that Ni is so rare that when you run into others that have it as a dominant function, you do have a connection. I have come to realize that most of my friends growing up were INTJs which is interesting because it is not a common type.

I want to say this about INFP/INFJ communications. First let me establish that in real life my inner circle is made up of a female INFP, a male INTJ, a male ISTP and a male ISTJ. I am also fairly close to a male ENTP and a female ENFJ, but I don't really consider them my inner circle any longer because we don't talk on a daily basis. In communication with my INFP friend I've come to view our talks as a ramble through the woods. When I set out to walk through the woods I never know what I'm going to encounter, especially if I don't walk through the same woods each time, but I can simply enjoy the experience of the walk and the things I discover along the way. When I first started hanging out with her, I wanted to find an excuse not to, because she drained me, but it was only because I had never been close to an FP before and really didn't know what to expect or how to interpret her behavior. The randomness left me exhausted and frustrated, but then one day I stopped at her printing shop on my way home and she was talking. Her husband was sitting at a table in the back of the shop. She was taking a long time to tell about an experience she had had with a cat. It was insignificant and not even out of the ordinary. I kept wondering why she was telling it and was waiting for the "point" to her recounting when all of a sudden her husband blurted out, "Get to the damned point already? Or do you even have one?"

Her face looked as if he had shot her. She retorted something back at him. And I suddenly I realized something for the first time, "Her experience is the point," I said, quietly. There was dead silence for a moment. She looked at me and said, "That's right." She had just wanted us to stumble upon something with her, to take a walk in the woods. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've been walking through the woods with her ever since. I think we will have a life-long friendship.

Re bolded point and [MENTION=7111]fidelia[/MENTION]'s post above - I find it utterly fascinating that you seem to have these known or trusted frameworks for interpreting behavior. It strikes me as very analytical. It's like there is this huge filing cabinet in your head of what to expect and what to do and when you encounter a situation, you reach for the right page to help you understand how to understand and interact with the other person/people. Is that right? If so, is that Fe coupled with Ti?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

That's because it is completely foreign to us.

INFJs - is this true? I'm curious.

This past exchange is coming to mind:

This reminds me of a real work situation, in an Fe-ish work environment. This was back in the old days, and the company was using Novell Netware. It had crashed, and so I went into the computer room and started the process to restore from backup. I then went back to my office to work on other projects.

My supervisor said, "<uumlau>, you need to be in the computer room."

"The restore from backup is running. When it's done, everything will be working."

"I know. But you still need to be in the computer room."

"The restore job is running. It doesn't run any faster if I'm in there. That'd be like pushing buttons in an elevator, pretending that it makes it go faster."

"I know, but you STILL need to be in the computer room."

"Why?"

"Because everyone is wondering why you aren't working on the problem."

"I AM working on the problem. It'll be done in an hour or so."

"I know. But you need to be in the computer room."

"That makes no sense to me."

"I know, but you still need to be in the computer room, otherwise people will think you aren't working on the problem."

"In other words, I need to sit in the computer room, wasting my time LOOKING like I'm working really hard, when I could be in here, accomplishing more than one thing at a time, because I can work on THIS project, AND restore the system from backup at the same time."

"Yes, that is pretty much what it amounts to."

"So you want me to waste my time in the computer room."

"Yes. If you aren't in the computer room, people won't think you're working to fix the problem."

Thus the problem wasn't that I wasn't doing my job, but that I was PERCEIVED as not doing my job.

You Fe types out there, if you cannot see how absurd this is, please let me know why the above makes sense to you.

(There was also a strong Si element, too, in that office, so it might not just be Fe. I'm putting this up for feedback, based on my personal impressions, not to denigrate any particular type.)

Actually, something that's kinda funny about this to me (edited out something that doesn't make sense) is that I can relate to it. I can't see myself telling someone else they need to do it- because I realize how absurd it is. But sometimes it's just SO MUCH EASIER to do what I know others won't question- even if it actually gets less done. If it would ultimately create MORE work (in all the explaining I'd have to do to people who won't understand*) to leave the room and work on other things, then yeah, it's totally like me to foresee that and avoid it. As absurd as it is.

My INFJ son and I have actually joked about this- the silly things we do to fall off the radar with certain people, it almost feels like the jedi mind trick sometimes. I've caught him doing this to me....and we have a "ahhhhhh!!!" pointing at each other bonding moment.

*Whether or not it would actually ultimately create 'more' work depends on how well those people understand what I'm talking about- if it's out of their league, then that would qualify as 'too much work' imo.

And I'm reminded of something [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION] said recently in her blog, when she was frustrated with an ENFJ coworker for refusing to explain the finer details of something and wouldn't let EJCC help. As frustrating as I'm sure it is to be on the other end of that, I could understand and I have done that myself- told someone not to help me so I could make sure tiny seemingly insignificant details (people-oriented details) are done correctly. It's because ultimately not doing it creates more work later on, and I'd just as soon prevent that. [But damnit all, it's so vague that it's infinitely easier to just DO than to explain- uumlau's story above, for instance, is what happens when someone delegates that kind of thing to someone else without explaining why. I just always do it myself because I know it causes people who don't understand to complain and whatnot (with good reason, if it seems like an insane request)- and if they ask for an explanation for the ridiculous details, I just get flustered and it's too hard to drop everything and explain. Things go smoother as a result, but my efforts are usually invisible.]

 

[Southern Kross]

Re bolded - I think we are capable of being far more diplomatic than this on a routine basis. I am very sensitive to how my words and interaction are perceived or going to be perceived by others. I can tell immediately after I say something based on their reaction if I've slipped up. What I don't do is to calculate and weigh my words with any kind of precision.

Yes, I agree. Being diplomatic is a means to an end (ie. understanding, results, progress), whereas with INFJs it's more central to the whole purpose. But a good NTJ knows that the most effective way to achieve to communicate is with tact and consideration. The information is only as good as the delivery.

And as you say, if you inadvertently shut down a productive dialogue by burning your bridges you're missing out on potentially valuable input.

Does that make sense?

It does.

How does it work when you are thinking over something? Do you get to the same place, but just do it in a different order, or is a different path/destination entirely that you are seeking when you look at what you are feeling?

Sort of, maybe. If there's a issue, I think about why I'm feeling like I am ("feeling" used in the broadest sense of the word). What I feel is a sign of what I want or am required to act on, and I need to be in touch with that in order to know what to do. I can't act without having a clear reading of what I feel; it is tied up with all my instincts, and therefore is inherent in my ability to make decisions.

Sometimes I think about a particular goal I want to get to, but my feelings/instincts/impressions are creating an obstacle (not that I dismiss the feeling - I just don't find it useful to engage in it); in other words, there are two conflicting 'feelings'. This involves a process of circumventing or finessing my problematic feelings with logic and/or alternative perspectives, which can be difficult to do (hence why it's hard to get a FP to ignore what feels right/authentic to them).

Do you think this much the same as what you do, but replace feelings with motivations?

Haha...my point in telling this is that I understand that with FPs it's going to take a little longer and the journey is more important than the destination, the nuances take time. One never knows how long a ramble through the woods might take so I have to leave flexibility time in my schedule so that she doesn't feel like just another item to cross off the "to do" list.

So true.

 

[Southern Kross]

And I'm reminded of something [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION] said recently in her blog, when she was frustrated with an ENFJ coworker for refusing to explain the finer details of something and wouldn't let EJCC help. As frustrating as I'm sure it is to be on the other end of that, I could understand and I have done that myself- told someone not to help me so I could make sure tiny seemingly insignificant details (people-oriented details) are done correctly. It's because ultimately not doing it creates more work later on, and I'd just as soon prevent that. [But damnit all, it's so vague that it's infinitely easier to just DO than to explain- uumlau's story above, for instance, is what happens when someone delegates that kind of thing to someone else without explaining why. I just always do it myself because I know it causes people who don't understand to complain and whatnot (with good reason, if it seems like an insane request)- and if they ask for an explanation for the ridiculous details, I just get flustered and it's too hard to drop everything and explain. Things go smoother as a result, but my efforts are usually invisible.]

Interesting. I've seen this sort of thing in SPs and never thought as being a connection to Ni precision. My ISTP Dad is the worst delegator for this reason.

 

[PeaceBaby]

How much internal consistency will convince an INFJ that a person is, well, trustworthy?

Internal consistency? Very little to none I'd wager. They don't read that space, not the way you and I read it. So, as a con it means your internal constancy means little to nothing for establishing trust, but as a pro, that space in you remains inaccessible and thus can stay mostly private, or as private as you wish it to be.

 

[Ene]

It seems to me that the INFJs I've known are wonderful people to interact with. Everybody likes them. There is this thing though where they keep you at a distance and I can sense it pretty strongly. I think most people probably don't even notice it. It is as if there is a very slow process that involves building trust. I can see others opening up to the INFJ and the INFJ is wonderfully empathetic in return but the INFJ doesn't really truly open themselves up and show vulnerability. Once you get in then you are really in, but it takes a long time to get there. Does what you say above have something to do with that?

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Maybe, for me, the inner self you speak of is like a sanctuary and if the wrong person comes in they will devalue it, exploit it, mock it, etc. Maybe it has to do with such a fragile Fi that we have to protect it, guard it and treat like a hidden treasure. I don't know. That's just an idea. [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] I just saw your question posted in [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION]'s response, and came back to address it in hopes of answering it, at least on some level. It is very difficult for me to show my deepest self, even to people I really respect, value and even love. It's a revelation that comes over a long period of time and interactions. It isn't always that I don't trust the other person, it's just that I can't show them because I don't know how. But over a span of weeks, months, even years, the layers peel back one at a time.

Kidding sort of means not really right . I have experienced this. I think that Ni is so rare that when you run into others that have it as a dominant function, you do have a connection. I have come to realize that most of my friends growing up were INTJs which is interesting because it is not a common type.

Yes, you're right. It means not really. The connection is so comfortable and amazing and it makes talking for hours seem like minutes and you just "know" where each other is coming from.

Re bolded point and [MENTION=7111]fidelia[/MENTION]'s post above - I find it utterly fascinating that you seem to have these known or trusted frameworks for interpreting behavior. It strikes me as very analytical. It's like there is this huge filing cabinet in your head of what to expect and what to do and when you encounter a situation, you reach for the right page to help you understand how to understand and interact with the other person/people. Is that right? If so, is that Fe coupled with Ti?

Yep. I'd say that's how it is! Every word and action gets filed there. For me, people's mannerisms, the clothes they wear, the sounds of their voices, the way they walk, their favorite songs, their responses, etc. gets filed. And it's not just people, it's places, info that I've read, things I've heard, everything gets filed there. My ISTJ friend says it is like being with a walking data base. I think it is Fe coupled with Ti and I think Se comes into it, too, at least for me. I recall an amazing amount of physical environmental detail. I need that in order to write believable descriptions of places. Otherwise, my stories would take place in an abstract vacuum.

 

[highlander]

The question then is - how is this gap bridged with an INFJ? People can be very inconsistent, and this seems less tolerated when external with an INFJ, and less tolerated with an FP when internal. How much internal consistency will convince an INFJ that a person is, well, trustworthy? The lack of predictability in FPs seems to leave them uneasy. As an INFP, it leaves me uneasy to be boxed it so quickly so I can be summed up easily.

Taking it a bit broader - question to the INFJs - what is it exactly that results in the INFJ extending that trust and opening up? I don't know that it has anything to do with internal consistency but it seems like it is certainly something. Time? Behaviors over time? Is there some kind of inflection point that occurs? What builds up that trust over time and what tears it down?

 

[OrangeAppled]

This is a fair point, but this is what I'm also saying could maybe be brought over to a new thread. Even if there's a post that says "I disagree with this quote, and I'm starting a new thread."

It's just a shame. I can't remember the last time there was an engaging conversation about INFJs that wasn't taken over and dominated by someone with at least a little bit of an axe to grind, quite often INFP. Or just someone who seems to feel the need to blame Fe for the quality of their life not being what it should, even though Fe plays a smaller role for INFJs than is normally preached. And then it just turns into a pissing contest over superiority. Or rather, it's just a cluster of people pointing out how a post- about someone else's take on your own thought process, and some passive aggressive insertion making their own sound superior- doesn't especially sound fair, instead of actually productively understanding other people. Which is really just too vapid a way to spend my time. I'll admit that I did start absorbing that behavior and throwing it back at people sometimes- because I can mirror stuff like that automatically when I'm not paying attention- but I refuse to keep doing it. I'm not saying that every single post in which an FP tries correcting a description of Fi they feel misrepresents them is when an interesting conversation about INFJs hits the proverbial iceberg, but every time an interesting conversation hits an iceberg it is because someone doesn't like INFJs (or Fe) and they felt the need to enter and assert their superiority. So it's just a shame there can't be a habit of starting new threads- perhaps posting a link to the new thread, and stating disagreement ftr- so that the engaging aspects of conversation don't get drowned out.

When I go back in my reps, I can find many INFJ conversations that I got a lot out of. But these days they always seem to get taken over and dominated by someone (who isn't INFJ) with something *extra* to prove.

You keep saying there is an attempt to assert superiority and that someone (obviously this is directed at me) is trying to "prove" something.

But that is not my motive, and I will not have it attributed to me simply because you choose to frame my posts that way. It's an incorrect estimation of what is going on, period.

I was not interested enough in the topic to start a new thread. The post was an off-hand comment and is only growing into a larger conversation because others keep responding to it & its offshoots.

I really don't know what else to say; but you don't have to like or read my posts.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Maybe, for me, the inner self you speak of is like a sanctuary and if the wrong person comes in they will devalue it, exploit it, mock it, etc. Maybe it has to do with such a fragile Fi that we have to protect it, guard it and treat like a hidden treasure. I don't know. That's just an idea. [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] I just saw your question posted in [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION]'s response, and came back to address it in hopes of answering it, at least on some level. It is very difficult for me to show my deepest self, even to people I really respect, value and even love. It's a revelation that comes over a long period of time and interactions. It isn't always that I don't trust the other person, it's just that I can't show them because I don't know how. But over a span of weeks, months, even years, the layers peel back one at a time.

I don't mean trust as in opening up to others. I mean a trust in the other person's motives and giving them credit without needing behaviors to align with a model that person may not even be aware of.
I feel read 100% wrong by INFJs much of the time. It's very disappointing, because there can be an illusion of understanding at first. It seems INFJs, being more deliberate regarding an outcome, seem to put feelers out there & use responses to align someone with the some expectation - but if you are unaware of this, then you may not respond with the same outcome in mind. This is a matter of framing things correctly, framing which INFJs say they may shift, but how is the correct frame chosen?

The mentioned "randomness" is not random to me - everything has some greater significance than its surface or I'd not bother with it. I don't tell rambling stories with no point (and have never had such a reaction lodged at me). These pictures of INFPs don't resonate with me, which shows me there is a communication gap going on. Perhaps it is the idiosyncrasy of IxFPs, where it's hard to find a common thread to build expectations, but I suppose from the inside view, I don't see us as that unpredictable. Whatever archetype the INFJ finally concocts for us feels ill-fitting. It's not necessarily insulting or negative, it's just wrong. I'm wondering what is getting lost in translation.... I know some of it is that we are not adhering to the general model, but as I said, there IS a model, & a quite consistent one, but it's our own (the inner ideal). I don't know how much of that needs to be known to be accepted or if it ever can be - hence the "trust" question.