Reducing People to Intentions

[silverchris9]

I'm wondering, is this an Ni-ego/IEI thing, or just a general "smart/insightful people" thing? I've noticed that in a lot of arguments on the forum, but also in suspected Ni-egos that I've met, Ni-egos tend to ignore actions, character, and argument in favor of intention. For example, during a party a few days ago, I had a friend who sort of took charge of the party, helped people who had had too much to drink or had relationship/hook-up drama, etc. But another friend, who is clearly beta, and who I suspect is a badass-ish IEI or EIE, commented that he wasn't really being helpful so much as "playing the hero." That is, because his intention wasn't totally pure and selfless, friend #2 sort of downplayed the effect of what friend #1 was doing. Now, I understand the motive for this kind of thing; maybe friend #1 was being kind of annoying, kind of trying to be the savior of the party, but nevertheless I find this fairly typical of the way in which Ni egos (myself included), will tend to emphasize intentions/psychology/etc., over other factors when evaluating behavior, especially behavior we're opposed to. So, what do you think? Ni-related, or just smarts-related?

[Mattie]

I'm wondering, is this an Ni-ego/IEI thing, or just a general "smart/insightful people" thing?

I'm not sure if it's -ego related but, maybe it is because in my experience, I've had -egos suspicious about other's intentions (Actually, only SiTe and TeSi, so this might be an NiFe and FeNi thing) since they can't figure them out very easily. But either way, I found it interesting that you relate it to "smarts." I don't think it at all relates to intelligence, I think in moderation with observing other qualities, such as actions, character, and words, is actually more of the smarts bit, but doesn't necessarily do with education. In the end, that person diminished the effect of what your first friend was doing because to THEM it seemed like they were playing hero, and even if they did have some self-satisfaction from it, who cares? What they did was genuinely nice and helpful, and if you were one of those people who needed a little lift-up, you would have been appreciative. I think it's disturbing that someone's self-verified psychoanalysis trumps every other aspect of a person. What would be the actual intelligent thing to do is to combine that with their actions and character, and see what it all amounts to. In the end, does it matter whether they were playing hero or not? Weren't people actually benefiting from what that friend was doing? Now if this friend was being overall negative, and you had to solve the problem, sure, I could understand this perspective a little more. But it seems like there was no real reason to chastise them.

[Rubicon]

But either way, I found it interesting that you relate it to "smarts." I don't think it at all relates to intelligence, I think in moderation with observing other qualities, such as actions, character, and words, is actually more of the smarts bit, but doesn't necessarily do with education. In the end, that person diminished the effect of what your first friend was doing because to THEM it seemed like they were playing hero, and even if they did have some self-satisfaction from it, who cares? What they did was genuinely nice and helpful, and if you were one of those people who needed a little lift-up, you would have been appreciative. I think it's disturbing that someone's self-verified psychoanalysis trumps every other aspect of a person. What would be the actual intelligent thing to do is to combine that with their actions and character, and see what it all amounts to. In the end, does it matter whether they were playing hero or not? Weren't people actually benefiting from what that friend was doing? Now if this friend was being overall negative, and you had to solve the problem, sure, I could understand this perspective a little more. But it seems like there was no real reason to chastise them.

I think it does matter whether they were 'playing hero or not' .. makes the difference between an idiot and a genuine person. Looking simply at whether a person's actions is benefiting people seems a cold approach and would make for a cold, fake society. And evaluating every aspect of a person's character at a party on the spur of the moment is hardly feasible.. therefore not the intelligent thing to do - nor is it fun. :-p You're also being way too subjective re your definition of intelligence.

[Mattie]

I think it does matter whether they were 'playing hero or not' .. makes the difference between an idiot and a genuine person. Looking simply at whether a person's actions is benefiting people seems a cold approach and would make for a cold, fake society. And evaluating every aspect of a person's character at a party on the spur of the moment is hardly feasible.. therefore not the intelligent thing to do - nor is it fun. :-p You're also being way too subjective re your definition of intelligence.

I think what is more cold and fake is thinking you can grasp a person on the spot and pass judgment I mean, I see value in it, I'm not going to soapbox on how this sort of insight is inferior or something. I don't don't agree with this being tied to intelligence, because that's saying is inherently intelligent, and, well, there's a lot to argue that. The intelligence comes in the understanding and application of the information you are observing, not what you observe per se. You can have a very unique but unintelligent observation.

But as I think about it, I think this is an behavior, mostly looking at some comparisons with -egos. I was questioning it at first because I believe myself to have this ability, but as this discussion shows, I don't necessarily put as much weight into it as others. Which would fit, for convenience's sake.

[Slacker]

Yes, we have strong Ni but dont' value it. And there's a relationship between the two functions.

[Aiss]

I think what is more cold and fake is thinking you can grasp a person on the spot and pass judgment I mean, I see value in it, I'm not going to soapbox on how this sort of insight is inferior or something. I don't don't agree with this being tied to intelligence, because that's saying is inherently intelligent, and, well, there's a lot to argue that. The intelligence comes in the understanding and application of the information you are observing, not what you observe per se. You can have a very unique but unintelligent observation.

But as I think about it, I think this is an behavior, mostly looking at some comparisons with -egos. I was questioning it at first because I believe myself to have this ability, but as this discussion shows, I don't necessarily put as much weight into it as others. Which would fit, for convenience's sake.

I question bringing intelligence into this discussion, as most people consider, unless confronted with undeniable evidence, their way of thinking to be superior. This is probably one of the reasons neither conflict nor supervision tend to be good relations, as one's base function is what they perceive as "right", and the other lacks it, can be oblivious to it, is often unable to grasp the "obvious" - therefore might be seen as deficient, unless a person knows better than to judge others by what they're good at themselves, and considers their strengths as well. What's described in this thread is exactly focused on understanding and application, not just observation of intentions, because such thing doesn't happen, at least not with alone. Yet it doesn't necessarily make it intelligence-related.

[Rubicon]

I think what is more cold and fake is thinking you can grasp a person on the spot and pass judgment

You say that the ability seems to be inherent in Ni people, so that statement doesn't seem to make much sense. If they can grasp a person on the spot, then it'd be odd if they didn't first think they can. :-p And how is an innate judgment something fake?

I mean, I see value in it, I'm not going to soapbox on how this sort of insight is inferior or something. I don't don't agree with this being tied to intelligence, because that's saying is inherently intelligent, and, well, there's a lot to argue that. The intelligence comes in the understanding and application of the information you are observing, not what you observe per se. You can have a very unique but unintelligent observation.

I don't see how grasping a person on the spot (assuming it's correct) is much different to grasping a logic puzzle on the spot ... and if one is considered proof of intelligence, why not the other?

[marooned]

I think the OP is related to both Ni and Fe, but that the significance of Fe in this is huge. I see calling people out on what are seen to be their "underlying motives" (as in the example in the OP) as largely Fe related.

[Beautiful sky]

I don't judge the "quality" (good or bad) of an individual by the actions (washing dishes) they take. I could care less if anyone washed the dishes, that to me, does not make a "good" person. I find admirable the noble actions of an individual in evaluating the quality of them being good or bad. These noble actions include helping many, not washing dishes.

Objects are not important to me; people are.

They also make up intentions that have nothing at all to do with the person in question to justify their attitudes towards them. That's not "insight" it's plain dishonesty and purposeful blindness. Nothing against you Chris, but that's something that really annoys me, people inventing motives for others and claiming it's some great "insight" when it's just them being a moron for their own purposes.

I agree here.

[tcaudilllg]

An IEE believes that everything around them signals intent. (particularly the creative subtype)

[Mattie]

I question bringing intelligence into this discussion, as most people consider, unless confronted with undeniable evidence, their way of thinking to be superior.

That was my argument, I was saying I didn't think this was smarts/intelligence related, in response to the OP's question.

You say that the ability seems to be inherent in Ni people, so that statement doesn't seem to make much sense. If they can grasp a person on the spot, then it'd be odd if they didn't first think they can. :-p And how is an innate judgment something fake?I don't see how grasping a person on the spot (assuming it's correct) is much different to grasping a logic puzzle on the spot ... and if one is considered proof of intelligence, why not the other?

Intelligence is fishy because that's where you get into what is intelligence, and different types of intelligences. This topic's example is blocked with (as Loki pointed out and I agree with), and the overall application of this does follow under "emotional intelligence," if you will, but it's a part of something bigger. You can't relate only certain IEs to intelligences because they are all just the observation of information, as well as the other points Aiss makes.

I think the OP is related to both Ni and Fe, but that the significance of Fe in this is huge. I see calling people out on what are seen to be their "underlying motives" (as in the example in the OP) as largely Fe related.

Agreed with for the most part, I don't really see this behavior too much in blocked with , there are similarities, but the evaluations it makes it too far from a focus.

An IEE believes that everything around them signals intent. (particularly the creative subtype)

Sorta, I would say, personally, that I have an instinctive part of my brain that tries to predict intent, but I never hold it to a final conclusion. I come to a decision but always have the door open so to speak.

[tcaudilllg]

Sorta, I would say, personally, that I have an instinctive part of my brain that tries to predict intent, but I never hold it to a final conclusion. I come to a decision but always have the door open so to speak.

Would you say that you pick up on suggestions of intent that are familiar, but you aren't sure if the context is lined up as you think it is?

[Mattie]

Would you say that you pick up on suggestions of intent that are familiar, but you aren't sure if the context is lined up as you think it is?

No, I usually don't have doubts in my mind about it, I'm usually sure enough about the signals that I get, but I know that there's room for error, surprising behavior, and my own expectations that may alter my evaluations. Of course, I'm not constantly thinking this in my mind obviously, but something in the back of my brain is like "Hmm, well didn't that seem like this... Oh, yeah, definitely, that's what that is, but let's just make sure..." Then after I leave, think about it more, then wait for more input. It's not like I'm unsure, but I don't want to make the wrong move. But I'll let my actions be influenced enough and see if the reception works out.

ETA:

That's because we talk to people less.

I think it just has to do with what sort of information is observed under than

[Aiss]

Agreed with for the most part, I don't really see this behavior too much in blocked with , there are similarities, but the evaluations it makes it too far from a focus.

That's because we talk to people less.

[Krig the Viking]

Agreed with for the most part, I don't really see this behavior too much in blocked with , there are similarities, but the evaluations it makes it too far from a focus.

I think the difference is that, very generally speaking, while Beta NFs evaluate people's intentions, Gamma NTs evaluate people's intelligence. For example:

Beta NF: "You claim to be altruistically helping that person, but surely you must realize (using Ni) that this action will benefit you, so therefore you must be lying and acting selfishly."

Gamma NT: "You claim to be intelligent, working on that project, but any intelligent person like me would realize (using Ni) that your actions will have negative practical consequences, therefore you must be stupid and incompetant."

Of course there would be some overlap between the two, but I think this is the general focus of the two groups.

[tcaudilllg]

Intention is Fi. It is signaled by which options are partaken of given a selection of choices. The option selected reflects, theoretically, a desire to partake of potentials enabled by the selection in the future. This in turn can signal "drive".

[Slacker]

It could be Ni ego. At least it's something my EIE and LIE parents do. But they aren't always right, and therefore it kind of drives me crazy. You can't assume you know what other people are intending. You can guess, but no, it isn't about being smart, it's about making assumptions.

[redbaron]

Yes I think part of maturity is learning not to assume anything about other people's intentions and to give people the benefit of the doubt. I have been guilty about thinking I "know" something about why people are doing this or that and occasionally I've been wrong. So I try not to do that in a negative way, even when I might be prone to suspect something. Sometimes I do the opposite now and assume they have good intentions. I do think it's natural for Ni types to immediately go into "where is this coming from and what does it mean" mode.

[Rubicon]

I find that Beta NFs are often uncannily accurate in their observations regarding people though - even if they know relatively little about the person, so I think they're often making very educated guesses.

[silverchris9]

I find that Beta NFs are often uncannily accurate in their observations regarding people though - even if they know relatively little about the person, so I think they're often making very educated guesses.

Truth. And dude was kind of playing a hero. And... I think it does represent a kind of intelligence to accurately guess people's motivations. I mean, that's basically what Shakespeare did--although he did it on a much grander scale--and he was hyper-intelligent. And it's not really "making it up"--those elements are definitely there in people's psyches, there is usually a "gain" related motivator, as Aiss said, and when it's not obvious, it's often psychological, like, what does this do for my self-image, related. So I have to defend the process a little. That said, what redbaron said is totally true. I often find myself having a strong opinion about something, but reminding myself that I don't guess right 100% of the time, and me remembering that there's a good chance that I'm wrong has saved my butt more than once, when I could have said something really harsh and been wrong. But then again, I've also held back on guesses that were right.

But nice to know that people agree that it is generally an Ni-related thing. Certainly I think it has to do with the interactions of abstract forces over time, and shows how Ni is time-related, but not solely concerned with time. That is, the process of motivation is something that inherently unfolds in time, something that is inherently dialectical (although there's more than two forces at work, but I think you all get my point), but guessing people's motivations has more to do with observing a present event and working backwards than guessing a future outcome.

[Rubicon]

Truth. And dude was kind of playing a hero. And... I think it does represent a kind of intelligence to accurately guess people's motivations. I mean, that's basically what Shakespeare did--although he did it on a much grander scale--and he was hyper-intelligent. And it's not really "making it up"--those elements are definitely there in people's psyches, there is usually a "gain" related motivator, as Aiss said, and when it's not obvious, it's often psychological, like, what does this do for my self-image, related.

Yeah.. An EII guy made an observation that I was "a good person" at a party once.. because I was helping out with the dishes. lol He said it seriously, like he'd just made an accurate assessment of my character. I found it mildly annoying/amusing, because I was actually just helping out to escape the boring chitchat in the living room. haha I found it annoying that he'd label helping out with the dishes as a good act in itself, no matter what the intention. And also that he probably saw a female in a kitchen as a good thing it itself.. but perhaps I'm assuming too much about his thought processes now. :-p

[Aiss]

I'm wondering, is this an Ni-ego/IEI thing, or just a general "smart/insightful people" thing? I've noticed that in a lot of arguments on the forum, but also in suspected Ni-egos that I've met, Ni-egos tend to ignore actions, character, and argument in favor of intention. For example, during a party a few days ago, I had a friend who sort of took charge of the party, helped people who had had too much to drink or had relationship/hook-up drama, etc. But another friend, who is clearly beta, and who I suspect is a badass-ish IEI or EIE, commented that he wasn't really being helpful so much as "playing the hero." That is, because his intention wasn't totally pure and selfless, friend #2 sort of downplayed the effect of what friend #1 was doing. Now, I understand the motive for this kind of thing; maybe friend #1 was being kind of annoying, kind of trying to be the savior of the party, but nevertheless I find this fairly typical of the way in which Ni egos (myself included), will tend to emphasize intentions/psychology/etc., over other factors when evaluating behavior, especially behavior we're opposed to. So, what do you think? Ni-related, or just smarts-related?

I tend to view people's actions as selfish in general, more or less consciously, but always motivated by gain (whether it's on the instinctual level of species' survival, seeking immediate reward impulsively or clear forwarding of personal interest).

I realize it's not always applicable, and there are some people I believe are genuinely altruistic at times. I also avoid speaking of this perception to them or in their presence.

There's always a possibility that since we Ni people always consider long-term effect, including how it would influence us and cost/benefit analysis, we judge others by ourselves...

They also make up intentions that have nothing at all to do with the person in question to justify their attitudes towards them. That's not "insight" it's plain dishonesty and purposeful blindness. Nothing against you Chris, but that's something that really annoys me, people inventing motives for others and claiming it's some great "insight" when it's just them being a moron for their own purposes.

I think you're misinterpreting "Ni insight" here. It's not "insight" in people's minds, feelings or genuine intentions, but "insight" as in seeing implicit consequences of their actions, which it's hard to believe them oblivious to - thus the supposition that they are as aware of potential benefit and it's their motive.

[crazedrat]

They also make up intentions that have nothing at all to do with the person in question to justify their attitudes towards them. That's not "insight" it's plain dishonesty and purposeful blindness. Nothing against you Chris, but that's something that really annoys me, people inventing motives for others and claiming it's some great "insight" when it's just them being a moron for their own purposes.

Oh ya there was that argument a while back where you got owned and your intentions got revealed.. Yeah I remember that.

[marooned]

^I'm butting in. I thought that thread was a good example of you and Gilly completely misunderstanding and misinterpretting Diana (or perhaps partially understanding and then twisting everything) and ganging up on her and accusing her of intentions she (imo) probably didn't have. (actually misrepresenting is possibly a better word)

[silverchris9]

^I'm butting in. I thought that thread was a good example of you and Gilly completely misunderstanding and misinterpretting Diana (or perhaps partially understanding and then twisting everything) and ganging up on her and accusing her of intentions she (imo) probably didn't have. (actually misrepresenting is possibly a better word)

Eh... the thing is most people do actually have a LOT of motives. It's more like overemphasizing one motive and ignoring others than being totally inaccurate/untrue. But I don't know the specific thread. Still, I'd be surprised if they were completely wrong.

[marooned]

Eh... the thing is most people do actually have a LOT of motives. It's more like overemphasizing one motive and ignoring others than being totally inaccurate/untrue. But I don't know the specific thread. Still, I'd be surprised if they were completely wrong.

I agree with the bolded and I think that zeroing in on some shred of possible intent on some layer and blowing it out of proportion is completely misunderstanding someone. And I think it represents the danger in this kind of thing which turns into uncalled for accusations.