First Signs of Something Wrong

[technics]

Have you ever questioned people's intentions? If yes, what are your first signs of those?

Yes and No. First, there are those innocent ones who don't even know their intentions, like my INFP friend who says X but actually meant Y. In such cases, you have to foresee the change of course and intercept them at predicted coordinates.

And as for dishonest intentions: Your question could be rephrased as "How do you know someone's lying?". It's in the way people talk, behave, and also in their eyes. In the way people talk, it's that subtle bit of exaggeration (mostly Se types) that is crafted along the lines of clichés with the intent to convince. Se types usually pride themselves of being original in this regard.

And as for true Machiavellians, it's intuition about the subject that is not in accordance with the person's description of that subject. This is actually more reliable (and the only thing you actually need to know) than taking the direct route by reading the person. And then it's that "waiting for the other person's move" that was just a bit too long.

So much for the things that are describable.

 

[Trifoilum]

Yes and No. First, there are those innocent ones who don't even know their intentions, like my INFP friend who says X but actually meant Y. In such cases, you have to foresee the change of course and intercept them at predicted coordinates.

And as for dishonest intentions: Your question could be rephrased as "How do you know someone's lying?". It's in the way people talk, behave, and also in their eyes.

How do you 'intercept them at predicted coordinates'?
I think it's interesting that most people seem to describe their feelings in a similar way here... but I am curious about whether the minutiae, or the details, are the same.

In the way people talk, it's that subtle bit of exaggeration (mostly Se types) that is crafted along the lines of clichés with the intent to convince. Se types usually pride themselves of being original in this regard.

Hmm. Lines of cliches? And what do you mean by being original?

what I often see is Ti exaggerations; nitpicking needles (or cannon balls, if unsubtle) crafted to destroy one's train of logic, partly to convince, partly to establish security, but partly to create humor, snark style...

I'd seen it done to me, I'd seen myself doing it
But I don't ever think of them as lies..hmm. Something artificial / crafted, mayhaps; but...lies?

And as for true Machiavellians, it's intuition about the subject that is not in accordance with the person's description of that subject. This is actually more reliable (and the only thing you actually need to know) than taking the direct route by reading the person. And then it's that "waiting for the other person's move" that was just a bit too long.

So much for the things that are describable.

oh god the waiting.
I can see your point as well. I think you're explaining Ni?
Sometimes reading the person / relying on Fe, for INFJs, can be even distracting (by the abundance of data)

 

[technics]

How do you 'intercept them at predicted coordinates'?

I think when I'm with people I unconsciously observe their mind (rather than, say, their behavior or their clothing haha). And out of that data an opinion forms gradually. I never really thought about this, but I think it's their degree of flakiness. The way they think: Is their thinking rather stable or erratic? Do they change their train of thought often or not? To what degree? And it's also pretty easy to see how far someone can see into the future. And the farther one can see into the future, the more stable they are - I think.

Hmm. Lines of cliches? And what do you mean by being original?

I have no idea. As I said, I never really think about these things. They just appear and mostly they're pretty clear and conflict-free. And if the ambiguity is wider than usual, it usually means you're not looking at it from the right angle or some piece of the puzzle is missing.

 

[Trifoilum]

I think when I'm with people I unconsciously observe their mind (rather than, say, their behavior or their clothing haha). And out of that data an opinion forms gradually.

That makes sense. Mine is usually both conscious and unconscious (..Fe). I suppose having a primarily unconscious process does give a more intuitive understanding.

I never really thought about this, but I think it's their degree of flakiness. The way they think: Is their thinking rather stable or erratic? Do they change their train of thought often or not? To what degree? And it's also pretty easy to see how far someone can see into the future. And the farther one can see into the future, the more stable they are - I think.

I see. Thanks for telling; I sort of think I know what you say, but that's totally my presumption.

I have no idea. As I said, I never really think about these things. They just appear and mostly they're pretty clear and conflict-free. And if the ambiguity is wider than usual, it usually means you're not looking at it from the right angle or some piece of the puzzle is missing.

That's very true.

 

[SpecialEdition]

That's a commendable attitude. Have you had that moment of "WHEW! I SURE DODGED A BULLET JUST NOW" ?

No because I am never invested enough in the first place to feel like I've been at risk.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't always have this attitude or see things this way. It's not an innate trait that I have, I had to work on it and spent a lot of time investing in myself and my own well being before I could do that.

 

[Trifoilum]

Don't get me wrong, I didn't always have this attitude or see things this way. It's not an innate trait that I have, I had to work on it and spent a lot of time investing in myself and my own well being before I could do that.

I see. If I may ask, what / how were you before you invested in your own well-being?

 

[SpecialEdition]

I see. If I may ask, what / how were you before you invested in your own well-being?

not invested

 

[Trifoilum]

not invested

I see, thanks for telling!

 

[SpecialEdition]

I see, thanks for telling!

haha you're welcome. I suppose when I say "not invested" I mean that the investment was inbalanced and heavily in favour of other people. Then realised FUCK those other people. Then suddenly my life got exponentially better.

 

[slant]

I usually have very strong "bad feelings" about things. When I have a severe amount of doubt about something and it's coupled with a "bad feeling" then that's usually when. It's hard for me to determine sometimes though because I have social anxiety and so I am always constantly doubting things to begin with.

Examples of really amazing doubts I have:

-When I register for a class, despite having a piece of paper right in front of me that says the name of the class, the time, the teacher and the room, when I am in the room before the class starts I will begin to doubt I'm in the right class and have anxiety over it
-When I am meeting someone or making an appointment I always am worried I somehow got the wrong date/time and have super bad anxiety over that

Anyway yeah...those things are not usually coupled with "bad feelings" usually I just feel bad due to the anxiety. I think it just differs on a situation basis and is largely based on intuitive which differs from person to person. There is a scientific basis for intuition and bad feelings. I watched a documentary on it a long time ago and when you did get a terrible feeling it's usually best to act on that terror than to ignore it.