[futilefairytales]

Hi there INFJs,

1. What makes you feel like you really know someone? Is it:

A) Knowing how they feel about things (i.e. how they feel about certain people, politics, life, philosophies, etc.), or;

B) Knowing the details of their life (personality traits, where they go to school/work, who their relatives are, how they dress, who their friends are, who they've been romantically involved with, life experiences, etc.)

2. If you had to pick one or the other (A or B) when getting to know someone, which would you rather know and why?

 

[Captain]

I go for A first. I want know how open minded and tolerant a person is. I also look at sense of humor and if they take themselves too seriously. To me, those are pretty good markers for making an initial judgement.

 

[Lost in Oblivion]

Hi there INFJs,

What makes you feel like you really know someone? Is it:

A) Knowing how they feel about things (i.e. how they feel about certain people, politics, life, philosophies, etc.), or;

B) Knowing the details of their life (personality traits, where they go to school/work, who their relatives are, how they dress, who their friends are, who they've been romantically involved with, life experiences, etc.)

And......if you had to pick one or the other (A or B) when getting to know someone, which would you rather know and why?

I pick neither. Instead, I choose option C).

C) Knowing how they are about things. This may sound like option A) but it is not. In order to understand people you must understand the point from which they come from. Their certain philosophies regarding different things give you insight on who they are as a person.

Of course, it is difficult to define what "who they are as a person is," but think of that on very basic terms. Attempt to define what makes you able to see the person as who they are.

 

[Intricate Mystic]

B) if I were forced to choose. Ideally though, a combination of A and B would be preferable: Feelings about life and philosophies, personality, significant life experiences, school/work, and relationship history. How they dress, who their relatives are and their political beliefs wouldn't interest me so much. I'm also usually curious about what religious beliefs a person has (if any).

 

[GoodOldDreamer]

Out of those options, option A. That's how a person is and always will be, short of something like a major brain injury. The details of a person's life, however, are relatively meaningless. People change their identities all the time. People in witness protection no longer have the lives they used to have. But who they are as a person stays the same.

Also, knowing how a person feels with regards to certain things is a good indicator of how they'd react to future events. Will they be able to handle an emergency? Will they be there if I have an emergency? Etc.

 

[atsleepwalkingpace]

If I had to choose, I'd go with A, although personality traits from B is pretty important to me. Most of option B seems like "other people" stuff, things that involve other people and not so much a part of who they are as a person. The things from B might give you insight into why they are the way the are, but it's not as important to me as A.

 

[user87]

Generally speaking, I'd choose [A] because I feel like it'd give me a better sense of the person (hahah, notice I used the word "feel"). As I've gotten older, I've become increasingly bored of details and don't bother with them unless I see purpose. I view details as the icing on top. And who knows, details may only be a fabric of societal norms and may not reflect the core of the individual (e.g., Why did you choose your career? "I dunno, my parents told me to get into this field").

 

[Killbain]

A

The rest will follow. Unless they are the INFx breed, people love talking about themselves!

 

[daydr3am]

A. B is just superficial stuff.

 

[MereMortal]

I'd choose A, and I think that (at least, parts of) B can be extrapolated from there. If you know how they feel about certain people and philosophies, etc; you can likely make a valid prediction of their lifestyle and day-to-day choices. After all, it all traces back to ideologies.

 

[Emerson]

I don't think you can distinguish between the two A and B. People in theory can have plenty of great traits, but the devil (as always) is in the details. I'd like someone to be caring and compassionate but also able to actually live in a caring and compassionate way. The way you know someone is the combinaton of the two. If I had to choose A or B I'd choose neither as I'm not getting a full picture of their personality, so I don't know them at all.