[gecko]

Originally Posted by Deliberator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It is a bad idea to do so (especially in a conversation with an INTJ) for a number of reasons: 1) If you're wrong about how the other person feels, it's offensive and retards progress of the debate 2) If you're right about how the other person feels, bringing it to light is a cheap tactic when you're goal is to disagree with the person's assertion. In other words, it is a logical fallacy to say that a statement is wrong because the source is biased. We're human beings... everyone's biased. 3) Interestingly, accusing an INTJ of tarnishing their argument with emotions is the easiest (and cheapest) way to make them emotional To answer your question, I only became emotional when the INFJ made assumptions that I was offended by his argument from the get-go (the INFJ was using only context to make this assumption, and was wrong, I'm afraid). This angered me, and I left the argument highly irritated and, ironically, rather offended! I do know of course that emotions run deep in many debates, but bringing them into the debate as fuel for your own argument is useless... if it is brought in order to smooth ruffled feathers that are getting in the way then that's different. This, I believe, is something an INFJ could do with outstanding finesse.

Ah, I think I have a clearer picture of what happened now. Naturally, the right thing to do would be to use an emotional insight to correct any 'bad blood' between the two parties rather than as a cheap ploy to 'win' an argument.

Your experience brings to mind a childhood memory: I argued a certain point, my older brother(5 years my senior) made a false counter-argument, I refuted it and continued arguing my point, and he countered with 'So why are you getting mad?', which predictably only made me even more pissed off.

In the way you describe, I can think of several instances where certain people have used those techniques to 'win'(aka make me react with anger) and then try to extract some sort of apology from me in the future.

[WaeV]

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They're pretty much INTJs except with emotion swapped in for logic. They have the same intuitiveness. While an INTJ is decisive with a focus on logic, an INFJ is decisive with a focus on emotion. We gather information with Ni and use our minds to make decisions. They gather information with Ni and use their hearts.

An INTJ is decisive with a focus on factual truth
An INFJ is decisive with a focus on moral right

Otherwise, I agree with you.

[JTG]

I think moral right is more of an Fi (and to an extent, Si) thing. Interpersonal relations is Fe's domain, although the whole F thing is really my weakest area though. I fail it.

[JohnDoe]

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think moral right is more of an Fi (and to an extent, Si) thing. Interpersonal relations is Fe's domain, although the whole F thing is really my weakest area though. I fail it.

We see morals through the context of society. Hence INFJ "the crusader."

[WaeV]

'Feeling' is a misnomer, really. T is about true/false and F is about right/wrong. Ts "think" about facts and Fs "feel" what is morally right, but neither really has anything to do with emotion.

[JTG]

I dunno... i have a good sense of what is right and wrong, while my ESFJ roommate explodes when things don't happen the way he thinks they should. I guess it's a matter of where you place your right/wrong values, and how strongly you are tied to them.

[Reon]

	Originally Posted by JohnDoe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We see morals through the context of society. Hence INFJ "the crusader."

Could you please explain that further? (I am always poking around for a decent definition of Fe)

[JohnDoe]

	Originally Posted by Reon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Could you please explain that further? (I am always poking around for a decent definition of Fe)

Our morals tend to be things that are more systemic rather then instance focused. The things that offend us most are not injustices against individuals so much as injustices against society. For instance, I view academic dishonesty at the professional level as something that is worse then murder because it can set back the state of human knowledge by years or decades. So our morals tend to focus more on what is perhaps best for society then what is moral on a micro scale. Thus we experience morals through the lens of society rather then through any particular person. This is in particular why INFJ's can tend to be really passionate about things they perceive to be systemic injustices, even if they are perhaps only a small injustice to any particular person. It is also why INFJ's have a tendency to slip into the 3rd person plural at times when talking about themselves :D If we are using the word we to describe ourselves, we are probably considering things from the systemic viewpoint at that point rather then from our perspective.

---------- Post added 02-13-2010 at 04:18 AM ----------

In particular, see
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	In its advanced use, Dario says that Fe connects and interacts with whole groups as if they are one unit, reading people's feelings, values, and interests as a single entity and translating them into cultural norms. I'll say more about that down the road.

[Gamgee]

The one I met has got to be the most selfish individual in the world unless it regards her or her family. Perhaps it was how she was raised, I don't know. All I know is she got married, and then got snooty and didn't want to socialize with any family from either side. When we do get forced to talk it can be strained, and I know her well enough I can see her tell signs. Although from an outside perspective she looks all nice and stuff. Oh well, what can you do?

[poetic intj]

Originally Posted by dogwoodlover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Nothing strange about this. I do this too. Its dominant introverted iNtuition. Regarding the INTJ (and by extension the INFJ), it is the "sacred inner world" that must be protected. Its a world that isn't rational, but just a jumble of connections and associations, abstractions and essences, epiphanies and realizations, etc. I think protecting Ni is something that most INTJs learn early on. They learn to only reveal what is polished or decided, or at least clearly defined. They want to avoid the embarrassment that would be associated with letting this function out into the open, for all to criticize. I frequently mull things over for extended periods before I ever announce them to anyone, even to my girlfriend who certainly knows more about me than anyone else.

This describes my overly protective relationship with my Ni so well. You so also point out how messy it can be.

I often wonder, why do so many NT types define themselves as being nothing but robots capable of strict, (often elementary syllogistic) logical thinking? What about the messier aspects of our thought processes that intuition introduces?

This is why I believe that many people who type themselves as NT, are actually ST's whose intuition plays a much less prominent role in their lives. Or perhaps some NT's like myself have an unusually high intuition.

I think intuition plays a much bigger role in science than many people are willing to give credit for. The history of science is actually quite messy, and it's not exactly a series of building upon strict logical foundations one after another.

[alphawolf]

	Originally Posted by poetic intj To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think intuition plays a much bigger role in science than many people are willing to give credit for. The history of science is actually quite messy, and it's not exactly a series of building upon strict logical foundations one after another.

This is probably why there have been more huge advances achieved by one man in his own basement laboratory, than there have by teams of experts funded by big money. The intuitive, evil genius knows what he knows, despite the facts, and it's only a matter of time and effort before he can manage to prototype it. He doesn't need other people slowing him down, contradicting, or ridiculing him - it blocks progress.

[SelfMadeBum]

	Originally Posted by WaeV To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	'Feeling' is a misnomer, really. T is about true/false and F is about right/wrong. Ts "think" about facts and Fs "feel" what is morally right, but neither really has anything to do with emotion.

A recurrent problem I keep encountering with INFJs is that they do not discriminate between what they feel is right and what is true in an objective sense. To them the two are the same, so they behave as though their subjective morals or values are objectively "right".

[JohnDoe]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A recurrent problem I keep encountering with INFJs is that they do not discriminate between what they feel is right and what is true in an objective sense. To them the two are the same, so they behave as though their subjective morals or values are objectively "right".

I don't understand. What we feel IS right and true in an objective sense. There is no difference between the two. If it was not true we wouldn't feel it.

[Scatterbrane]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A recurrent problem I keep encountering with INFJs is that they do not discriminate between what they feel is right and what is true in an objective sense. To them the two are the same, so they behave as though their subjective morals or values are objectively "right".

I grok where you're coming from, but isn't this a feature of most feelers and not just INFJs?

[SelfMadeBum]

	Originally Posted by JohnDoe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't understand. What we feel IS right and true in an objective sense. There is no difference between the two. If it was not true we wouldn't feel it.

This captures the sentiment exactly.

Many of you fail to realise that your truth may not be the objective truth. What feels right to you is not necessarily what is true in an objective/factual sense. The fact that you perceive it as such speaks for itself, since this perception is subjective.

	Originally Posted by Scatterbrane To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I grok where you're coming from, but isn't this a feature of most feelers and not just INFJs?

FP's in my experience are aware that how they see things is simply how they see things, and don't, for lack of a better word, delude themselves into thinking that their feelings about what is right exist outside of themselves.

All of my close friends are Fs - ENFJs and one ISFP... they don't treat their opinions or feelings as fact.

[alphawolf]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Many of you fail to realise that your truth may not be the objective truth. What feels right to you is not necessarily what is true in an objective/factual sense. The fact that you perceive it as such speaks for itself, since this perception is subjective.

The truth is ugly and seems illogical when it is affected by intangible influences such as intention, fear, hope, greed, hate, love, etc. We have to live with the truth, to work to improve the truth.

Statistics can be massaged to support any viewpoint. It takes something more than objectivity combined with logic to be able to see the truth. Always look at the big picture objectively and question the motivations behind the events, who the players are, what they have to gain from the possible outcomes, how this will likely play out according to group dynamics and human behaviour, and correlate them with past experiences. It's far more complex than this, but you get the jist. In this way, it is possible to predict the way things will play out, or uncover conspiracies with almost scary accuracy. It's not magic or psychic; it's just a different thought process than yours. If you were able to quantify feeling, such as "hate level 9" or "fear level 3" or "greed level 6", as well as being able to devise a formula to calculate the result of this combination of input, then you would come to the same result and then - then, what we do would really bake your noodle, because you would see that we can do it without a formula.

I love INTJs, in general, because they are so objective and rational that they sharpen my weaker areas and that really helps me to do the above *even better*.

[SelfMadeBum]

Originally Posted by alphawolf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The truth is ugly and seems illogical when it is affected by intangible influences such as intention, fear, hope, greed, hate, love, etc. We have to live with the truth, to work to improve the truth. Statistics can be massaged to support any viewpoint. It takes something more than objectivity combined with logic to be able to see the truth. Always look at the big picture objectively and question the motivations behind the events, who the players are, what they have to gain from the possible outcomes, how this will likely play out according to group dynamics and human behaviour, and correlate them with past experiences. It's far more complex than this, but you get the jist. In this way, it is possible to predict the way things will play out, or uncover conspiracies with almost scary accuracy. It's not magic or psychic; it's just a different thought process than yours. If you were able to quantify feeling, such as "hate level 9" or "fear level 3" or "greed level 6", as well as being able to devise a formula to calculate the result of this combination of input, then you would come to the same result and then - then, what we do would really bake your noodle, because you would see that we can do it without a formula. I love INTJs, in general, because they are so objective and rational that they sharpen my weaker areas and that really helps me to do the above *even better*.

If you can prove your intuition in these cases... provide tangible proof that what you predicted came true in a factual sense, then more power to you.

However, in many cases we are dealing with things that cannot be quantified or proven at all, i.e. what is morally right or wrong. An INFJ clings to his subjective conclusions with the claim that they are objectively right, in cases where there is no right objective answer, or where he cannot support his claim with any tangible evidence.

This is my problem with how INFJs operate.

[Tough Love]

I have felt pity for all three INFJ's i know. One INFJ i thought was being pretentious, turns out he really shakes when he touches women, (which is cute... It just doesnt feel nice and makes me feel like i cant match your 'emotional involvement' in sex). From experience, they show too much insecurity in an obvious way. I just can never get past the pity. Two INFJ's ive known have been stuck in a rut regarding their life - pretty much their whole lives so far. But they both advertise their problems to everyone and therefore became laughing stocks.

[alphawolf]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	However, in many cases we are dealing with things that cannot be quantified or proven at all, i.e. what is morally right or wrong. An INFJ clings to his subjective conclusions with the claim that they are objectively right, in cases where there is no right objective answer, or where he cannot support his claim with any tangible evidence. This is my problem with how INFJs operate.

	The falseness of a judgment is to us not necessarily an objection to a judgment... The question is to what extent it is life-advancing, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-breeding...

[SelfMadeBum]

The point is that what is life-advancing, life-preserving, species-preserving, etc. to you is not so for everyone.

So even if you see the world in terms of its whole, it in no way means your view of it is accurate.

[Sinequanon]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	An INFJ clings to his subjective conclusions with the claim that they are objectively right, in cases where there is no right objective answer, or where he cannot support his claim with any tangible evidence. This is my problem with how INFJs operate.

My problem with INTJs is that they pretend that they don't do this. Everyone does. An INTJ looks for external evidence to justify their subjective preconceptions. There is plenty of evidence of this right on this board (look at Politics/Religion).

[SelfMadeBum]

Oh, I agree 100%. But some of us are conscious of doing so and allow for that consideration. The INFJs I've conversed with don't even try to find external evidence to support their conclusions. They think (or feel) their intuition is evidence enough.

I'll concede right now that my view of INFJs is biased in favour of logical thought and scientific method. Good luck trying to get an INFJ to admit that his views on morality are skewed and may not accurately reflect the external world.

[Sinequanon]

Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh, I agree 100%. But some of us are conscious of doing so and allow for that consideration. The INFJs I've conversed with don't even try to find external evidence to support their conclusions. They think (or feel) their intuition is evidence enough. I'll concede right now that my view of INFJs is biased in favour of logical thought and scientific method. Good luck trying to get an INFJ to admit that his views on morality are skewed and may not accurately reflect the external world.

I usually find talking like this rather tedius and overly broad - can you give me an example that I might relate to, like a what-if scenario?

[Scatterbrane]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum
	The INFJs I've conversed with don't even try to find external evidence to support their conclusions.

Yeah, I can imagine why they'd do that. I frequently fail at finding any supporting or conflict evidence that I feel (maybe that word is descriptive of the problem
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) is in any way conclusive, so I end up trusting my intuition anyway.

Sometimes I wonder why I go through A->B->C when I damn well know I'll be arriving at C in due course. I guess your INFJs are just skipping B since they haven't seen it do them any good.

[SelfMadeBum]

	Originally Posted by Sinequanon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I usually find talking like this rather tedius and overly broad - can you give me an example that I might relate to, like a what-if scenario?

The things I've discussed with INFJs tend to be personal. I'll try to think of one that's something I can freely mention.

---------- Post added 02-18-2010 at 12:33 PM ----------

Okay, values. Say an INFJ believes his idea of development is the only kind of development that matters. And say his idea of development is along a material spectrum in the way of advancement of tools and technology. He therefore makes the judgment that societies which are less advanced in such ways are deficient.

Another could put forward instead that values surrounding spirituality, a communal style of living, and a culture emphasising sharing rather than ownership are the basis upon which a "successful" nation should be built.

I as an outsider can see that the difference in values is subjective and there is no way to show that one country's values trump the other's. But each INFJ believes his idea of development is "right" even though he has no facts to back it up; Facts in the way of proof of which is "better" without exposing the obvious biases. He goes by what he feels is best for society.

He may even ask (legitimately) if proof is even possible in such a situation.

Now an INTJ may come up with certain criteria of a developed nation and using this measurement device, calculate which he thinks is better based on concrete variables (average lifespan, birth and death rates, etc.) He is at least seeking substantial evidence to form a conclusion, rather than base his argument on his feeling that material advancement trumps spirituality-based development or vice-versa.

You can say his (the INTJ's) variables are acculturated and I will agree with you and I will also acknowledge that this bias will affect the credibility of his results; I will also admit that if he has preconceived notions about which is better this will also affect the findings, but at least he tries to gather some external data to inform his conclusion and isn't led simply by his intuition about what is better for a country.

An INFJ on the other hand would probably ask himself "What makes the people happy?" "What fulfils them, brings them satisfaction?" These questions can not garner concrete data and he will trust his intution to guide him to these answers rather than rely on forming some quantifiable measurement tool.

...I think
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. I leave myself wide open to correction.