Download Episode Hereright click link and select “Save Link As…”

In this episode, Joel and Antonia talk about how to trust other people’s thinking.

In this podcast you’ll find:

  • How do you know whether you can trust someone’s thinking or not? Antonia explains the rationale behind this question.
  • What are some metrics you can use to measure trustworthy thought?
    • Examining the quality of thoughts
    • When people don’t realize thoughts are contextual
  • Looking at thinking through a cause and effect versus a systems approach.
    • How the systems-thinking approach works over time
    • How this shows up for Antonia in her approach to business partnerships
  • What makes Antonia distrust someone’s thinking?
    • The idea that a “corrupt node” can follow a person around
  • Contextual trust: the distinction between trusting someone’s thinking versus holistically trusting them as an individual.
  • What are the areas where Antonia trusts Joel’s quality of thinking? Where doesn’t she trust his thinking and why?
  • What areas does Antonia trust her own thinking in, and what prevents her from always trusting her own thoughts?
  • Intellectual honesty and how this relates to ego work in the type community:
    • Examining the desire to call out people we believe are mistyped
    • How could we shift this towards a healthier, more growth focused direction?
    • Humility versus hubris – giving people the space they need to change their mind
  • A message to feelers listening to this conversation.
  • The effect of only “judging based on agreement” – using Black Jeopardy! as an illustration.

To subscribe to the podcast, please use the links below:

Subscribe with iTunes
Non-iTunes Link
Google Play
Radio Public
Listen Notes

If you like the podcast and want to help us out in return, please leave an honest rating and review on iTunes by clicking here. It will help the show and its ranking in iTunes immensely! We would be eternally grateful!

Want to learn more?

Discover Your Personal Genius


We want to hear from you. Leave your comments below…


  • IxTx?
    • IxTx?
    • July 19, 2021 at 3:03 pm

    You touched on something very important, that many people don’t seem to understand – the different “levels” of “truth”. I think the language itself should be more differentiated in this, so as to not make this error so easy.

    I’d say at least three levels should have different words:

    Real truth: This is how it is. It doesn’t matter if literally everyone thinks the opposite, it’s still like this. Not necessarily time independent though, because entropy etc.

    Perceived “truth”: What you, I, some people, most people, all people, etc. thinks the real truth is. For example, as Antonia mentioned, the general perceived truth was that the Earth is in the center of the universe, but nowadays the general perceived truth is that it’s not. That’s most likely also the real truth, but we can’t know that perfectly certain. (For example if we are a simulation.)

    Moral or Social “truth”: “Truths” that are, as Antonia calls them, “soft”, they can change with time and/or circumstances under influences of abstract, people-related things, such as morals, ethics, emotions, maybe even laws should be included here. For example: “Anna and Chloe are friends”, “murder is wrong”, etc. (If you reading is such a person who almost jumps out of your skin reading that the “fact” that murder is wrong can change depending on context – you are probably also a person who would find it an extremely good deed to have killed Hitler, and have thereby proven my point for yourself…)


    I have personally met people who think that e.g. the anecdote of the changed perception of the Earth’s placement in the universe is a proof that there is no such thing as truth. Said people obviously equate "perceived "truth"" with “truth”, and have no concept of “real truth” (believe me, i have tried to explain). I only equate “real truth” with “truth”, but we can have different levels of certainty that the perceived and real truths match, depending on subject, methods, data etc.

    Also, I would have loved the high Te and high Fe takes in this episode, why do you so rarely have guests?

  • Lauren Losson
    • Lauren Losson
    • July 17, 2021 at 9:23 pm

    I found this a marvelous conversation. Your mutual honesty, humility, and vulnerability was so refreshing. I learned a great deal. Thank you.

  • Anonymous
    • Anonymous
    • July 16, 2021 at 11:02 pm

    “but if they don’t ever show the work/process, then the most trust they get from me is 50% which is not a passing grade. They are just a mouthpiece at that point.”

    With intuition, sometimes they cannot show the process. If they are correct (which intuition ALWAYS is), and you dismiss what they have to say, you are missing important insights. Life and intuition do not flow in a linear fashion. You sound like someone with thinking high and valued in your cognitive function stack and intuition low and devalued in your function stack. Direct cognition, a function of intuition, available to everyone, gives you the answer immediately.

    The truth and accuracy should matter more than “showing your work”.

  • Brock
    • Brock
    • July 17, 2021 at 9:00 am


  • Nancy
    • Nancy
    • July 16, 2021 at 7:27 pm

    I have a question about something Antonia said about not holding grudges. I’m the same way; my mother used to chide me for being a “puppy dog.” I’m an INFJ, and I notice the functional stacking of an INFJ has a couple of things in common with an ENTP. The Ti and Fe are simply switched in position. So, I’m curious about the connection between that tendency to forgive/not hold grudges and Fe. I’m such a newbie to MBTI, so is that an obvious connection? :-) Thanks!

    By the way, regarding the thought processes: I’m all about the logic. I’m not a thinker, but I think my logic is pretty strong. I trust the logic of people’s thoughts, not the conclusions. Even when we’re talking about intuitive hunches! My best friend uses Ne, while I use Ni. She’ll announce some far gone conclusion, and I’ll press her to explain her thinking processes. She has literally replied, “I don’t know why! It’s a hunch!” I don’t get wild, illogical hunches. When I intuit something, it’s because all the pieces suddenly fit together based on information I’ve taken in.

    Enjoyed this podcast. Thanks!

Leave a comment

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.