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

Wyote said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...
Out of context quotes, if ever I saw them. :tearsofjoy:
 
Winterflowers said:
Ya'll are lovely <3 it makes me happy seeing everybody discuss this.
Click to expand...

no u

Anomaly said:
Without verification as a component of intuition, it's useless, and frankly not trustworthy.
Click to expand...

On a serious note, yes this is true. Intuition is fine as a data point, but your actions should probably be more aligned with what you verify.
The more verification the better, of course. C O M M U N I C A T I O N is unfortunately something people tend to suck at.
When/if you can't verify, you are left to act on instinct and instincts tend to be pretty good for survival at least.
 
Anomaly said:
Yes. A violence to yourself in forcing verification of your insights. A violence to others when your intuition is given just cause through objective proofs. Still, more violence, to be burned in it, and move forward in that truth, regardless of the 'side' you're on. It's all a violence.
Click to expand...
Is it now
 
dragulagu said:
Is it now
Click to expand...

dragulagu said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is what I was originally speaking about. I hold the same opinion as you, but with a few caveats. On page 7, I posted a lengthy explanation of what this looks like from my perspective, and in the spirit of brevity, I'd rather not repeat it here, but I'm willing to provide a link for your ease of navigation.

Regarding 'violence', what I meant was that if you do the work to approach others with the perspective that your opinions about them aren't an objective truth, then you can balance your 'insights' with a necessity of some objective proof to substantiate them. In that process, it is a violence because you have to cross boundaries to get there, and often in doing what is perceived to be the correct thing (pursuing truth regardless of feelings), you will not only necessitate a violence to another in the elucidation because no one likes to be exposed, but a violence to yourself in entering that situation because truth is paramount. So, in the example I gave about the friend and her boyfriend. The initial violence is your insight about the boyfriend and doing the work to figure out if it's correct. Doing this means that you are abasing your insight to glean the objective truth regardless of how you feel (since the outcome may in fact mean that you're merely biased in some way and thus need to rectify that in yourself - violence to self). Then another violence in the outcome. In the case of the friend and boyfriend, you are risking your relationship with your friend. If you turn out to be incorrect, especially so. However, the violence is in the fragmentation that must occur due to the revelation of that insight, and the processing of it. The revealing of an insight with verification necessitates violence, and if you aren't ready to reconcile that, then it should be kept to yourself. If you do the work to verify your insights, and you are okay with the outcome as long as the truth will out, then being burned in the outcome is not a deterrent. Of course, there are all sorts of things at work here, including your choices and the way in which you reveal the insights gleaned. However, I would say that most revealed insights cause a 'violence' in some way (especially those that are based merely on conjecture).
 
@Anomaly you don't though (intentionally saying so, it's a different answer on a different question back then).
So, to play on your reasoning (I like it, no clue about the boyfriend thing, intentionally putting that out of the equation).
On the part of the friend equation (yes), you have to cross boundaries. To me that is something necessary, as a friend, to do.
Emphasis on the as a friend part.

Now on your side of the story, do explain.
 
dragulagu said:
@Anomaly you don't though (intentionally saying so, it's a different answer on a different question back then).
So, to play on your reasoning (I like it, no clue about the boyfriend thing, intentionally putting that out of the equation).
On the part of the friend equation (yes), you have to cross boundaries. To me that is something necessary, as a friend, to do.
Emphasis on the as a friend part.

Now on your side of the story, do explain.
Click to expand...
I think I've explained it well-enough. Insight is trash without verification. Even if you feel badly about someone because they give you awful 'woo-woos', it doesn't substantiate the insight. You must do more work there to substantiate it. Sure, choosing self interest happens often, and that is just another violence in favor of feelings.
Not really sure what I haven't been clear on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top