RAWR MULTIQUOTE
When you are dealing with someone else’s emotions are you not viewing them objectively? It's only when you let your feelings get in the way for what's better suited to them that it's your Fi at work.
Well generally it's sorta like this: “This person is feeling happy/sad/angry/whatever. Possible causes may include A, B, C, or D. Possible courses of actions may be E, F, G, and H. Action E has these consequences, action F these consequences, etc.
It's not literally that linear, but it gets the idea across. Is this Fe? Seems mostly Ti to me (though obviously not completely).
Fe doesn’t deal with the subjective feelings of the individual, Fi does. Fe doesn’t belong to the self, it belongs to others. Fe deals with the collective, therefore it exists outside the self. Rules already exist that Fe didn’t make up to suit the individual self. An individual can objectively choose to discard them but not on the basis of having their feelings hurt but because it didn’t suit them. Fe suits itself to the rules. K. Let’s try this.
Fe doesn't deal with self, true, but with the society. But society can be subjective. I imagine Fe essentially as if society was an individual, and the Fe values of that society are essentially the Fi values of the society the individual.
You have two parents and three siblings. That is an objective fact, right? Yet the fact is relational to you. Fe. You can’t objectively deny that they aren’t your family. But Fi can. Fi can say, “I don’t like them and just because we’re related by blood or circumstance doesn’t mean I have to agree they’re my family.” That’s a subjective opinion based on the self’s feelings. Fe would objectively regard, despite internal disputes between the family, that they are still the family. And I don’t mean to say that Fe will stick by the family either. But that it won’t deny the existence of the family. Piece Fe and Fi together within a person who is dealing with dispute within their family and both opinions can be recognised.
Hmm. Family to me is simply the blood relation, nothing else. It doesn't imply anything other than that. An Fe perspective might say it does, though. Fi could reject that they are family altogether. So uh... stuff.
Btw. Ti is subjective. It deals with the subjective opinions of the person. Yet still rational. Same with Fi.
I think possibly we are operating under different definitions of objectivity and subjectivity. Possibly influenced by our biases.
Common doesn’t mean correct, though. Jung was specific in making it Extravert to distinguish it from Extrovert and Myers Briggs mother-daughter duo tried to maintain that. I tried finding but have yet to find info aside from the preference for ‘a’. My guess was Jung wanted it that way due to the common understanding of what Extrovert is. Loud, outgoing, lively, better social skills etc.
If the common conception is incorrect, than that's their fault imo. I don't see why Extro/Extra couldn't cover both concepts without sacrificing much. Though I don't really have much of a preference for which is used, extro or extra. And I'm not really all that attached to collapsing it into one word either. Like I said, “meh”.
As for Extrovert, it assumes one is going outside to interact with others. And I don't think that's what Extraverting a process is about. It’s still within the individual self, however the objective is directed outside the self. I think confusion stems about extraverting towards an ‘object’ having to mean that it’s directly with the object. It’s not or it’s not always the case. It’s directed towards the object, not with. So an Se Dom doesn’t have to talk or touch a person, they observe physical behaviors and mannerisms of a person without ever having to come in contact and they also unconsciously ‘take it all in’ so they may notice without realising (Fi/Ti will help with realising). Don't get me wrong, Se is about touching and all that jazz but that's just one facet of it.
Yup.
Both I or E processing can deal directly with people. And yes, Extraverts orient themselves in the outer world easier than Introverts, but I don't think it necessarily makes them gregarious or loud or more social. I’m thinking it could be incidental to culture (that we are aware of)
Well there's clearly some connection. As an xkcd comic said, “Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.” However, yeah, it's clearly not always the case.
because there are more of them in North America and so it’s easy to spread themselves around - I chose NA b/c we're both from there. It's different elsewhere. Look at various cultures of the past, some had clearly Introverted vibes to them. The Introverts of those cultures could readily cultivate the environment to their needs, whereas the Extraverts had to adapt to them. So if you want to find a place more suited to your Introverted way of being, I suggest you find your red heels and get to clicking elsewhere. I’ve got examples of cultures and places in mind but just can’t word it yet. Shall I try?
Not really that much of a history nerd, so I shall take your word for it.
Some random tidbit. ENPs can be antisocial. ENFPs can be agoraphobic. I’d guess ENTPs less so because Ti would dismiss the people within vicinity whereas Fi for an ENFP might cause them to feel vulnerably exposed. ESFPs might be shy growing up. Se is so potent for them that people have more a presence to them than other kids who a lower preference of Se. Fi not having been developed so early is probably why they're shy because they're not sure how they feel about people in their physical space and it's scary. ESTPs, same as ENTPs, wouldn't be as affected due to Ti. But they may dominate spaces more, instead, because they want to experience and test it out.
Yup.
So I don't think the commonly understood explanation for Extrovert or Introvert applies to MBTI. Because we can ALL be both outgoing or quiet or loud or reserved. It's just a matter of our comfort of when, why, what for, how, and for whom we choose to display ourselves as being in those moments. Our E/I processes are cultivated by them in how they're expressed, they're not due to them.
mmhm.
Just thought of a more simple explanation of all the functions while talking to beyond at the meet-up last night...
Sounds mostly reasonable.
Hey, I'm sick too! Maybe some nasty virus has evolved the ability to spread itself via the Internet!
A new age of biological warfare!
I think both types of perceptions work here. I think opinion is better to explain it than judging. Judging implies that it's been objectively selected. And perceptions are made aware subjectively to the individual, so they form opinions about the world that can't be disputed because it's subconsciously chosen. That being said, Si/Se are unconscious opinions based at face value. Ne/Ni are unconscious opinions based on speculation.
It's why you don't know and can't explain why you dislike a person 'instinctively' when you first meet them.
Se would form "they look the same" and Si would form "they look the same as"- S is linked to what's unconsciously and negatively familiar in this sense. Ne would form "they could really look like this" and Ni would form "they really look like this". - N is linked to what's unconsciously and negatively unfamiliar in this sense. So we all can unconsciously assess people negatively based on the particular manner our perceptions work.
Well, I know it's a simplified example, but would they really care about how you look, or care more about how what you look like suggests about your personality?
So being P is nice n' stuff. I can just absorb all this information without deciding what I think about it. Just let it pile up, then slowly work my way down to the core.
