User Tag List

First 22303132333442 Last

Results 311 to 320 of 471

  1. #311
    Glycerine
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    How, or why, we trust is not the result of a single jungian function. I'm waiting to see if someone claims Fe users go to Burger King, and Fi users go to Wendy's.
    yeah, I have really wacky trust issues because I lived in orphanages for 5 years not because of my Fe.

  2. #312
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    Do you have anything of value to add, or are you just here to take more pot-shots from the sidelines and contribute to an overall tone of distrust and indiscretion in this thread?

    You know my position very well; I certainly don't attribute behaviour to MBTI. I don't need your "winky" emoticons as some sort of indirect reminder. But I do have an interest in examining the functions to see if they correlate at all to communication trends I have noted here over time. Fundamental blocks between people, and I am interested to see how to bridge those gaps.

    Yet I grow tired of your insubstantial posts. You push the same weary rhetoric in every thread you participate in. Most of the time I ignore it, and when you post something of value I try to rep you and encourage your positive participation.

    Not that it makes much difference, it seems.

    But I see what you do. Just because I have the good manners not to point out your poor ones doesn't mean people don't see the "real" you in there.


    So you're going to keep this up, even after last night? The outbursts are going to get even worse? Fine. I will let a mod know why.

    Take care.

  3. #313
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    I'm waiting to see if someone claims Fe users go to Burger King, and Fi users go to Wendy's.
    Hmm. Interesting question, Jaguar. However, I would argue that the opposite is true. Burger King's tagline is "Have it your way," which appeals to the Fi mindset.

    I think you'll find that my position on the matter is logically thorough and completely defensible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Excelent question.

    [hitler]
    Also, Gahndi

  4. #314
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pitseleh View Post
    yeah, I have really wacky trust issues because I lived in orphanages for 5 years not because of my Fe.
    I don't think that's what people are trying to get at. Absolutely, specific issues in specific individuals are a result of a huge host of things going on in that one's life, and Jungian functions or typology play a partial role, at most.

    However, discussing things in functional terms is not to imply that the functions cause the problem, but rather that those who rely strongly on that function perceive the problem(s) in a certain way or ways. I don't trust or distrust due to Fi, but rather my perception of trust appears to be "all or nothing" in emotional terms. I do "degrees of trust" in what I feel are "Te terms." I.e., once I get to "degrees of trust," it doesn't feel "emo" to me any more, but far more cold and rational and distant. It also feels very difficult for me to translate the "Te degrees of trust" into something more "emo," especially if I'm interested in getting closer to someone. It only translates, for me, into "emo" when I fully trust.

    The entire hypothesis may be bogus: whatever I perceive as mapping to Fi or Te may not really consistently or correlatively map. But for now, we have people comparing notes. The idea isn't fleshed out. It certainly isn't "true" one way or the other: it's an investigation with several individuals participating, providing their own perspectives.

    For instance, I suspect that in "Fe terms," it may very well feel more "emo" or less "emo," depending on the degree of trust. (I.e., Fe feels more or less "warm" towards one, given the degree of trust.) If you don't think it does, that's a wonderful data point to include. If you think it does, same thing. Either way, there's probably more detail you could provide from your perspective. It's by sharing perspectives that we all learn.

  5. #315
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I don't think that's what people are trying to get at. Absolutely, specific issues in specific individuals are a result of a huge host of things going on in that one's life, and Jungian functions or typology play a partial role, at most.

    However, discussing things in functional terms is not to imply that the functions cause the problem, but rather that those who rely strongly on that function perceive the problem(s) in a certain way or ways. I don't trust or distrust due to Fi, but rather my perception of trust appears to be "all or nothing" in emotional terms. I do "degrees of trust" in what I feel are "Te terms." I.e., once I get to "degrees of trust," it doesn't feel "emo" to me any more, but far more cold and rational and distant. It also feels very difficult for me to translate the "Te degrees of trust" into something more "emo," especially if I'm interested in getting closer to someone. It only translates, for me, into "emo" when I fully trust.

    The entire hypothesis may be bogus: whatever I perceive as mapping to Fi or Te may not really consistently or correlatively map. But for now, we have people comparing notes. The idea isn't fleshed out. It certainly isn't "true" one way or the other: it's an investigation with several individuals participating, providing their own perspectives.

    For instance, I suspect that in "Fe terms," it may very well feel more "emo" or less "emo," depending on the degree of trust. (I.e., Fe feels more or less "warm" towards one, given the degree of trust.) If you don't think it does, that's a wonderful data point to include. If you think it does, same thing. Either way, there's probably more detail you could provide from your perspective. It's by sharing perspectives that we all learn.
    Here's a Fe dom telling you what they feel (none of these people are Fe doms BTW) and you begin your post, "I don't think that's what people are trying to get at."

    As a Fe dom (a person supposedly more inclined to use this function) she says no this is not the case, I don't default to distrust, she's telling you WHY the issue is occurring and it's dismissed. Once again, why are there so few FJs (and TPs) commenting in this thread when they're supposedly the people who use Fe consciously? Wouldn't they know what they're doing? Wouldn't their opinion hold a little more weight in this matter since they're doing it?

    I feel like I have commented several times over as a Fe dom why people are possibly seeing what they're seeing and I'm yelling over a bunch of people who are like "whatever, let me tell you how you're supposed to function."

    So, a Fe dom says "No I don't have trust issues because I'm Fe, I have them because something happened to me to make me skittish about XYZ" and you just dismiss her response.

    Do I default into distrust rather than trust? No, I feel mostly neutral towards the vast majority of people I met and I certainly don't start from a position of distrust. Unless I have reason to suspect or distrust you I feel neutral towards you.

    OK, so I ask once again am I interpreting this correctly: Now people are hypothesizing that Fe starts from a position of distrust. This gets better!
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

  6. #316
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Here's a Fe dom telling you what they feel (none of these people are Fe doms BTW) and you begin your post, "I don't think that's what people are trying to get at."
    Thank you for responding, Pro!
    As a Fe dom (a person supposedly more inclined to use this function) she says no this is not the case, I don't default to distrust, she's telling you WHY the issue is occurring and it's dismissed. Once again, why are there so few FJs (and TPs) commenting in this thread when they're supposedly the people who use Fe consciously? Wouldn't they know what they're doing? Wouldn't their opinion hold a little more weight in this matter since they're doing it?

    I feel like I have commented several times over as a Fe dom why people are possibly seeing what they're seeing and I'm yelling over a bunch of people who are like "whatever, let me tell you how you're supposed to function."

    So, a Fe dom says "No I don't have trust issues because I'm Fe, I have them because something happened to me to make me skittish about XYZ" and you just dismiss her response.
    To be clear, I don't believe I have dismissed anyone's responses. If you believe I have dismissed any of yours, I'm fully willing to go into more detail w/r to any specific case. I endeavor to be brief, so as not to bore the reader, and it is possible that I may have ignored a point you believe important in the interests of time and space [and superstring theory(!)].
    Do I default into distrust rather than trust? No, I feel mostly neutral towards the vast majority of people I met and I certainly don't start from a position of distrust. Unless I have reason to suspect or distrust you I feel neutral towards you.

    OK, so I ask once again am I interpreting this correctly: Now people are hypothesizing that Fe starts from a position of distrust. This gets better!
    Well, I think it was originally presented here:
    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    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.
    A position of "guardedness."

    Does "guardedness" translate to "neutral" or "distrust," to you? I could see either being valid. I'm interested in how you feel/think about it.

    Personally, I would hypothesize that Fe handles "degrees" of trust, in (please forgive, for lack of a better word) "emo" terms. I.e, one who is dom (or aux?) Fe feels positive or negative trust as more or less "warmth" or "coolness" towards a person. Personally, I "feel" trust as binary. I either "analyze" to figure how much risk I am willing to take, in a cold, calculating way, or I "just trust someone," effectively without reservation.

  7. #317
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    So, a Fe dom says "No I don't have trust issues because I'm Fe, I have them because something happened to me to make me skittish about XYZ" and you just dismiss her response.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pitseleh View Post
    yeah, I have really wacky trust issues because I lived in orphanages for 5 years not because of my Fe.
    I thought the meant it was a joke. Is your experience true Pitseleh?
    "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. #318
    Glycerine
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    I thought the meant it was a joke. Is your experience true Pitseleh?
    yes. That was a true experience but I played it off more as a joke.

  9. #319
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pitseleh View Post
    yeah, I have really wacky trust issues because I lived in orphanages for 5 years not because of my Fe.
    The events of childhood shape us greatly, and what we experience can either deter or encourage the development of certain functions. I read an article in one of the monthly newsletters for Psychological Type where a coach was discussing people who went through unusual childhoods. For example, those who were raised in emotionally or physically abusive homes, alcoholic homes, drug addict homes etc. would have functions highly developed, that could/would be out of the expected norm, since the functional development occurred as a coping mechanism to "surive." This is why so many people don't fit into a perfect MBTI box. The functions simply do not line up, and they know it. But then as InsatiableCuriosity once posted from the MBTI practitioner's handbook, Not everyone is a type.


    By the way, for the 3856th time, the FEELING function is not to be confused with physiological emotions or being "emo." I am going to print up T-shirts for all the forum members:

    FEELING isn't emo!

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    Hmm. Interesting question, Jaguar. However, I would argue that the opposite is true. Burger King's tagline is "Have it your way," which appeals to the Fi mindset.

    I think you'll find that my position on the matter is logically thorough and completely defensible.
    I stand corrected. Lol.

  10. #320
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    A position of "guardedness."

    Does "guardedness" translate to "neutral" or "distrust," to you? I could see either being valid. I'm interested in how you feel/think about it.
    For me, neutral. It's not that I distrust them, because I don't. But, it honestly doesn't even make sense to me to trust someone from the get-go, when you basically know nothing about them. Trust, to me, implies some sort of history, actual 'data', if you will, so that you actually have a reason to hold that trust in them. Over time you've learned more and more about them.

    And to be clear, 'trust' in this case has to do with Belief in their authenticity, and 'solidity' as a person (i.e. tied to consistency). Also, a belief that the Relationship - the entity itself, so not just them as a solo person, but the two of us together - has a solid foundation and stands the test of time, which can only be known by, well, it actually standing the test of time.

    Personally, I would hypothesize that Fe handles "degrees" of trust, in (please forgive, for lack of a better word) "emo" terms. I.e, one who is dom (or aux?) Fe feels positive or negative trust as more or less "warmth" or "coolness" towards a person. Personally, I "feel" trust as binary. I either "analyze" to figure how much risk I am willing to take, in a cold, calculating way, or I "just trust someone," effectively without reservation.
    I'm not sure. The closer I feel to someone, the more I might let them into my world, and the more open I will be w/ regards to various sides of my personality. If I don't feel as close to someone, they won't see as much. It doesn't really have to do with my not trusting them as an individual, sometimes it has more to do with my not sensing that the Relationship itself is mutually beneficial and healthy for both, and that we'll both gain something out of it and grow together. I may just not desire that level of closeness with the person - simple as that. Doesn't necessarily equate to my 'distrusting' them.


    (and btw, I never meant to imply that Fe 'started from a position of distrust'. I merely answered Peacebaby's inquiry w/ regards to myself. It may have been postulated after the fact, though. And, as should be obvious based on my previous posts, I'm not saying 'this is Fe', or the like. This is me.)
    "...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

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