Quote:
Originally Posted by heart
To me, this is saying that Thinking is important to the Fi and that is would be good strengthen Te so it can be a greater compensation to keep Fi on track. Not to work it up to replace Fi, but to become more adept with it so that it can support Fi better.
|
Well, my view would be that one shouldn't limit-bound themselves with any personality trait. What is
better is subjective to the person, but for example, as an ISTP (or even INTP, for anyone who continues to doubt it), relationships are a serious issue. The reality is that certain "methods" are simply worse at certain things - and T is really crappy at personal relationships by its nature (it's the main factor in MBTI that correlates with relationship happiness, for instance - a side effect of it's nature).
As subjective as our wants need, they are all external. The method for achieving it is all internal. It isn't possible... or rather, it isn't ideal to use only one "method" for all of these wants.
The real danger is in the word "preference". I don't believe in looking at it from the "support" issue - it's more about using the right approach to the right problem. If the preference is so strong that you attempt to Te your relationship, so to speak, you are setting yourself up for issues.
Quote:
|
I think it would be a better and more effective way for a INFP to try and balance themselves than to try to force themselves into a different situation to "get tougher" necessarily. Exercise the supporting functions in a intentional way through progressive actions and I think the INFP will become more of what their personal best is and they will naturally gravitate out to pursue activities that they can express that in.
|
I'm not sure if we are fighting over semantics, but I believe that it is very unlikely to develop opposing preferences if one doesn't use them... That invariably means forcing situations to use opposing preferences. I don't mean one should embrace them to a stressful level, but learning when and how to deal with personality traits is very important for balance. This applies at the skill level mostly... We can all deal with stress in bursts, which is all it takes to learn to cope with it, to reduce the stress part that we can control. It is more the unfamiliar, the uncertain and the uncontrolled(able) that causes a large amount of the reaction. Making it more familiar, more certain and putting it under control is the best way to deal with it.
At the cognitive level, it is important to intentionally diffuse reactions. By consistently using only one reaction without attempting to counteract it, you continue to hardwire the reaction to only one method... this is dangerous, if, for example, you get into a relationship in which the T is reasonable (ie: two Ts in a relationship)... what happens is that instead of dealing with the underlying nature of relationships, the reactions to situations becomes increasingly hardwired. As such, changing the situation (further into the relationship, changing relationships, "tail end" situations) will cause the wrong preference to kick in... first at the reactionary level, then at the behaviour/skill level.
I think what we disagree with is the semantics involved in what constitues a preference, as well as how to develop them in a healthy manner... not the overall benefit of doing it.