User Tag List

First 364445464748 Last

Results 451 to 460 of 471

  1. #451
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Isn't what's referred to as Fe in type theory also something that "makes us human"?
    Yes . . . it is. I can't imagine a world without Fe. But then I never have been particularly fond of corpses.

  2. #452
    Artisan Conquerer Halla74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/so
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Yes . . . it is. I can't imagine a world without Fe. But then I never have been particularly fond of corpses.
    Especially not gerbil corpses.
    They are not at all fun to be around.
    --------------------
    Type Stats:
    MBTI -> (E) 77.14% | (i) 22.86% ; (S) 60% | (n) 40% ; (T) 72.22% | (f) 27.78% ; (P) 51.43% | (j) 48.57%
    BIG 5 -> Extroversion 77% ; Accommodation 60% ; Orderliness 62% ; Emotional Stability 64% ; Open Mindedness 74%

    Quotes:
    "If somebody asks your MBTI type on a first date, run". -Donna Cecilia
    "Enneagram is psychological underpinnings. Cognitive Functions are mental reasoning and perceptional processes. -Sanjuro

  3. #453
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halla74 View Post
    Especially not gerbil corpses.
    They are not at all fun to be around.
    Alex, you're so twisted!
    *heads off to Google images to find nutty gerbil photos*

  4. #454
    Senior Member Sesshoumaru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    INTJ
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Well, if we talk about reasons... I'm not really convinced that the feelings even have a reason... Do something because you "feel like doing it?" this sounds irrational to me! And if you do something to get something else in return, then that would be better accomplished by Te, or something that actually has a reason to act...

    Yeah, I probably am in the wrong place, but feelings seem to be too shallow... Not having a real logic reason to act.
    "Please don't have children, overpopulation is the real fuss of this world"-Composed by me...
    http://badges.mypersonality.info/badge/0/20/205551.png

  5. #455
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    I am wondering if the only method of communication that both Fe and Fi users can accept as authentic inquiry into personal values, behaviours and motivations, is active listening.

    Two examples from thread:

    1.) When I noted protean's anger, I provided an example of misinterpretation, but did not address her feelings. Instead of the example, our interactions would have likely gone differently if I had said, "protean, I hear you saying that function analysis in incomplete, even perhaps irrelevant, in its ability to analyze actions and behaviours, that there are way more factors at play that everyone appears to be forgetting. To me, it looks like the fact that no one is addressing it is making you feel angry." To which a likely reply would have been, "That's right, I do feel angry because I see this misinterpretation all the time on the forum and it's ridiculous." etc. protean would feel heard and understood. Anger diffused, I could have expanded it to note my example, further misunderstanding averted.

    2.) When uumlau did not directly address Pitseleh's comment on her time in an orphanage, anyone who felt he was being insensitive in not addressing it could have responded thusly, "uumlau, your analysis is interesting and I see some stuff in there I agree with and some I'm not sure about. But Pitseleh is an Fe dom and just revealed she's got direct experience with trust issues unrelated to functions. To me, it looks like you might be ignoring the data she's provided you with, and that makes it look like you're not sensitive to her situation." To which uumlau would reply as above, "W/r to the emotional content of the comment, I didn't address it directly because I didn't believe you were asking for sympathy, but simply using the extremity of the example to make your point. " etc. etc. uumlau would thus have an opportunity to clarify, misinterpretations averted, no one jumps to conclusions, discussion carries on.

    So that's my take-away from all of this.

    Active Listening. Online of course you can't do all of the body language stuff, but at least one can try to reflect, clarify, paraphrase or empathetically reflect. Before jumping to conclusions or putting words in someone else's mouth.

    (One of the things I disagree with in active listening though is some of the body language, look them square in the eye stuff. Some folks find that confrontational or intimidating and some won't open up when under what feels like such direct scrutiny.)

    But we can all try to apply the basics:

    Attending

    A: Eye contact
    B: Posture
    C: Gesture

    S.O.L.E.R.

    Five steps to attentive listening

    Squarely face the person
    Open your posture
    Lean towards the sender
    Eye contact maintained
    Relax while attending

    Paraphrasing

    What is it?
    Restating a message, but usually with fewer words. Where possible try and get more to the point.

    Purpose:

    To test your understanding of what you heard.
    To communicate that you are trying to understand what is being said. If you’re successful, paraphrasing indicates that you are following the speaker’s verbal explorations and that you’re beginning to understand the basic message.
    When listening consider asking yourself:

    What is the speaker’s basic thinking message
    What is the person’s basic feeling message
    E.g.
    S: I just don’t understand, one minute she tells me to do this, and the next minute to do that.
    X: She really confuses you.
    S: I really think he is a very nice guy. He’s so thoughtful, sensitive, and kind. He calls me a lot. He’s fun to go out with.
    X: You like him very much, then.

    Clarifying

    What is it: Process of bringing vague material into sharper focus.

    Purpose:

    To untangle unclear or wrong listener interpretation.
    To get more information
    To help the speaker see other points of view
    To identify what was said

    e.g.
    I’m confused, let me try to sate what I think you were trying to say.
    You’ve said so much, let me see if I’ve got it all.

    Perception Checking

    What is it: Request for verification of your perceptions.

    Purpose:

    To give and receive feedback
    To check out your assumptions
    e.g.
    Let me see if I’ve got it straight. You said that you love your children and that they are very important to you. At the same time you can’t stand being with them. Is that what you are saying?

    Summarizing

    What is it: pulling together, organizing, and integrating the major aspects of your dialogue. Pay attention to various themes and emotional overtones. Pout key ideas and feelings into broad statements. DO NOT add new ideas.

    Purpose:

    To give a sense of movement and accomplishment in the exchange
    To establish a basis for further discussion.
    Pull together major ideas, facts, and feelings
    e.g.
    A number of good points have been made about rules for the classroom. Let’s take a few minutes to go over them and write them on the board.
    We’re going all over the map this morning. If I understand you correctly,
    The three major points of the story are…

    Primary Empathy

    What is it: Reflection of content and feelings

    Purpose:

    To show that you’re understanding the speaker’s experience
    To allow the speaker to evaluate his/her feelings after hearing them expressed by someone else
    Basic Formula:
    You feel (state feeling) because (state content)

    e.g.
    Student: I just don’t know how I am going to get all this math homework done before tonight’s game especially since I don’t get most of this stuff you taught us today.

    Teacher: You are feeling frustrated and stuck…You are feeling frustrated and stuck with math you don’t know how to do and you’re worried that you won’t figure it out before you go to the game.

    The main fear for you seems to be fear -- you’re really scared of losing your relationship if things don’t get better.

    It’s upsetting when someone doesn’t let you tell your side of the story.

    Advanced Empathy

    What is it: reflection of content and feeling at a deeper level.

    Purpose: To try and get an understanding of what may be deeper feelings

    e.g.
    I get the sense that you are really angry about what was said, but I am wondering if you also feel a little hurt by it.

    You said that you feel more confident about contacting employers, but I wonder if you also still feel a bit scared.
    Source: Active Listening Skills
    "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

  6. #456
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Fe and Fi might best be thought of as "frames." These frames, in turn, determine how one perceives this, that or the other thing. These different frames can look at the same thing, and talk about the same thing, but what ends up being seen and said sounds completely different, even if, for example, people of both frames are equally moved by an emotional situation.
    Exactly.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    So you get arguments like:

    Fi: Your clock is slower.
    Fe: Pardon me, but it is your clock that is slower, not mine.
    Fi: What are you talking about? It's self evident that your clock is slower, AND you're shorter, too!
    Fe: Who's calling who shorter, pipsqueak?! You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're shorter!
    Fi: *fumes* How can you be so unreasonable?
    Fe: Yeah, right, as if *I* am the one being unreasonable.

    Sound familiar?
    Or, in the case of Protean and I (and friends):

    Fe: But I think A is B.
    Fi: Well, A could just as well be C, so aren't they both essentially groundless?
    Fe: No, A is B!
    Fi: Ummm... you didn't contradict what I said...
    Fe: Yeah, I did!
    Fi: Ummm... no, you didn't...
    Fe: Yeah, I did! Why are you blowing me off?
    Other Fe-user: Why are you being a dick, Fi?
    Other Fi-user: Why do you think he's being a dick? I don't think he's being a dick...
    Fi: I'm not being a dick.
    Other Fe-user: Yeah you are; let me try to prove it!
    Fi: this is stupid...
    Fe: I'm leaving
    Fi: Ummm... you still haven't shown how A couldn't be C just as well as it could be B...

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    There's a way out of it, but it's difficult. Each needs to refigure things out in the others' frame. In special relativity, this is easy, because Einstein (through Lorentz) gave us the formula. We can do the math, and prove that, after all, neither the observer in the Fi frame, nor the one in the Fe frame, is being unreasonable.

    But when dealing with MBTI/Jung, there's no math we can do. We each need to make an effort to bridge the gap ourselves, to put ourselves in the "other frame," if only for a little while. Our only clues come from those in the other frame, to whom we need to listen closely and hopefully we manage to find a way to apply both.

    When we're doing it right, I believe it would sound something like, "How can that be true? How are you perceiving things such that you would come to that conclusion?" as opposed to, "There's no way that can be true."
    It's so funny how you tend to use special relativity to explain perspectival relativity, cuz back in my college days, when I was Nietzsche-crazed, I always found it interesting how, in the mid-to-late 1800s, Nietzsche basically propounded a relativistic perspectival theory, and that, about 50 or so years later, Einstein comes along and does the same thing scientifically.

    It was like the intuition for relativity came first (via Ni, as channeled through Nietzsche), and was then proved rationally (via Ti, as channeled through Einstein).

    It's just really cool/funny to see this all working itself out on this board.



    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia's entry on Perspectivism

    View
    Perspectivism, which takes root in Hume's Empiricism and Kant's Idealism and was further developed by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, rejects objective metaphysics as impossible, and claims that there are no objective evaluations which transcend cultural formations or subjective designations. This means that there are no objective facts, and that there can be no knowledge of a thing in itself. This separates truth from a particular (or single) vantage point, and means that there are no ethical or epistemological absolutes.[1] This leads to constant reassessment of rules (i.e., those of philosophy, the scientific method, etc.) according to the circumstances of individual perspectives.[2] “Truth” is thus formalized as a whole that is created by integrating different vantage points together.

    We always adopt perspectives by default, whether we are aware of it or not, and the individual concepts of existence are defined by the circumstances surrounding that individual. Truth is made by and for individuals and peoples.[3] This view differs from many types of relativism which consider the truth of a particular proposition as something that altogether cannot be evaluated with respect to an "absolute truth", without taking into consideration culture and context.

    This view is outlined in an aphorism from Nietzsche's posthumously-assembled collection Will to Power.

    In so far as the word “knowledge” has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.—“Perspectivism.”

    It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against.[emphasis added] Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.

    – Friedrich Nietzsche; trans. Walter Kaufmann , The Will to Power, §481 (1883-1888)

    Interpretation
    Richard Schacht, in his interpretation of Nietzsche's thought, argues that this can be expanded into a revised form of “objectivity” in relation to “subjectivity” as an aggregate of singular viewpoints that illuminate, for example, a particular idea in seemingly self-contradictory ways but upon closer inspection would reveal a difference of contextuality and of rule by which such an idea (e.g., that is fundamentally perspectival) can be validated. Therefore, it can be said each perspective is subsumed into and, taking account of its individuated context, adds to the overall objective measure of a proposition under examination.[4]
    I had never read it before, nor heard of the man, but I am very much in agreement with Shacht's interpretation, as described here.

    It's also, basically, exactly what you were saying, uumlau.

    A very Ni (read: true) way of looking at things.


  7. #457
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    I've also seen a lot of this, from my perspective:

    Dude 1: Here's an idea--A.
    Dude 2: Okay, my idea is B. Here are the problems I see with A.
    Dude 1: Yeah, but A'.
    Dude 2: Okay, here are the problems that I see with A'. Am I understanding you correctly?
    Dude 1: [no reply and/or no addressing of the counterpoints, dismissal of the whole thing as irrelevant without providing any reasoning]

    Dude 1: Here's an idea--C.


    When that happens, we really don't get at any truths because we're just out to protect our own egos.

  8. #458
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    I've also seen a lot of this, from my perspective:

    Dude 1: Here's an idea--A.
    Dude 2: Okay, my idea is B. Here are the problems I see with A.
    Dude 1: Yeah, but A'.
    Dude 2: Okay, here are the problems that I see with A'. Am I understanding you correctly?
    Dude 1: [no reply and/or no addressing of the counterpoints, dismissal of the whole thing as irrelevant without providing any reasoning]

    Dude 1: Here's an idea--C.


    When that happens, we really don't get at any truths because we're just out to protect our own egos.
    I don't think it's "just out to protect our own egos." I'm sure that comes into play fairly often, but nearly as often (if not more often) I see people just reading things in their own perspectives, and dismissing other points not because to do so would be to acknowledge "defeat", but because the other point doesn't really make sense to them.

    I usually have this experience only if the other person is making a key unspoken assumption that I have not been able to pinpoint. My points get dismissed over and over again, for no obvious reason, but if I should happen to find that unspoken point, I get an "Oh, why didn't you say so in the first place?!" and the conversation is back on track. Both sides have unspoken points which they believe to be "so obvious," they get left unsaid, and the other person's points just don't make sense when taken together with the "obvious" "unspoken" critical point that one assumes in one's own frame of reference.

    Where this seems to jibe with Jungian functions is that people who "share" certain Jungian functions appear to have few problems with the unspoken points and assumptions in each others speech: they seem to have the same frame of reference, somehow.

    That isn't to say that we never get into crosstalk issues with these same people, but that that there is an overall pattern of easy vs. difficult communication that appears to be based on certain shared functions. In fact, the purpose of correlating such phenomena with shared (or unshared) functions is to help determine whether the cause of misunderstanding is "different frames" or "they're only trying to protect their ego" (or whatever other assumption one would make based on one's own frame of reference).

  9. #459
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I don't think it's "just out to protect our own egos." I'm sure that comes into play fairly often, but nearly as often (if not more often) I see people just reading things in their own perspectives, and dismissing other points not because to do so would be to acknowledge "defeat", but because the other point doesn't really make sense to them.

    I usually have this experience only if the other person is making a key unspoken assumption that I have not been able to pinpoint. My points get dismissed over and over again, for no obvious reason, but if I should happen to find that unspoken point, I get an "Oh, why didn't you say so in the first place?!" and the conversation is back on track. Both sides have unspoken points which they believe to be "so obvious," they get left unsaid, and the other person's points just don't make sense when taken together with the "obvious" "unspoken" critical point that one assumes in one's own frame of reference.

    Where this seems to jibe with Jungian functions is that people who "share" certain Jungian functions appear to have few problems with the unspoken points and assumptions in each others speech: they seem to have the same frame of reference, somehow.

    That isn't to say that we never get into crosstalk issues with these same people, but that that there is an overall pattern of easy vs. difficult communication that appears to be based on certain shared functions. In fact, the purpose of correlating such phenomena with shared (or unshared) functions is to help determine whether the cause of misunderstanding is "different frames" or "they're only trying to protect their ego" (or whatever other assumption one would make based on one's own frame of reference).
    +1,000,000

  10. #460
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Where this seems to jibe with Jungian functions is that people who "share" certain Jungian functions appear to have few problems with the unspoken points and assumptions in each others speech: they seem to have the same frame of reference, somehow.

    That isn't to say that we never get into crosstalk issues with these same people, but that that there is an overall pattern of easy vs. difficult communication that appears to be based on certain shared functions. In fact, the purpose of correlating such phenomena with shared (or unshared) functions is to help determine whether the cause of misunderstanding is "different frames" or "they're only trying to protect their ego" (or whatever other assumption one would make based on one's own frame of reference).
    Very well-expressed. And I agree.
    "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

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