Do many people hate the INFJ ability to read others and dig up hidden motivations?

[HJpAjcdO0X]

Seeing the shadow clearly also makes me more tolerant. I see how people are flawed and I accept it as long as they aren't harmful.
I have to be more careful when I see the soft shadow in a potentially harmful person. I'm mature enough that it won't sway me if the person is harmful, but I feel a great deal of sympathy.

Well said, it's not always necessary to call it out just be aware. When Fauvre said how this type may come off tyrannical, while that may be true. For a "let it go" person can come off as condescending or imply "I'm better than you because I never engage conflict." It should go both ways.

 

[Asa]

Well said, it's not always necessary to call it out just be aware. When Fauvre said how this type may come off tyrannical, while that may be true. For a "let it go" person can come off as condescending or imply "I'm better than you because I never engage conflict." It should go both ways.

Definitely agree.

 

[dZpADTLrPmX4c]

@Misty my second enneagram results

Spoiler

I still feel this reads me wrong, though that's not too important either. It's interesting how different my results are compared to my other ones. Type 1 is the only constant, so maybe it's accurate and I'm unaware of that aspect of me.
Or conversely, perhaps I see myself as more orderly/planned than I truly am and answered through that perspective.

 

[Asa]

@Winterflowers - Try shaking off everything you want to be, or perceive yourself as, admit the hard truth, and take it again.
Alternately, start looking up different descriptions of Type 1. You may land on something that makes more sense to you. Sometimes free tests stick with the stereotypical facade too much.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

It makes me uneasy in that I suspect it comes from an overactive fear response. The imputation of malign 'motives' or 'intent' to others seems to stem from a general feeling of unsafety, promoting a Piagetian 'animism' in their particular expression of theory of mind.

Fearful people tend to lash out in preemptive defense, whether they are right or wrong, so I suppose it puts me on edge because it feels like I'm dealing with something very unstable and infirm.

I try not to do this so much myself (or at least refrain from vocalising it) because it feels disrespectful, even 'dishonourable' to openly question someone's motives. Like it would be crossing a serious line of empathy that would kill me inside to do; trampling on their sense of dignity or personhood. It's dehumanising.

I literally cannot bring myself to do it - there's this enormous internal force preventing me. It feels like something irreversible; like murder; like the infliction of a great harm. I hate when other people do this, therefore, dragging me down into a set of rules of engagement that I simply can't compete with because I'm unwilling to do what's expected.

I want to emphasise how incredibly uncomfortable the thought of doing this is (imputing motives, &c.), and how utterly violent the actual act is.

In my case, I think there's no question that much of my position here is powered by the fact that since my father was abusive to my mother, my mother raised me with the assumption that I was some kind of 'abuser inside'. Even though I felt 'good inside' it was like there was nothing I could do to prove my intent/motive/inherent goodness - I was only 'good' because of her 'upbringing'. Her fear, her assumption of animus, was something very wounding to me at the time when it got expressed.

So I say all this not to disparage this particular proclivity of INFJs (if real), just to point out how it feels to others. How it feels like an act of violence; why some people (me) can't bring themselves to do it, therefore. Not everybody will have my particular history with it, but I don't think it's a rare opinion by any stretch.

 

[dragulagu]

I want to emphasise how incredibly uncomfortable the thought of doing this is (imputing motives, &c.), and how utterly violent the actual act is.

It is, and that is not just to the "INFJ" type. Any person will feel uncomfortable with being read based on any presumption and then getting directed to it. People do not like to be read. Let alone that you can not read someone without understanding their perspective or their experience.

The whole "INFJ"-can-read-your-mind thing is aggravating, in the same sense HR tries to humanise themselves with the people working for a company by trying to predict where they want to go. You cannot predict a persons motive or intention based on what you perceive from their behaviour on that moment. Each person has their own situational perspective, mood, psychological structure during a specific period. Deciding on how a person is on that moment can have devastating effects. Not on personal experience, but what I have observed.

So, "Do many people hate the INFJ ability to read others and dig up hidden motivations?" Yes, many do. Mind your own business.

 

[John K]

Great stuff, John! I've never "heard" (read) someone talk about this. You have a way of expressing what it is like to be our type so well.

Seeing the shadow clearly also makes me more tolerant. I see how people are flawed and I accept it as long as they aren't harmful.
I have to be more careful when I see the soft shadow in a potentially harmful person. I'm mature enough that it won't sway me if the person is harmful, but I feel a great deal of sympathy.

Thanks for the feedback Asa - it's really good to know when I've hit a chord because sometimes these posts are an attempt to try and articulate something that I don't find so easy to express.

A follow up thought....
It's very easy to focus in a discussion like this only on the harm that can come from reacting to the apparent flaws in another person that they aren't aware of, and don't acknowledge. I'm glad you mentioned the soft shadow because most of us aren't aware of much of the good in us either, or have a distorted view of it. To illustrate ..... It can lead to a parallel situation, can't it, where there's a real temptation to respond to someone in distress from psychological problems by pushing at them what a great person they are? Very often to an intuitive (and many other types) their positive aspects shine through all their conscious darkness like the moon through clouds. But that can be as harmful in its own way, because they don't see it and can feel invalidated by it - their real feelings not acknowledged and listened to - and can feel that's it's inauthentic praise. It's actually harder to deal with than the dark shadow because there is a lot more ambivalence in whether and how to respond to this light shadow situation. There is a history of INFJs getting tangled in these situations with all the best intentions, but not having enough protection for themselves and getting hurt.

 

[dZpADTLrPmX4c]

But that can be as harmful in its own way, because they don't see it and can feel invalidated by it - their real feelings not acknowledged and listened to - and can feel that's it's inauthentic praise.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Wyote]

Haters gonna hate, relaters gonna relate

 

[Misty]

Haters gonna hate, relaters gonna relate

One hundo

 

[HJpAjcdO0X]

It makes me uneasy in that I suspect it comes from an overactive fear response. The imputation of malign 'motives' or 'intent' to others seems to stem from a general feeling of unsafety, promoting a Piagetian 'animism' in their particular expression of theory of mind.

Fearful people tend to lash out in preemptive defense, whether they are right or wrong, so I suppose it puts me on edge because it feels like I'm dealing with something very unstable and infirm.

I try not to do this so much myself (or at least refrain from vocalising it) because it feels disrespectful, even 'dishonourable' to openly question someone's motives. Like it would be crossing a serious line of empathy that would kill me inside to do; trampling on their sense of dignity or personhood. It's dehumanising.

I literally cannot bring myself to do it - there's this enormous internal force
preventing me. It feels like something irreversible; like murder; like the infliction of a great harm. I hate when other people do this, therefore, dragging me down into a set of rules of engagement that I simply can't compete with because I'm unwilling to do what's expected.

I want to emphasise how incredibly uncomfortable the thought of doing this is (imputing motives, &c.), and how utterly violent the actual act is.

In my case, I think there's no question that much of my position here is powered by the fact that since my father was abusive to my mother, my mother raised me with the assumption that I was some kind of 'abuser inside'. Even though I felt 'good inside' it was like there was nothing I could do to prove my intent/motive/inherent goodness - I was only 'good' because of her 'upbringing'. Her fear, her assumption of animus, was something very wounding to me at the time when it got expressed.

So I say all this not to disparage this particular proclivity of INFJs (if real), just to point out how it feels to others. How it feels like an act of violence; why some people (me) can't bring themselves to do it, therefore. Not everybody will have my particular history with it, but I don't think it's a rare opinion by any stretch.

I appreciate this entire response @Deleted member 16771.

You openly admit where your stance on this could stem from your childhood, prior to that statements regarding the responses of people you "suspect have a fear of safety", and that they " tend to..." All of these statements are a matter of opinion, which may be bias due to your experience, none of them hold any evidence to support your assumptions.
To say that you suspect a group of individuals to act this way based on these behaviors is no different than the belief to another individual that someone with ill intent demonstrates patterns of behavior over time. I completely agree with your stance on questioning someones motives and why ypu choose not to. You feel that this could be harmful or offend another in questioning their character, understandable. It's important to keep in mind a person with the inability to turn the other cheek when they perceive that an inhumane act will be committed resulting in harm to another individual or more is clearly a different approach to empathy than your preferred method, but no doubt closely related to your own. Can it not stand to reason that as you would not want to inflict pain in your approach, neither do these types they simply utilize a different style? Whether adopting your technique or the opposing sides it all comes down to a desire for harm reduction.
We cannot dispute how the questioning of an individuals motives might indirectly attack their character, after all as individuals we probably all have a different threshold in regards to that. However in reverse order your assumptions of these types, accompanied by personal opinion and not solid evidence to support it, is essentially calling motives and character which you didn't feel was right by your standards.

I literally cannot bring myself to do it - there's this enormous internal force preventing me. It feels like something irreversible; like murder; like the infliction of a great harm. I hate when other people do this, therefore, dragging me down into a set of rules of engagement that I simply can't compete with because I'm unwilling to do what's expected.

"There is an internal force preventing me from remaining silent when others are at the risk of great harm. We can all recognize that it is wrong to take the life of another without their consent, murder essentially. We must also take into account that an individual who is left to cope with the psychological and emotional scars that resulted in the cruel actions of another is essentially another individual who's life was taken without their consent. I hate when other people do this, therefore, dragging me down into a set of rules of engagement that I simply can't compete with because I'm unwilling to do what's expected, to remain silent when another is subject to harm or injustice that I would not want done to myself or those I love."

Same point, different reasoning essentially. The alternative to your approach is not always the result of some paranoid individual with a shattered sense of safety and security, broken by their life experiences, just as you would not want to be percieved.Your response may seem to give credit to one way to respect an individuals character while discrediting another, though the intent is the same.

 

[dragulagu]

You peeps still don't get the full perspective here. There is no point of indication on how someone's personality or psychological pattern works based on what you read. You assume, always, based on what you read/hear/interact directly with a person on how their psyche works.
Someone responds within a forum, that same person will respond very differently to immediate interaction, let alone with close relations or friends. You have zero authority in that analytical process. Zero.
You are not a psychological authority in the matter, those that have studied the discipline are. So drop the silly act, it's pathetic.

Harsh lesson, but that's the reality check. I respect the intuitive take on reading someone's pattern, heck that's why I respect INFJ's on their intention how to understand someone. But never assume you know someone just because you feel it. You'll stumble on a lot of rocks.

Take care.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

You peeps still don't get the full perspective here. There is no point of indication on how someone's personality or psychological pattern works based on what you read. You assume, always, based on what you read/hear/interact directly with a person on how their psyche works.
Someone responds within a forum, that same person will respond very differently to immediate interaction, let alone with close relations or friends. You have zero authority in that analytical process. Zero.
You are not a psychological authority in the matter, those that have studied the discipline are. So drop the silly act, it's pathetic.

Harsh lesson, but that's the reality check. I respect the intuitive take on reading someone's pattern, heck that's why I respect INFJ's on their intention how to understand someone. But never assume you know someone just because you feel it. You'll stumble on a lot of rocks.

Take care.

This may be true, but you deliver it in such a way as I can't see it not generating discomfort.


'To tell men that they are equal has a certain sentimental appeal. But this appeal is small compared with that made by a propaganda that tells them that they are superior to others, and that others are inferior to them.'
- Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, vol. 1, The Spell of Plato (Abingdon, 2003), p. 101.

 

[acd]

I think you should always follow your intuition. Assume it's correct while leaving room to gather more information and to be proven wrong. Your intuition and those patterns are usually informed through lived experiences or even nonverbal communication/threats that we subconsciously pick up on. I don't think anyone should discount that but just be aware that there may be the possibility that there are some gaps in the info. Maybe that's the wait and see/confirm approach. Useful when you are intuiting things that are not alerting you to danger.

I think it's pretty rare strong feelings of caution or danger are ever wrong.

Wait and see is probably not as helpful when you need to make a quick decision. In that case, go with intuition.

 

[Misty]

Spoiler

 

[Wyote]

I think a lot of people just hate/dislike/are made uncomfortable by the fact that most people are right about uncomfortable/hard to accept things whenever they directly state or insinuate them.
Type isn't really relevant, people are generally both right and wrong on some level whenever they intuit or sensorize™
What is aggravating/disquieting is the difficulty of encapsulating the whole of a thing when we typically use language that describes parts/specific mechanisms.
Or not having the empathy to understand that most things are dichotomous. Or not being able to face whatever is being presented due to a myriad of mental blocks or whatever else.
Something like that. It's complicated. Words are hard.

 

[acd]

Spoiler

View attachment 80176

I'm thinking about it and honestly, intuition is probably the most honest thing. It's primal and built on survival, at least if we are talking about intuition that alerts us to be cautious. I don't think our intuition lies to us about things like danger.

I know I've mentioned this a few times before on this forum, but when I experienced feeling very alarmed by a store clerk for NO apparent reason it was because my intuition picked something up about him. I couldn't understand why though until I later saw him in the newspaper and realized he was a dangerous person. My way of handling it was to just not go back to that store. I did not go around town talking about a creepy clerk. In fact, I thought I was the one with the problem he disturbed me so for no conceivable reason. But I guess in that case I didn't assign any motive to him. And he wasn't someone I had to deal with regularly so I didn't need to assign a motive.

 

[Misty]

I'm thinking about it and honestly, intuition is probably the most honest thing. It's primal and built on survival, at least if we are talking about intuition that alerts us to be cautious. I don't think our intuition lies to us about things like danger.

I know I've mentioned this a few times before on this forum, but when I experienced feeling very alarmed by a store clerk for NO apparent reason it was because my intuition picked something up about him. I couldn't understand why though until I later saw him in the newspaper and realized he was a dangerous person. My way of handling it was to just not go back to that store. I did not go around town talking about a creepy clerk. In fact, I thought I was the one with the problem he disturbed me so for no conceivable reason.

I remember that story, the pedophile. I've had those too and they were right both times. Also agreed that the main reason we are given intuition is as a primal defense mechanism to protect ourselves and others from potential danger or harm.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I think intuition is a valuable tool, but it's probably more critical to be aware of its limitations. That these are instincts, not some kind of messaging from the divine; that they are crude, fallible, and heavily biased, therefore.

I'vd posted before about the evolutionary theories of altruism, but I think it's a good example.

William Hamilton advanced the selfish-gene theory as an explanation for altruism (though Dawkins gets more credit for the idea now); that we are altruistic to people who share our genes because it's the genes themselves that are 'attempting' to survive rather than the vessels which house them.

The implications of this are that we are more altruistic to people with a greater degree of genetic relation to us, less so to those more distant, with unsettling implications for a twentieth century wracked by ethic division.

I always remember the story of George R. Price's reaction to this theory - he was so disturbed that he attempted to counter his 'instincts', giving away his money, taking in the homeless and especially attempting to 'do good' to those people much more genetically distant from himself (mostly using ethnicity as a marker). However, it was no good ultimately, because he simply didn't 'feel' the instinctive level of kindness he was chasing, and so he committed suicide by cutting his carotid artery with a pair of scissors.

True ethics are not instincts. Instincts are fallible and misleading, holding no wisdom whatever and attempting to drive us in directions which often bear no relation to our conscious thoughts and desires.

 

[Misty]

Lol