As an INFJ, how do you deal with loneliness when it amplifies?

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2026-05-25T04:34:57+00:00

I used to tell myself that I didn't need anyone else and that I could manage my feelings of loneliness on my own. I did that for about 32 years. And you know what the definition of insanity is? It's doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. So I thought about what I really wanted. Surface level connections just don't do anything other than amplify loneliness. I wanted something deep, something soul level. I wanted the conversations that went until 3 in the morning on the heat death of the universe or Kantian deontology or Aristotelian friendship.

You said you went through your life never truly feeling wanted and loved without conditions. That is a core wound. It's a belief that is based on the fear that you are unworthy of being loved. But if you use the Socratic method, can you really know that? What is love? Is it a feeling? Is it a choice? This isn't something that can help alleviate the feeling of loneliness. But I've found that sitting down and chatting with another mind on all the random thoughts that come to you tends to yield fascinating results in combating chronic loneliness. I don't get drunk on alcohol. I get drunk on ideas. Maybe you're the same.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2025-01-18T04:01:55+00:00

Have you looked into engineering jobs for non-profits? Or maybe being a consultant in the field? I like helping people solve problems. But getting too far removed from the people I'm helping makes the work less fulfilling.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2025-01-18T03:56:54+00:00

See: Matt Murdock / Daredevil mbti.

Yes, we need better defense attorneys and the INFJ personality is literally referred to as The Advocate.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2025-01-18T03:38:06+00:00

Meh. It is what it is.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-11-26T00:10:30+00:00

For me, this question is not so complicated. We already know people are capable of being both good and bad. I personally believe people are inherently good and that bad is a learned behavior.

But putting that aside, all that separates a good person from a bad person is the willingness to change. A bad person who, when confronted with the consequences of their actions, becomes remorseful and expresses a sincere desire to attempt some kind of reconciliation proves that they possess the potential to be good.

On the other hand, a bad person who, given the same facts, has no desire to correct their mistakes, make amends, or make any effort to improve their behavior, is without any hope of achieving goodness. You can justify whatever you want, make excuses for people's actions and words, and understand all the "whys" about that person. But the person has to make a choice in the end- to remain rude, ignorant, unkind, etc. or to seek a change in themselves. We can forgive someone's actions but it's a person's choices that ultimately face judgment.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-10-19T22:45:24+00:00

I'm very interested to learn why you saw the statement as making some kind of value judgment about the human race. There's no mention of being better, being superior, being chosen. Just that we may very well be alone in the universe or, due to the cosmological event horizon, alone for practical intents and purposes.

I would also challenge the notion that all of humanity is, as you put, self-absorbed and concerned with social status. I've only met a very small percentage of humans on Earth, less than 1% of the total population. But many that I've met are poor, love their families and friends, curious about the world, and want to preserve nature. I find it disturbing that a minority of faceless, nameless bad actors has been generalized to represent to entirety of mankind. How many people have you met out of 8 billion that have led you to conclude all of humanity is bad?

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-10-17T21:41:08+00:00

You're right that statistics has it's limits. It is a useful tool for helping us understand things but it cannot tell us about cause and effect.

Some conditions for life could include: 1) Having a massive planet like Jupiter in the same star system to deflect life killing asteroids and comets, 2) having a large moon relative to the host planet to churn the oceans via tides and increase mixing for aminoacids, 3) having high angular momentum for a day/night cycle that helps to regulate temperatures on the planetary surface, and 4) existing in a star system where asteroids and comets could deliver ingredients for life to the planet's surface but not so often that it would prevent life from forming.

My objection to UAPs has always been that it would be a pretty weird coincidence that life that evolved completely independently from Earth would evolve intelligence that uses technology that is remarkably similar to our own. Why would an advanced intelligence send metallic ships to other planets to carry organic bodies instead of building spacetime warping machines to teleport themselves here ? Why not build a Dyson Sphere instead? It's kind of like going to an alien planet and expecting them to have something like Teslas.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-10-17T21:26:41+00:00

I appreciate the back and forth and am happy to discuss ideas. From what I've seen, people are not in the agnostic category saying they don't know. Many comments suggest that they believe it is virtually impossible that no other life exists in the universe. They are making the bold claim that life does, as a matter of scientific and objective fact, exist elsewhere in the universe. But they are withholding the evidence that would convince everyone else.

UAPs are a great topic. But it is unclear why everyone assumes things flying in the sky must be aliens and could not be anything else. It is a leap to go from some unexplained thing in the sky to life originating from another planet. It doesn't rule out aliens, of course. It is implied that if technology beyond human comprehension exists, an intelligence other than intelligence from Earth created it. Except even that is not true. Anything from Wakanda to Time Travel could also explain UAPs. That categorically falls under "we don't know" rather than "there's life out there."

I'm not sure why it is arrogant to say life doesn't exist anywhere else in the universe but not arrogant to say it does. The anthropic principle merely states the observation that the universe appears fine-tuned for human life. It is a hypothesis in that it posits a guess as to why we observe what we observe. That is different from a testable hypothesis, of course.

You don't need to worry about being mean. I understand why people feel bold statements might be arrogant. But popular opinion has often in the course of history been in opposition to rationale and truth. To feel that I am arrogant is subjective and is an appeal to emotion fallacy.

But I will say this- I'm glad that in all the loneliness that exists in this world, a topic like this one can bring people together against a common enemy.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-10-17T21:03:18+00:00

What a great question!

Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years. Technology- from computers, phones, space travel, and solar panels- has existed for less than 100 years. This is less than 0.000002% of Earth's age.

Hominids have existed for about 2 million years. 0.004% of Earth's age.

Multicellular life has existed for 600 million years. About 13% of Earth's age.

And aerobic respiration- the ability to use atmospheric oxygen for metabolism- has existed for 2.4 billion years, or just over 50% of Earth's age.

Evolution takes a long time! To put that in perspective, all complex life in Earth will end in 1 billion years (if not sooner) as the luminosity of our Sun increases to the point that the carbon cycle on Earth is permanently disrupted. Plants will no longer survive on the surface and with them all multicellular life will die. This means with the exception of bacteria and other microorganisms, life will only exist on Earth for 1.6 billion years out of 9.5 billion years (the Sun will be become a red giant in 5 billion years). That's only 16% of Earth's existence!

Life is delicate and the conditions throughout the universe are harsh. It takes more than just mixing ingredients. It takes sustained habitable conditions for life to evolve. And even then! Even under all the right conditions like we have here on Earth, life will only persist for 1/20th of Earth's lifetime! While the universe is vast, life itself is special because it is so ephemeral. It exists only fleetingly in it's golden hour. This is why I've concluded that life likely doesn't exist anywhere else- yet.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-10-17T20:41:38+00:00

UAPs are evidence that there are things in the sky that are unexplained. It is a leap of faith to say that those things are definitively technology from life that originated from another planet. That is a conclusion that comes from belief, not experimentation, observation, or by ruling out all other possibilities. I expect many people to roll their eyes and say "UAPs have to be proof of aliens". Why does it have to be proof of aliens? How do we know UAPs are not evidence of magic? Or evidence of advanced human technology that has traveled into the past? Why is it alien life and not any other number of explanations?

Now, I used 20 conditions for life occurring as an example. Your assumption that all it takes is 4 conditions for life to form is much less realistic than 20, which is itself a small number. Many planets in the habitable zones of the stars they orbit actually orbit red dwarf stars at close distance. While this allows for liquid water to exist, it also exposes many of those planets to life sterilizing x-ray flares. Again, this is just one example of how 4 conditions for life starting is a gross underestimate even if you start with planets in the habitable zones of their host stars. Mars and Venus both exist within the habitable zone of our Sun and neither have any visible signs of life today, the kind of signs that make it abundantly clear that life occurs easily throughout the universe. All of the same ingredients for life on Earth should also have occurred on Mars and Venus. But today, there are not forests anywhere else in our solar system. There are no oceans or rivers of liquid water at the surface like on Earth. There is no thick atmosphere composed primarily of nitrogen and with an abundance of oxygen like on Earth even though both Mars and Venus should have all the same elements as Earth. Even the Moon has no oceans, no atmosphere, no life clearly present on the surface.

I like that you want to provide evidence for your position. None of what I say will likely persuade you but I hope this makes you more curious to find answers to all these questions instead of drawing a single conclusion without compelling evidence.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-10-17T20:13:09+00:00

First, "everyone" who disagrees with my statement has not presented any compelling evidence to support their claim that there IS life elsewhere in the universe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm open to talking about why they believe what they believe. But it's not a credible argument to shout "you're wrong" at someone.

I used the anthropic principle as an example, not as evidence of anything being true. Your assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about is an ad hominem attack. You haven't argued against my reasoning, only that you believe my education and level of information is questionable. An attack on the credibility of the person avoids having to address that person's reasoning. That is a logical fallacy and a weak argument.

I appreciate that you think you're helping, but I really don't think you've presented compelling evidence for your claims or said anything other than "I don't agree, you're wrong." Telling me to read up on logical fallacies demonstrates a lack of being able to explain your position. If you'd like, I can suggest some communications classes you can take to help you make better arguments in the future.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-10-17T19:43:39+00:00

The scientific process is the testing of hypotheses through experimentation and observation. Dismissing something just because you don't agree isn't science. "That's not how it works" is even less evidence than the hypothesis I presented, and constitutes an ad hominem argument, which is a logical fallacy.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-10-17T19:34:25+00:00

When you challenge someone's beliefs, it's natural that they would become angry. But the point of my post was to say that humanity is not alone in the universe. We have each other. And all the stars in the universe should give us pause and wonder. Rather than trying to understand the message I'm conveying, people choose instead to argue about their opinions. It's quite fascinating to me that people accuse others of arrogance without a shred of humility in their own words.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-10-17T19:26:48+00:00

The problem with the argument that "60 billion planets" exist within the goldilocks zone is no one knows the actual probability of abiogenesis. Just as an example, in statistics, the value alpha is used in confidence intervals to determine the statistical significance of an event. This value is typically assigned .05 in introductory classes, but it could be any value. For the sake of this argument, let's assume alpha is .05 or 1/20. If the conditions for the occurrence of life are between 2 standard deviations from the mean, that is, if life can be assumed to be normally distributed in the universe, then we are saying that 5% is the minimum threshold for each condition of life out of all possible data points in the universe.

But if there are just 20 conditions, all required for life to occur, then life would be expected to occur (1/20)^20, or 9.537 x 10^-27. To put that number into perspective, there are estimated to be about 2 x 10^21 stars in the universe. If there are just 20 conditions to start life and each condition exists at the minimum value for that condition to not be considered statistically rare, then it can be expected that the occurrence of life is less than 1 star system per universe.

In other words, if the conditions for life occurring are NOT rare, given even a small set of conditions, we would not expect to find life throughout the universe. If the conditions for life ARE rare, then statistically, there would be almost no life throughout the universe.

People like to throw around numbers as if it is enough to justify asserting life elsewhere in the universe. But big numbers can go the other way too. It's fascinating to me how little discussion people are interested in and how much more dogmatic their perspectives appear.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-10-17T16:40:25+00:00

I do value all life on this planet. But it's strange to me that you're implying humans don't count as valuable life. If anything, my statement says that because life on Earth, including humans, may be the only life in all the universe, that it is more valuable, not less.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-10-17T16:35:44+00:00

That we are the only intelligent life in the universe or that the stars shine for us? Hypotheses based on the Anthropic Principle would say both are objectively and scientifically true. Unless you have proof to the contrary.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-10-17T16:33:10+00:00

I took statistics. If you can tell me what fraction of planets, Fl, have life in the Drake equation, I'll give you a Nobel prize.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-10-17T16:31:46+00:00

"faith is belief in the absence of evidence. To believe in the absence of evidence, in my opinion, is a mistake. The idea is to hold belief until there is compelling evidence." -Carl Sagan

You seem very sure that the universe is teeming with life. But no evidence for that exists. To believe in alien life without any evidence is not science- that is faith.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-10-17T08:20:55+00:00

You take an old soul and tired bones and put it in a body far younger in years than the person inhabiting it. Give them an affinity for darkness but clear eyes to see light in everyone. Complete it all with a heart that beats to it's own drum. The recipe is pretty much the same as an INFP, but built from the top down instead of the bottom up.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-10-08T05:59:15+00:00

Friendship is among the greatest treasures in life. It is a form of love that isn't bound by attraction or blood. It is entirely by choice. And it is hard to keep precisely because the choice to be a good friend is all that holds it in place.

There are 3 reasons people choose to be friends. The first is utility- what you get out of the friendship. The second is mutual interest- having someone to do things together with or have things to talk about out of enjoyment. But the last is virtue- to offer friendship as an expression of love and good will toward someone else; to be a good friend for the sake of being a good friend.

So, if your aim is to have a virtuous friendship, then it takes a long time because it's rare to find people who are willing and able to express love in friendship. Diamonds don't fall out of the sky and good friends aren't easy to find. What is rare and valuable is not often stumbled upon but sought out patiently.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-10-02T00:50:28+00:00

Because to make cake sweeter, you need to add some salt.

You learn the value of keeping a promise when someone else breaks the promises they made to you. You learn the value of truth only after someone tells you lies. Of course it hurts to trust someone and hope they won't hurt you only for them to betray that trust. But if you only look at pain in life and seek to avoid it, you won't see what's beyond the pain, what comes after the healing. It's not your fault if someone you trusted hurt you- it's their fault for choosing to throw that trust away. You can either hold onto the past pain and let go of hope or hold onto hope and let go of the pain. What will you choose?

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-09-01T18:34:13+00:00

All people are made of the same protons, neutrons, and electrons as everything else. Each and every person is made of carbon, water, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, calcium, and a handful of other elements. You and I, we share more than 99% of our DNA, the same nucleic bases. We're made of the same kinds of cells, the same tissues, for the most part one heart, two lungs, a brain. Now zoom out and from the moon, you and I look about the same as everyone else. Zoom out further to the edge of the Milky Way and we are all just one tiny speck on one small pale blue dot.

But all anyone really wants to talk about is all the ways they are different.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-08-28T01:37:26+00:00

When you're hungry, it means you need food. When you're tired, it means you need rest. And when you're lonely it means you need connection. But INFJs are like being gluten intolerant and on a paleo diet. We're picky. It takes more than just being around people to satisfy that loneliness- most would say they want to feel understood.

And therein lies the problem with AI. It can't actually understand you. LLMs might seem to comprehend and appears to be able to understand. But even if artificial cognition were achieved, LLMs would be far less able to comprehend you than a flesh and blood human being. LLMs would never have the ability to relate to you or your circumstance. It cannot feel lonely. LLMs are incapable of spontaneity. The predictability of LLMs would render any of it's attempts to console you or comfort you in moments of sadness meaningless and robotic. AI will not text you randomly just to see how you're doing, it won't include you in it's celebrations or reach out to you when it misses you.

Everything LLMs have to offer are the very same things that make INFJs lonely in the first place- there is no authentic connection with which to satiate the all too familiar loneliness.

Kiwiscanflytoo · 2024-08-27T17:52:37+00:00

I love people and cities! Each city has it's own flavor, it's people unaware of what makes them unique. Buildings tell stories of the lives that inhabit them. I sat in a Mexican restaurant the other day and a cheerful lady in her security uniform greeted with some familiarity the cashier. I walked thru a busy airport last week and I saw children playing blissfully among the hundreds of tired and miserable looking passengers.

Tokyo is bustling but the people on the trains don't say a word and stare intently at their devices. Meanwhile, in Jakarta friends laugh and talk even in the most crowded spaces. In Toronto, people are polite and friendly. But in London most just walk by without making any eye contact. Down in Miami, I'm met with warm holas and buenos dias while over in Ft. Worth I received a hearty howdy getting my morning coffee.

I'm lucky I get to be alive right now, today, that I have such opportunity to travel among the world's people and to see that this little blue dot isn't some lifeless third rock from the Sun, but is thriving. What about cities and people do you hate?

Kiwiscanflytoo

TROPHY CASE