Podcast - Episode 0265 - Myers-Briggs Judging Function Idealism

31 comments

• 

  • Julia
  • February 18, 2023 at 6:55 pm

  Thank you for this great episode. As an INFJ I could also relate very much to the frustration of not getting my carefully drafted Ti-content across to the recipient. It always surprises me how people interpret things I or other people state in ways that are completely off. I am getting better at being accepting of Ti’s limitations and the limitations of language in particular.

• 

  • Erik Bland
  • August 28, 2019 at 10:15 pm

  Thanks for sharing this content. I especially appreciate Antonia’s perspective on Ti idealism (not that Joel’s perspective was any less valid, but rather it didn’t resonate as much with me). As an INTJ, I also highly value concrete information, albeit in a different way.

  If I interpreted correctly (and if I didn’t, I apologize, as it’s not my objective to create conflict!), one of Antonia’s conclusions was that Ti’s version of idealism is to transmit information with complete perfection, such that the receiver will get the most precise possible replication of the sender’s message. She mentioned that INTJ’s, for example, may transmit information more concisely, but in smaller amounts (or, as I will think of, at lower resolution). I can agree with that.

  I think of all information as having partially subjective and partially objective components, and almost no information is 100% of either. If I want to communicate concisely, I often decide that the more subjective parts of the information are less relevant (more likely to cause errors in reception?), so I try to remove them, as best as I can identify them of course. This leaves a message that is more concise but also with lower resolution: the receiver will need to fill in the subjective bits on their own and decide how that information impacts them.

  I think perhaps part of the difficulty for me as an INTJ, in interacting with Ti, is that I can’t reach conclusions from the information as fast as it is being given to me. If I treat all information as being actionable, then I start questioning the relevance of pieces of a story that don’t seem to directly add to the overall message. It makes sense though, as Mosey commented, that that information is intended to allow me to get a closer approximation to the speaker’s experience and (hopefully) draw the same conclusions as they did.

  Unfortunately it probably frustrates the speaker that I can’t draw conclusions as fast as they would like. After all, to me the speaker’s words, no matter how accurate, are only a single perspective. How would someone else, even another Ti user, represent the story? The most fascinating thing to me is when multiple people have the same external experience but radically different internal experiences. To get a deeper picture, I like to look at how those different inner experiences arose from similar outer ones. But this means that I can’t draw a conclusion just from one story, even if it is a very accurate one. Instead I need to look at many stories.

  I have no conclusion here, these are just my thoughts.

• 

  • James
  • April 29, 2019 at 1:50 am

  Gada, I think what you’re experiencing is a person’s attempt to not feel vulnerable to your intuition. People generally as I’ve found tend to avoid vulnerability as it feels like weakness. It’s like being naked in public or with someone you don’t know. A lot of fear comes up around it especially when we can be so succinct or to say almost spot on with our awareness of others and their behavior or thoughts. We’ve spent so much time observing others that we pick up on behavior patterns almost second nature. Vulnerability can bring up many feelings many of them negative ones if that’s the outlook of being “seen” by others and fearing their judgment or criticism. Thoughts of shame or or inadequacy come up for many people when they experience the Ni soul penetration that we Ni doms tend to do.

  Your approach to thinking is not “too complicated” it’s spot on! The problem is with others not you so much as them having an agenda of not wanting to feel vulnerable. When you can accurately point out another’s agenda or why they tend to behave the way they behave, they feel like they’ve been found out. Anyone of of a high moral character and confidence that has their best interests and that of others in mind won’t mind being found out or seen as it were because it will feel like a relief to finally be understood that they mean well. Those that carry the heavy weight of a negative perspective on life and focus too much in the past or fear the future tend to not want to be seen because their inner critic is so active at judging themselves and when you point that out, it touches on those wounds and people recoil and or lash out or they gaslight and cause you to doubt yourself.

  To answer your question… I wonder if this is a common experience? Yes it is because we as humans tend to mirror each other, as we relate. What you love about someone else is what you love about yourself, what you hate about someone else is what you hate about yourself. The purpose of the relationship is to learn to love and accept everything we hate about ourselves and others, that is the fundamental reason why we get together in the first place with both platonic and romantic partnerships.

  Point is trust your intuition, you gut intuition. You aren’t wrong, and you will come full circle over and over again with the same conclusion.

  The key to getting what you want validated more often is to give what you want. You can be more open as an indirect way to encourage someone else to share with you what you share with them. The other way to get what you believe to be true and have that validated, is to ask questions. Therapists have to do this, and they too get tired of asking questions they already know the answer to, just as we do because most people do not say what they mean for fear of invoking a reprisal or having a bunch of negative feelings dumped on them and in turn hurting others or getting hurt in the process.

  Not everyone is as direct as we are, I’ve been direct with INTJ females only to have them do exactly as you’ve described and dance around the issue or gaslight me as if what I’m thinking or talking about is crazy or over complicated.

  Catlyn makes a valid point too in her experience, Ni covers all possibilities and we can’t seem sometimes to get to the bottom of it until we start to eliminate some facts, and narrow everything down into a bigger picture. It’s like someone giving us a puzzle that comes in a bag versus a box with a picture on it, we have no idea what it is until we start to put together the pieces of the puzzle, when some colors form we can see perhaps a partial image of the bigger picture form and then ask questions to form a bigger and clearer picture as we go along.

• 

  • Mosey
  • March 21, 2019 at 5:59 pm

  As I, an INTP, listened to this podcast, I wanted to provide the clarity I got when you were talking about Ti/Accuracy. Antonia, you said that you talk a lot when you are working to transmit information (I don’t remember exactly what you said – I didn’t write it down…). For me this unlocked the idea that, when I tell someone everything about a topic (rather than the INTJ beautiful single statement), I am attempting to allow you to come to your own conclusion based on the data I give you. I can’t believe that you are coming to the the most accurate conclusion without all the data/information that I had when I decided something and I assume that if you have the same data, you’ll come to the same conclusion which is, of course, faulty thinking.
  This explains the complete frustration my husband and others have expressed when I do this in their vicinity. They can neither accept or understand it. Yet another opportunity to grow – and to let this go for other people unless they invite it. Maybe if I cut to the chase like an INTJ others will be less reluctant to listen to me.

• 

  • Andrew
  • March 3, 2019 at 4:25 pm

  ENTP here. I’m going to define accuracy and precision a bit different than you did in the podcast. If we are throwing darts, accuracy is how close you are to the Bull’s Eye. Precision, on the other hand, is how close your darts are to each other. So it is possible to be precise and not accurate, or accurate and not precise. if the Bull’s Eye is absolute truth, accuracy is how close what I am saying is to that absolute truth. Precision is how close what I am saying is to whatever it is I am trying to express.

  They seem like the same thing, but only because ideally, we want both of them. We want what we say to be both accurate (true) and precise (expressing efficiently and effectively what it is we are trying to express). But, at some point we realize that accuracy is a pipedream. are information is, as was said in the podcast, corrupted, inaccurate. So the only true hope that we can have is precision in what we say. That we say precisely what it is that we mean. That way if we say something incorrect, or if someone disagrees with us, like you, I’d rather rebuked/corrected for what I think/believe rather than someone misconstrue something I said and attack me for something that I don’t think. And then have to explain over and over again, trying with more and more precision, to explain what it is I was trying to say. Beating my head against a brick wall. :)