User Tag List

First 20282930313240 Last

Results 291 to 300 of 471

  1. #291
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    so i was just brainstorming a little... this could all be wrong, strong Fe users let me know...

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco
    -General misconception of Fe being wholly group centric with little capacity to appreciate and accept individual differences (this rather goes against the NiFe's I know in real life), and conflating Fe to equal group and Fi to equal self when in reality both dom-F's desire harmony and irl, in group settings, I don't honestly see a huge amount of difference regarding this, in terms of desire of all to work together smoothly and without conflict -- to reach a consensus/common understanding.
    first of all thanks for the reply to what i posted, it's great for us both to be chill about this! i see what you mean about posting what you did find interesting - that it didn't get commented on much. that's pretty Ni, lol. looking at the box from outside the box. it's cool. and your point about INTJs tending not to respond to NFJ as much is interesting too. i actually feel "on the same page" as INTJ posts frequently, which has been a surprise to me (no offense to INTJs obviously, we just only share 1 letter) but i have strong tert Te and if an INTJ has strong tert Fi then we share two of our top 3 functions, which is interesting. types that "look" totally different can be more similar cognitively than types that "look" the same (aka share more letters) in some ways.

    anyway, about Fe = group and Fi = individual, i don't really think of it like that either... the way i had understood it was more that:

    Fe is better attuned to interpersonal relations
    • i picture Fe as tending to the outer threads that connect people. awareness of person-to-person dynamics, generally better in groups because is externally oriented, more aware of status and roles within relationships, more attuned to maintaining bonds, better awareness of graduated trust levels, in tune to how to form and preserve a relationship with another person and how people interact with other people both 1-on-1 and in larger systems. works outside -> in to connect with a person.


    Fi is better attuned to intrapersonal relations
    • i picture Fi as tending to the inner threads that make up what people are. awareness of inner belief and feeling, best usage in groups is on a unifying/inspiring level, more aware of subjective values and how they affect a person, more attuned to connection based on ideals, baseline open trust based on focus on intention, in tune with how to build a person up inside and in finding inner commonalities between people. works inside -> out to connect with a person.


    so both work well 1-on-1, but Fe also has more of a group gift because it can deal better with multiple bonds at once (plus Ni gives a good sense of predicting patterns... so FeNi should theoretically be awesome at analyzing people systems.) anyway, Xe swims across the pool while Xi is diving... Fe dom/auxs obviously can delve very deep too, but they generally don't prefer to start deep, which means they are more skilled at dealing with many individuals at once -- just like Ne dom/aux has a preference for attending to many (possibly contradictory) ideas at once. Fe has a more decorous way of approaching an individual whereas Fi delves deep right away, and then seeks to move from inward understanding to forming an outward bond. ooh, that makes sense. Fe moves towards Fi and Fi moves towards Fe. because optimally we use both to the fullest extent, but one is our preference and we tend to use it more/first.



    disclaimer -- just to emphasize, i understand these as generalizations. i would like to get some Fe and Fi differences mapped out though because otherwise the terms "Fe" and "Fi" have no meaning or purpose, and i'd like to better understand both functions. and we all use both Fe and Fi, so we will all demonstrate aspects of both, and they may manifest differently as colored by our other functions.



    to loop back to the point of the thread (lol!) a world without Fe as i've framed it here would lack tending to interpersonal connections. it would be difficult for large groups to organize, which has the interesting effect of both making peace and extended harmony impossible and making large-scale organized war less likely. more like we'd just have groups running around and burning down one another's villages when they periodically got pissed off at one another. without Fe, we wouldn't have any lasting, cohesive institutions like universities. :sad: it'd be hard to make any forward progress, as we'd be caught up in personal squabbles all the time, and we wouldn't have lasting friendships or relationships, either.

    curiously -- i went to a small liberal arts university (possibly my favorite place in the world, but i'll try to assess it neutrally, lol) and it occurs to me now that the student population, in general, seemed to be lacking in Fe strengths. students there are very loyal to their departments but not as much to the institution as a whole, and overall unity/spirit is lacking - which i found really unfortunate. it is strong in Fi strengths, though - very attuned to values and self-development, and multitudes of small groups dedicated to causes.

  2. #292
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    so i was just brainstorming a little... this could all be wrong, strong Fe users let me know...



    first of all thanks for the reply to what i posted, it's great for us both to be chill about this! i see what you mean about posting what you did find interesting - that it didn't get commented on much. that's pretty Ni, lol. looking at the box from outside the box. it's cool. and your point about INTJs tending not to respond to NFJ as much is interesting too. i actually feel "on the same page" as INTJ posts frequently, which has been a surprise to me (no offense to INTJs obviously, we just only share 1 letter) but i have strong tert Te and if an INTJ has strong tert Fi then we share two of our top 3 functions, which is interesting. types that "look" totally different can be more similar cognitively than types that "look" the same (aka share more letters) in some ways.

    anyway, about Fe = group and Fi = individual, i don't really think of it like that either... the way i had understood it was more that:

    Fe is better attuned to interpersonal relations
    • i picture Fe as tending to the outer threads that connect people. awareness of person-to-person dynamics, generally better in groups because is externally oriented, more aware of status and roles within relationships, more attuned to maintaining bonds, better awareness of graduated trust levels, in tune to how to form and preserve a relationship with another person and how people interact with other people both 1-on-1 and in larger systems. works outside -> in to connect with a person.


    Fi is better attuned to intrapersonal relations
    • i picture Fi as tending to the inner threads that make up what people are. awareness of inner belief and feeling, best usage in groups is on a unifying/inspiring level, more aware of subjective values and how they affect a person, more attuned to connection based on ideals, baseline open trust based on focus on intention, in tune with how to build a person up inside and in finding inner commonalities between people. works inside -> out to connect with a person.


    so both work well 1-on-1, but Fe also has more of a group gift because it can deal better with multiple bonds at once (plus Ni gives a good sense of predicting patterns... so FeNi should theoretically be awesome at analyzing people systems.) anyway, Xe swims across the pool while Xi is diving... Fe dom/auxs obviously can delve very deep too, but they generally don't prefer to start deep, which means they are more skilled at dealing with many individuals at once -- just like Ne dom/aux has a preference for attending to many (possibly contradictory) ideas at once. Fe has a more decorous way of approaching an individual whereas Fi delves deep right away, and then seeks to move from inward understanding to forming an outward bond. ooh, that makes sense. Fe moves towards Fi and Fi moves towards Fe. because optimally we use both to the fullest extent, but one is our preference and we tend to use it more/first.



    disclaimer -- just to emphasize, i understand these as generalizations. i would like to get some Fe and Fi differences mapped out though because otherwise the terms "Fe" and "Fi" have no meaning or purpose, and i'd like to better understand both functions. and we all use both Fe and Fi, so we will all demonstrate aspects of both, and they may manifest differently as colored by our other functions.



    to loop back to the point of the thread (lol!) a world without Fe as i've framed it here would lack tending to interpersonal connections. it would be difficult for large groups to organize, which has the interesting effect of both making peace and extended harmony impossible and making large-scale organized war less likely. more like we'd just have groups running around and burning down one another's villages when they periodically got pissed off at one another. without Fe, we wouldn't have any lasting, cohesive institutions like universities. :sad: it'd be hard to make any forward progress, as we'd be caught up in personal squabbles all the time, and we wouldn't have lasting friendships or relationships, either.

    curiously -- i went to a small liberal arts university (possibly my favorite place in the world, but i'll try to assess it neutrally, lol) and it occurs to me now that the student population, in general, seemed to be lacking in Fe strengths. students there are very loyal to their departments but not as much to the institution as a whole, and overall unity/spirit is lacking - which i found really unfortunate. it is strong in Fi strengths, though - very attuned to values and self-development, and multitudes of small groups dedicated to causes.


    Now imagine when we hit our shadow...we enter into a world that the opposite function understands.
    Im out, its been fun

  3. #293
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poki View Post
    Now imagine when we hit our shadow...we enter into a world that the opposite function understands.
    Yup, and it's interesting that you bring this point up

    I'm pretty sure that Jung urged people to integrate their shadows into their personality.

  4. #294
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    Yes, but bear in mind too: My Fi "rules" could quite closely match any Fe ones ... there's quite a lot of natural overlap, commonality, between the two functions.
    I agree with that.

    It can overlap. And sometimes it does. It's just that Fe (by nature) tends to be "collective morality/social expectations" driven by a group -- the group codified idea of how to make the community function on an interpersonal level -- and Fi tends to be individually personalized.

    But the separation everyone keeps drawing is not that distinct. Both impact each other's development. Group rules develop based on the personal morals of the individuals, and personal morals are impacted by the group environment. Neither perspective comes out of the ether all alone.

    And Fe "rules" vary from group to group, place to place ... I generally observe and study them to learn what they are in order to not step on any toes. I value relationships and peaceful coexistence, so therefore I care enough to do this.
    They do. Why not in a way view "communities" as "individuals" with their own core value sets, just as Fi individuals have their own core value sets? It's just that there is an interpersonal aspect among the pieces of the community through which Fe is made manifest, vs in the individual the individual is the basic particle with his or core own value set, and these rules govern individual behavior from that individual's perspective rather than imposed over top.

    Why am I so careful? Because there's this sense I have, that if I break them, inadvertently or not, it will be noted and held against me in the future. My true nature and intent are less relevant it seems. The Fe "brownie points" or "faux pas" I score become data points, that an Fe user seems to use as reference to predict my future behaviour and thus make judgements about my character.
    So does it seem irrational to look for consistency in someone's behavior? I think one definition of mental illness is inconsistency in behavior (either that, or extreme rigidity). Most people are consistent enough that we can even bother to discuss this topic and personality types. And if we were in relationships with someone whose behavior was unpredictable, well, we typically feel like (and are advised to) get out.

    I think looking from the outside-in, "true nature and intent" is hard to perceive. It's based solely on the word of the person who has been acting inconsistently with their statements, and there are many many people in this word who express one intention and do something else. Extreme example: My alcoholic father might have gone around and bemoaned to everyone that "he loved his family" ... and I actually have no doubt that INSIDE he FELT like he loved us and had feelings of commitment toward us... but from my perspective that was bullshit, he never acted on any of it or expressed it in a relevant way that solidified our relationship.

    All because he did not behave in a way that was consistent with his actions and the impact of his actions, nor showed any awareness of how to tie any of it together or admit where it might look inconsistent.


    Fe is based on expressed behavior.
    Fi seems based on unexpressed intent.

    Obviously there are problems with either being used as an ultimate "rule of thumb." We have to use both to somehow "circle in" on what actually is unfolding and who people are.

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    I'm still disappointed that these questions/thoughts were never addressed Only because I think this entire post is awesome and reflects many of the ways I look at things. Well, not only that: the fact that it just kinda fell by the wayside seems to indicate protean wasn't exactly 'heard' or acknowledged/understood either -- there was no interaction/dialogue related to this post (well, that wasn't soon deleted).
    I think it was a remarkable post, and I'm disappointed as well.

    Of course, maybe it was ignored because no one could take any beef with it?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #295
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Agreed.

    What's interesting though is that half of the INTJ posts tend to resonate with me, and I can relate quite well to the ideas presented, and may even agree. I think it's ultimately, as you said, choosing which frame to view through. While I find your frame quite valid and 'true' for what it is, I tend not to put as much weight/focus on it. Perhaps this is what you meant about NiFe? (although it's hard to discern if you even relate at all to NiFe posts... I'm just trying to figure out if NiFe's can 'bridge' to INTJ perspective easier than INTJ's can bridge to INFJ's, or whether it's in fact equal and it's just a matter of opposite reaction/presentation - NiFe's trying to reach out more and NiTe's letting things slip by that they don't particularly find noteworthy to regard )

    Quote Originally Posted by Peacebaby
    *watches the expansion with interest*
    haha...ohh, I don't know that I want to delve into that. To be honest, doing so would just be stating trends in the end, and my whole difficulty with practical application of mbti is that when you are faced with an individual - random Joe - you can't just pick up the Trend and try to apply it to Joe. The trend might be all well and good and true, but it applies to a group in its entirety; it describes tendencies within a specific type or function. To try to fit trends of a group to an isolated, individual data point in the spectrum doesn't work imo. Seems backwards to me. Each data point will add further data/info to the group as a whole, but you can't go in reverse. Well, imo.

    I suppose that's why I am unable/unwilling to say 'Fe does this across the board', and 'Fi does that across the board'. I understand the usefulness and desire by others to do so - again, it's choosing to just step back and view it as a theoretical framework - an organizational structure - and that's fine. I do it too; I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm always categorizing people and things, and I think it's a thing humans do naturally. It's useful when you're painting broad strokes/trends. But it crumbles to pieces the minute you start having people interacting and providing their own input -- case in point on this board. Then all of the inconsistencies start bubbling up, you have Fi people huffing that they don't relate to some of these 'Fi trends' (and rightfully so), you have Fe people huffing that they don't relate to Fe stereotypes... I just find the usefulness of all of it can fade when you start working with an actual person in front of you (as most people don't fit the archetype - the Trend - of their type to a T).

    Quote Originally Posted by Peacebaby
    I personally agree, but the NT's (in general) will tell you that of course there are exceptions, they are not trying to put people in boxes, they are only trying to track and log tendencies, not absolutes.
    Sure. And I get that. But this ties into what I just said.. it's one thing logging and tracking tendencies from afar. But it doesn't work to apply Trends - statistics, if you will -which by their nature apply to the Group as a whole, to an isolated individual.

    I'm reminded of my friends' INTJ boyfriend who was mulling over whether or not he wanted kids. He started looking at statistics to see overall happiness levels of those who had kids vs. those who didn't, presumably to then use that data as a way to determine whether he should have kids or not. That's fine and dandy, but as my friend and I were thinking/saying (well she said, not me ), the fact that, say, 70% of people who had kids were happy, had no bearing on whether he as an individual would be one of those happy ones. Not to mention the flakiness of people answering the questions and the statistical method/questions themselves being off and not really giving fruitful data, the different types of people who would be in the have-kids poll vs. don't-have-kids poll, etc. Well anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights
    so both work well 1-on-1, but Fe also has more of a group gift because it can deal better with multiple bonds at once (plus Ni gives a good sense of predicting patterns... so FeNi should theoretically be awesome at analyzing people systems.) anyway, Xe swims across the pool while Xi is diving... Fe dom/auxs obviously can delve very deep too, but they generally don't prefer to start deep, which means they are more skilled at dealing with many individuals at once -- just like Ne dom/aux has a preference for attending to many (possibly contradictory) ideas at once. Fe has a more decorous way of approaching an individual whereas Fi delves deep right away, and then seeks to move from inward understanding to forming an outward bond. ooh, that makes sense. Fe moves towards Fi and Fi moves towards Fe. because optimally we use both to the fullest extent, but one is our preference and we tend to use it more/first.
    Great post!!! This bit here is particularly interesting/great...I'll have to mull over it a bit, but it seems to make sense.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  6. #296
    Whisky Old & Women Young Speed Gavroche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,143

    Default What would the world do without Fe?

    Excelent question.

    EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

    Chaotic Neutral

    E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

    "I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

    "Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

  7. #297
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    But the separation everyone keeps drawing is not that distinct. Both impact each other's development. Group rules develop based on the personal morals of the individuals, and personal morals are impacted by the group environment. Neither perspective comes out of the ether all alone.
    @bold: agreed

    They do. Why not in a way view "communities" as "individuals" with their own core value sets, just as Fi individuals have their own core value sets? It's just that there is an interpersonal aspect among the pieces of the community through which Fe is made manifest, vs in the individual the individual is the basic particle with his or core own value set, and these rules govern individual behavior from that individual's perspective rather than imposed over top.
    Yes, I do do that - view "communities"' as "individuals" ... I look at each person in a very individual way too, as well as within the particular contexts of their life (family groups, social groups, cultural groups). It's like a series of concentric circles, ripples in a pool of water, with the individual at the center.

    So does it seem irrational to look for consistency in someone's behavior? I think one definition of mental illness is inconsistency in behavior (either that, or extreme rigidity).
    No it's not irrational at all to me ... anyone would be a fool not to observe and learn from the lessons of the past. I guess what I am saying is outlined nicely from skylights post - for me it seems to start from the inside-out; if you are someone I hold in regard, I start from a position of trust and if you violate it, you're out. (Of course, I don't just go trusting everyone; some folks have a bad vibe, and I open up only to a few.)

    What I hear you saying is that Fe users generally start from a position of guardedness that gradually opens if they see consistent behaviour that meets with approval to a certain standard.

    In this scenario, there can feel like there are these series of hoops you must clear in order for some folks to "trust you". Do you think that's accurate?

    I think looking from the outside-in, "true nature and intent" is hard to perceive. It's based solely on the word of the person who has been acting inconsistently with their statements, and there are many many people in this word who express one intention and do something else.
    Hmm yes, I agree.

    Extreme example: My alcoholic father might have gone around and bemoaned to everyone that "he loved his family" ... and I actually have no doubt that INSIDE he FELT like he loved us and had feelings of commitment toward us... but from my perspective that was bullshit, he never acted on any of it or expressed it in a relevant way that solidified our relationship.

    All because he did not behave in a way that was consistent with his actions and the impact of his actions, nor showed any awareness of how to tie any of it together or admit where it might look inconsistent.
    And I agree there has to be an enmeshing; you can say everything that sounds all good and flowery but the rubber has to hit the road sometime (so to speak). You can't just say you love someone - if your actions are in opposition, you risk losing that relationship.

    You know on the forum, it's challenging to deliver those kinds of concrete affirmations, at least I find it so. I rep people, say hello when their walls are accessible, try to build those relationships up. Lots of what I would call "Fe expressions". But even here, there are groups that exist that are kind of challenging to access. And you have less of a voice because you're not "in" that group.

    But what other things would an Fe user find lets them feel comfortable getting to know someone? Is it really just about an Fi user being patient and following the Fe guidelines til they are granted access?

    Sometimes I personally wonder if I should even try to be careful, follow the Fe guidelines. I seem to get tripped by them despite my desire not to offend anyone. I am probably the most group-oriented harmony-loving INFP on this site too, so if I can't seem to navigate without insulting people ... man it's tough. It's easier IRL because there's so much more info for me to draw from (body language, group dynamics, and so forth.)

    Maybe I should just express myself naturally and let the resultant outcome be what it is. If I can't get it right, is it worth trying so hard? (rhetorical question; of course I will always try, but you have no idea how much effort I put into this.)
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  8. #298
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    @bold: agreed

    They do. Why not in a way view "communities" as "individuals" with their own core value sets, just as Fi individuals have their own core value sets? It's just that there is an interpersonal aspect among the pieces of the community through which Fe is made manifest, vs in the individual the individual is the basic particle with his or core own value set, and these rules govern individual behavior from that individual's perspective rather than imposed over top.

    Yes, I do do that - view "communities"' as "individuals" ... I look at each person in a very individual way too, as well as within the particular contexts of their life (family groups, social groups, cultural groups). It's like a series of concentric circles, ripples in a pool of water, with the individual at the center.



    No it's not irrational at all to me ... anyone would be a fool not to observe and learn from the lessons of the past. I guess what I am saying is outlined nicely from skylights post - for me it seems to start from the inside-out; if you are someone I hold in regard, I start from a position of trust and if you violate it, you're out. (Of course, I don't just go trusting everyone; some folks have a bad vibe, and I open up only to a few.)

    What I hear you saying is that Fe users generally start from a position of guardedness that gradually opens if they see consistent behaviour that meets with approval to a certain standard.

    In this scenario, there can feel like there are these series of hoops you must clear in order for some folks to "trust you". Do you think that's accurate?



    Hmm yes, I agree.



    And I agree there has to be an enmeshing; you can say everything that sounds all good and flowery but the rubber has to hit the road sometime (so to speak). You can't just say you love someone - if your actions are in opposition, you risk losing that relationship.

    You know on the forum, it's challenging to deliver those kinds of concrete affirmations, at least I find it so. I rep people, say hello when their walls are accessible, try to build those relationships up. Lots of what I would call "Fe expressions". But even here, there are groups that exist that are kind of challenging to access. And you have less of a voice because you're not "in" that group.

    But what other things would an Fe user find lets them feel comfortable getting to know someone? Is it really just about an Fi user being patient and following the Fe guidelines til they are granted access?

    Sometimes I personally wonder if I should even try to be careful, follow the Fe guidelines. I seem to get tripped by them despite my desire not to offend anyone. I am probably the most group-oriented harmony-loving INFP on this site too, so if I can't seem to navigate without insulting people ... man it's tough. It's easier IRL because there's so much more info for me to draw from (body language, group dynamics, and so forth.)

    Maybe I should just express myself naturally and let the resultant outcome be what it is. If I can't get it right, is it worth trying so hard? (rhetorical question; of course I will always try, but you have no idea how much effort I put into this.)

    I don't think this is about mbti.

  9. #299
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    What I hear you saying is that Fe users generally start from a position of guardedness that gradually opens if they see consistent behaviour that meets with approval to a certain standard.
    For myself, I think this is true - starting from a position of guardedness and, over time, getting to know the person and seeing whether they are consistent in who they are. I don't think I would tie it to their behavior 'meeting a certain standard' though beyond consistency and authenticity to *who they are* -- so I don't have some pre-formed template as to how I think they are or how they should be that they have to line up with. It is unique to them alone, but if there are drastic inconsistencies, then I won't be able to trust in who they are or know who they are.

    In this scenario, there can feel like there are these series of hoops you must clear in order for some folks to "trust you". Do you think that's accurate?
    It's probably fair that others might feel they're jumping through hoops. On my end, I've never been one who is in a rush to dive deeply, I pace things based on the individual and the dynamic/interaction itself. THEY might fully divulge right away, which is one thing, but on my end I won't reciprocate until I have that trust in who they are (see above) and that has been demonstrated over time - rather than just a momentary mood or phase that they are in. On the rare occasion I gain that trust relatively soon; typically with fellow dom-N's. But as a rule of thumb it builds up over time. I will say I don't relate at all to starting from a position of a trust and then booting them out if they violate it. Trust is the end result for me, not the starting point, and of course they might still get booted out later on if they then majorly violate something once the trust has been established. I'd have to then question my whole concept of who they are and basically start from scratch (in some ways).
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  10. #300
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    No it's not irrational at all to me ... anyone would be a fool not to observe and learn from the lessons of the past. I guess what I am saying is outlined nicely from skylights post - for me it seems to start from the inside-out; if you are someone I hold in regard, I start from a position of trust and if you violate it, you're out. (Of course, I don't just go trusting everyone; some folks have a bad vibe, and I open up only to a few.)

    What I hear you saying is that Fe users generally start from a position of guardedness that gradually opens if they see consistent behaviour that meets with approval to a certain standard.

    In this scenario, there can feel like there are these series of hoops you must clear in order for some folks to "trust you". Do you think that's accurate?
    Oh, nice!

    I need time to think about that one (since I'm having to get some work done right now too), and meanwhile will let others respond to it while I'm thinking...
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. What would the world be like without religion?
    By RandomINTP in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 06-30-2017, 11:06 AM
  2. How would the world be without Ni?
    By Lightyear in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-08-2015, 07:37 PM
  3. What Would the World Do Without Fi?
    By Glycerine in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 08-23-2010, 03:23 AM
  4. How would the world be without Ti?
    By Robopop in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-21-2010, 11:10 AM
  5. What would the world be without Sensors/Intuitives?
    By VanillaCat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-30-2008, 06:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO