Understanding Actions Of People

[FoKuS]

I constantly find myself analyzing the actions and characteristics of people; mainly my friends. Usually I can quickly produce an explanation for the actions they do. Sometimes, more often than not, I am able to predict their actions in a given situation.

[ssfanatic]

Ofcourse you can "predict" their actions, according to us, everthing works logically. THough you may think you can predict the motives for others, i dont think that all people act logically and plan as we do.

[terencec]

Ofcourse you can "predict" their actions, according to us, everthing works logically. THough you may think you can predict the motives for others, i dont think that all people act logically and plan as we do.

It reminds me about the game theory, it requires everyone acts rationally (not insane). If the opponents are not sane, the game theory does not work. So, it won't work for terrorists.

[Thistle]

It reminds me about the game theory, it requires everyone acts rationally (not insane). If the opponents are not sane, the game theory does not work. So, it won't work for terrorists.

... But, it's a great opportunity for an INTJ to figure out what makes the 'insane' ones (or others) tick. While they may not work as rationally as ourselves (or how we would live our lives), most live their lives rationally to themselves. You can learn a lot about anothers logic and motivation.

[Antares]

Ofcourse you can "predict" their actions, according to us, everthing works logically. THough you may think you can predict the motives for others, i dont think that all people act logically and plan as we do.

Well, to 'predict', I think that you have to 'get' how they work and if you know them well enough, try seeing it from their point of view. Then combine this new perspective with your experience and observations of their usual actions. I find that if I try, I can easily know how they feel (regardless if I choose to sympathize, which I usually don't with irrational decisions) and what certain things mean to them. I usually always know what ticks my mother off, when exactly she snaps and what her next words will be.

[terencec]

... But, it's a great opportunity for an INTJ to figure out what makes the 'insane' ones (or others) tick. While they may not work as rationally as ourselves (or how we would live our lives), most live their lives rationally to themselves. You can learn a lot about anothers logic and motivation.

Yes, you are right. Most live but not all live.

If a guy is very emotional (not total insane), has problems with his wife, he is going to hit someone. It is very hard to predict since we don't know when he will have emotional problems and what causes his emotional problems.

Sometimes, I believe my bosses like that (had problems with the wifes/husbands/ or just PMS) but I never know the reasons.

[Hdier]

I constantly attempt to dissect peoples psychology, though I focus more on the subconscious motives that conscious reasons.

[ssfanatic]

Well, to 'predict', I think that you have to 'get' how they work and if you know them well enough, try seeing it from their point of view. Then combine this new perspective with your experience and observations of their usual actions. I find that if I try, I can easily know how they feel (regardless if I choose to sympathize, which I usually don't with irrational decisions) and what certain things mean to them. I usually always know what ticks my mother off, when exactly she snaps and what her next words will be.
Yes, and to "get" how a person works would include rationally judge them. So if they dont act to our rational preconceptions, then of coarse we must have miscalculated. When in reality they were just irrational.
I am speaking from experience. There are plenty of irrational people to attempt to read, and being correct is a rare feat.

[niffer]

Yes, it's fairly simple for me. Js are more easy to predict than Ps, I find. The motives of rational types are very easy to see into. When I predict the actions and/or motives of others, I feel like I am playing a game of chess with their minds.

[Paul V]

All you have to do is pay attention and remember. The rest will come naturally to your Intuition, who will make the connections and fill in the blanks.

[Jedi_sena]

A friend of mine once said that I was very intuitive about people. He often finds himself a victim of people who take advantage of his naive, childish nature. I told him that I just believe people when they tell me what they are. When you meet someone for the first time, you are seeing them at their best. So, if one tiny flaw peeks out in that initial conversation it is just the tip of the iceberg and closer association will only confirm your suspicions.
When I was a child, I used to think I was psychic because I could foresee the outcome of things before the adults would. I prefer intuitive to psychic.

I am not very good at understanding why people do what they do and am often puzzled and frustrated because people don't make sense to me. That is why this typology interests me. I'd like to get my hands on some books about speed-reading people and such. I skimmed through a book about dealing with difficult people and realized that I instinctively do many of the exercises in the book, but now that I work in a large corporation I am dealing w/ types that I've never encountered before and am very perplexed. I never have encountered people who didn't think logically before, at least not people in business and it has been very difficult for me to adapt.

[PortInStorm]

As to the previous comment about insanity and game theory, there really is very little mindlessness (perhaps Alzheimer's, dementia), just different motivation (vs. "crazy person"). If you heard, felt, or saw what some people with schizophrenia do, you'd probably react as they do. If you only knew about emotion, and didn't really feel it youself (and while we all joke that NTs are robots, of course we aren't) like a psychopath/sociopath, you might act as they do (not that I'm all that sympathetic to their 'cause').

Not picking on you, just to clarify that the mentally ill have reactive systems just like us, their stimuli are different, that's all. But yes, the difference among people does render game theory of limited use.

[FenAquila]

A friend of mine once said that I was very intuitive about people. He often finds himself a victim of people who take advantage of his naive, childish nature. I told him that I just believe people when they tell me what they are. When you meet someone for the first time, you are seeing them at their best. So, if one tiny flaw peeks out in that initial conversation it is just the tip of the iceberg and closer association will only confirm your suspicions.
When I was a child, I used to think I was psychic because I could foresee the outcome of things before the adults would. I prefer intuitive to psychic.

I am not very good at understanding why people do what they do and am often puzzled and frustrated because people don't make sense to me. That is why this typology interests me. I'd like to get my hands on some books about speed-reading people and such. I skimmed through a book about dealing with difficult people and realized that I instinctively do many of the exercises in the book, but now that I work in a large corporation I am dealing w/ types that I've never encountered before and am very perplexed. I never have encountered people who didn't think logically before, at least not people in business and it has been very difficult for me to adapt.
I would say take baby steps. As interesting as it may seem as a venue for analysis, stay away from highly emotive individuals. Some will lie to protect the fact that they have encountered in you something they do not understand. As such, instead of embracing the novelty that is you, many will create false social constructions as a means of feeling safe. Others will fear your intuitive capabilities and depending on their cultural framework will suggest that your "abilities" are from the netherworld, or some other bit of oddness. In such instances, although the inclination might be to share as much as possible of yourself in order to mitigate others' fears or discomfort as per your dogged logic, my experience has been that the more you share the more they attempt to use the information they have against you even if there is nothing wrong with you or your way of doing things. Fear drives too many people, alas. Pity.





FenAquila added to this post, 7 minutes and 30 seconds later...

I constantly find myself analyzing the actions and characteristics of people; mainly my friends. Usually I can quickly produce an explanation for the actions they do. Sometimes, more often than not, I am able to predict their actions in a given situation.
Have you considered profiling? With training, you could work for the FBI, or a criminalistics lab. Forensic Psychology or Forensic Psychiatry seem to be fun fields.

[slut poacher]

i can predict peoples responses very accurately when i look at the situation cynically:expect the worst in people and you will never be disappointed. where i go very wrong is when i look at a situation optimistically: giving someone the benefit of the doubt. if you open yourself up you are vulnerable, what i dont understand is how or why i am unable to keep my bullshit detector running when i am giving someone a chance. maybe i am holding people that i give a chance to, up to a standard that is too high. i conduct myself with a level of integrity/decency that you dont see in most people, maybe i should get used to the idea of giving more and getting less, that way the bullshit detector should stay functional.

[ssfanatic]

i can predict peoples responses very accurately when i look at the situation cynically:expect the worst in people and you will never be disappointed. where i go very wrong is when i look at a situation optimistically: giving someone the benefit of the doubt. if you open yourself up you are vulnerable, what i dont understand is how or why i am unable to keep my bullshit detector running when i am giving someone a chance. maybe i am holding people that i give a chance to, up to a standard that is too high. i conduct myself with a level of integrity/decency that you dont see in most people, maybe i should get used to the idea of giving more and getting less, that way the bullshit detector should stay functional.
Ahh, now it matters the environment. If you expect the worst in people in a positive environment, you will be surprised. But mostly you are correct, we are evil in nature i believe, and it cant really be changed.

[Gonzo]

Understanding and/or reading people is more then predicting there reactions. That actually has little to do with it. Every action has a reaction. We all know this. Predicting the reactions of others has to do with using logic to recognize patterns in behavior, and not jedi mind tricks like some seem to think :irked:.

Knowing how they think and why, knowing when they are lying, knowing how they are feeling without them saying it, etc. Seeing whats actually behind the "front" we humans put up. Thats what reading and understanding is. Its not about figuring out them out over time, but catching signals on the spot. This is very hard to do unless you know that person in some way. I think that understanding WHY a person reacts, is more important then understanding HOW.

When it comes to "irrational" people, which I interpret as: "people that don't think like me", its no different reading them then it is to read "rational" people. All people are bound by their own mental rules so to speak, irrationals and rationals alike. Figuring out a persons rules is the key to understanding them. These rules can be seen in patters of behavior, and even the most insane person has a pattern. So to understand/read people you have to block out your own way of thinking, and step into the state of mind the person you want to understand/read has. If that person happens to be irrational, illogical or crazy, its just a little more difficult. Not to mention fun :cheesy:

PS: Posts with no other purpose then to sate your ability's... I fail to see the point and TBH it seems a little narcissistic :yuck:
No offense

[qwerty]

I have an interesting book on my reading list "The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex" by Murray Gell-Mann. The reason I have it as a potential to read is simply because even at in the smallest level we can 'predict' certain outcomes, but he is the first physicist I have heard say: Life is predicable but it's great mysteries are build on accidents. I guess to me that is how to predict people.
You can know exactly what they're going to do, until they do something completely different :)

[ssfanatic]

I have an interesting book on my reading list "The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex" by Murray Gell-Mann. The reason I have it as a potential to read is simply because even at in the smallest level we can 'predict' certain outcomes, but he is the first physicist I have heard say: Life is predicable but it's great mysteries are build on accidents. I guess to me that is how to predict people.
You can know exactly what they're going to do, until they do something completely different :)
Have you ever heard of chaos theory? Thats what it revolves around is predicting the unpredictable. Its a physics theory and it pertains to entropy. You might be more familiar to the butterfly effect. Its from chaos theory.

[qwerty]

Yes I know it. That's exactly what I meant, though I think the chaos theory says that if you have every single detail then you can predict the outcome... So I'm torn, I would like to think that everything is logical but I have a gut 'feeling' that perhaps the reason that things appear spontanious is because sometimes they are and they happen without causal reason.

[ssfanatic]

Yes I know it. That's exactly what I meant, though I think the chaos theory says that if you have every single detail then you can predict the outcome... So I'm torn, I would like to think that everything is logical but I have a gut 'feeling' that perhaps the reason that things appear spontanious is because sometimes they are and they happen without causal reason.
By definition they are "spontaneous" but science doesnt like to conform to the traditional does it? No sir, so we make a theorem that makes everything predictable. And yes, i have to agree, though things relating to the earth and space are part of the theory, i dont think people apply. I may be wrong, its happened before.

[youngblooded]

After careful observation, I discover that most people are indeed, quite stupid.

[PortInStorm]

That's because you're "young"? Time shows the wisdom of other perspectives.

[drek996]

for the most part people aren't worth understanding, most people bring very little to the accomplishment table, or intellectual thought for betterment of anything at all...and the people who do are worth investing time and thought with are usually hard to connect with because their actions are truely their own so...understanding actions of people is pretty much worthless to me because most actions have some underlying self-serving motive, just like most of my actions do

[JTG]

After careful observation, I discover that most people are indeed, quite stupid.

That's because you're "young"? Time shows the wisdom of other perspectives.

Young did say "after careful observation" haha. I'd be inclined to agree, personally. I think "people" in general, are very very stupid. If i disagree with somebody, but i can see that they've thought through their stance on an issue, then at least i can respect their opinion and agree to disagree.

Most people feel the way they feel and that's just how they feel even though they couldn't say why, or their reason is that it's what they were told to think/feel. I'm not a big fan of those who speak or act without understanding why. "Why" is the most important question anybody can ask, in my opinion.

[OneBadMother]

I've become fairly good at finding motivations for things people do, and why they are the way they are. It helps me get less frustrated with them if I at least know their reasoning behind doing things, though I still might not agree. A lot of the time people fall into a typical scheme. It's the ones who don't who really catch my interest, and they're the people I am most drawn to in a way. A puzzle that doesn't yield readily to analysis. :P

[RoqueBear]

According to my cognitive process, Introverted thinking then Extroverted Intuition, I spend a huge amount of time doing this when I have conversations with people. It helps me to meet someone in a work or professional situation first to understand them logically or in a structured setting first. I pay attention to things in a conversation like; tone, word choice, grammar, body language, organization of thought and pauses in speaking to understand a person. This builds a schema for all future interactions.

[Uytuun]

Aren't we Ni and Te?

I find that when I rely upon my intuituion, I can readily figure out some (aspects of) people. When I start rational analysis, I just confuse myself.