User Tag List

Page 34 of 77 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 765

Thread: Dear Fe User,

  1. #331
    Active Member Array Poki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    xSTP
    Posts
    9,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Interesting. Well, it is not necessary for you to type me as I have performed this task already.

    I also did not say that Fe thinks that Fi is superior, nor did I say anything was superior. Perhaps I wasn't clear and maybe you can clearly explain how the two types perceive each other. You seem to indicate that you know something about it - or at least enough to disagree with what I am saying.

    Edit: Your type is not provided. I won't attempt to type you, but what would you type yourself as?



    Umm... Ok.
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Inside, we may be accepting but I think it might come across to Fe users as they are being judged by not meeting this ideal. The ideal is considered as superior. In other words, the practical orientation doesn't feel accepted as "good enough."
    Then who considered this ideal superior? The ideal that has been defined as Fi. That was a statement, not a question, which means you believe that its superior. Your type is based off of a test and/or personal judgement, I choose to make my own judgements and base things off of those judgements. I can put you in a type based off of how you are typed and it will be exactly as I see above with IJs in relationships. Its really your choice. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt before I assign the negatives I see in a type to you as a person. I choose not to judge what I dont see. I wont extrapolate in that manner and predict who you are as a single person negatively, until I witness it first hand.

    I indicate to know something about it, I just explained in summary what I know.

    Honestly I may be off base, because of how people will "assign" things to a third party in conversation to see how that other person will respond, sometimes people will choose someone that is actually like that. It is based off a combined knowledge of what I see and what people say and the getting hard off a car is not an INTJ thing, and the "car" was just an example.

  2. #332
    darkened dreams Array labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    IXFP
    Enneagram
    4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INFp None
    Posts
    7,527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    I agree that recognizing and confronting differences, and bridging that communication gap, is important and is also the main reason for mbti being useful in providing a framework for those differences.

    I think what happens though, when trying to turn it into more than it is (i.e. using it to account for every difference between people), is the misapplication of functions. I think this is the main divide when it comes to these sorts of discussions. There are those who *appear* (note I'm saying 'appear', it might not in fact be what they're doing or proposing) to want to apply functions to every single human behavior as well as use them to explain all of the differences/communication gaps. Then there are those who argue against this - want to remove functions from the explanation of ALL differences, etc, and tend to see functions as somewhat limiting when it comes to explaining differences - at least, in real-world applications. I definitely see myself more in the second group.
    Well said. I would agree with this.

    What I have noticed that could be organized in terms of Fi and Fe (or any of the functions) is the natural tendency to amass details, information, and connections within certain types of systems. I have seen Fe users who keep track of a myriad details about other people and how they relate. The stronger Fe users on this board ask people a lot of questions, and they actually remember all the answers. They see an entire system at work amongst all the people.

    My mother and sister are strongly Fi-dominant and they amass information about the internal workings of each individual, including self. Even if there is a larger system socially that defines behaviors, they can see how an individual would need to deviate. They take things on an individual basis for drawing conclusions.

    I don't notice a difference in the presence of values, but perhaps Fe relies on larger, external structures like religious systems or philosophy, whereas Fi will adapt those larger structures in the context of the individual, or perhaps re-weave their own.

    What I relate to is the second category I described in that earlier post that creates four quadrants out of two poles related to Fi and Fe. I am only capable of operating on the individual level, but have a need to operate outside myself. I am interested in external individuals, but not adept at understanding how they interact. Social dynamics and games confuse and stress me so much that I avoided working with groups and restructured my entire career in an attempt to work one-on-one. I really like the multiple vantage points and taking my value judgments with a grain of salt. My goal is to have a realistic understanding of all my limitations. I know other people will pigeon hole me with one of the functions, and it's okay because it's outside my control, but it is more difficult to pigeon-hole self and identify with something that is external and absolute. There is also a lot of excess baggage that comes with each function and if you admit to one connection you are responsible for all the rest of the category, and that can be cumbersome.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grand Admiral Crunch View Post
    It might be fine for some people, but I rather not live in a world where people think it is okay for dolphins to rape each other.

  3. #333
    Administrator Array highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    16,394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _Poki_ View Post
    Then who considered this ideal superior? The ideal that has been defined as Fi. That was a statement, not a question, which means you believe that its superior. Your type is based off of a test and/or personal judgement, I choose to make my own judgements and base things off of those judgements. I can put you in a type based off of how you are typed and it will be exactly as I see above with IJs in relationships. Its really your choice. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt before I assign the negatives I see in a type to you as a person. I choose not to judge what I dont see. I wont extrapolate in that manner and predict who you are as a single person negatively, until I witness it first hand.
    OK I see - that's not what I meant at all. I guess you'd have to consider that statement in the broader context of the other things that I communicated. Maybe I am not explaining myself well. What I meant is that the Fi user is idealistic. They aren't satisfied unless reality matches the ideal. If they think this idealistic point of view is superior - that the internal idealistic view (Fi) is better than the more practical outer directed one (Fe) - that could lead to conflict because the Fe user senses this. So if we anthropomorphize the functions to make a point, Fe may feel Fi is in an ivory tower. Fi may feel that Fe doesn't live up to a grand ideal or expectation. Both see this in each other - that the other feels their point of view is somehow better or superior. That can lead to misunderstanding or conflict.

    As to the fact that I'm making statements - it's how I communicate. I often do that. It's a hypothesis that I'm throwing out there. If you have a better way of explaining things then please do.

    The whole point of thread is to explore how the two functions are different and how those differences can lead to conflict. It isn't to say that one is better than the other. Quite the contrary.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  4. #334
    Filthy Apes! Array Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    So if we anthropomorphize the functions to make a point, Fe may feel Fi is in an ivory tower. Fi may feel that Fe doesn't live up to a grand ideal or expectation. Both see this in each other - that the other feels their point of view is somehow better or superior.
    Fe may feel Fi is being a poor sport sitting out the game in unreasonably self imposed isolation, and Fi may feel Fe has been a wickedly poor sport having brought siege engines to every game we tried to play.

    But I'm not sure that people have that much of a choice when it comes to trying to understand what's going on with other people. That is, when it comes to deciding which view is or isn't superior, an involved individual doesn't get to make that choice: they have to go by what they go by or abdicate decision.

    Who among us actually knew there were at least two seemingly distinct approaches to feeling before we read some Jung? Who among us actually currently believes they can access sufficiently well a decision making style not their own that they don't need a person who more naturally uses that style to give input? And in summary, who among us [something about the future, I ran out of pithy sentences].



    It's cool though, right? Before enlightenment, functional preference was just something to make other people bend to. After enlightenment, functional preference is just something to get good at because not everyone can do what you do and sometimes, even though they won't like it or even really understand it, they'll need to hear that other voice.






    Pffft. Never happen.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  5. #335
    Administrator Array highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    16,394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Annwn View Post
    My point is questioning the dichotomy created by Fi vs. Fe. I can't see them applied in an isolated manner, although people often identify with one or the other as defining their subjective realm of thought. People say "I am a Fe-user" or "I am a Fi-user". I suppose I read it as "interpersonal" and "intrapersonal" intelligences which are not by nature opposing, but two aspects of how a person interacts with the world. Does one have to be a preference or does it change depending on context?

    Edit: I guess the question is, if they are not applied in an isolated way, but are more the result of how the two aspects integrate within a person, is it possible to say "Fe does this", and "Fi does this". Or is Fe completely reinterpreted based on how it interacts with a person's Fi, and vice versa?
    Quote Originally Posted by Annwn View Post
    I think there are even more poles, and I'm not sure if you can categorize the above two for two with Fi and Fe. The relationship between the point of focus being where identity is viewed from, internal or external; and the understanding of the dynamics that exist within a system, either intrapersonal or interpersonal, can take on many forms. I really think this only scratches the surface and there are many, many more poles that could be deconstructed from a person's sense of identity and relationship. Maybe even systems motivated by harmony or conflict could create another pole, because those are subjective core concepts, and both can produce positive results (it's not a positive and negative, but just contrasting systems).
    Quote Originally Posted by Annwn View Post
    I had to admit though, that I'm not completely convinced by the whole MBTI system, so I mostly approach it as theory, and I don't identify strongly with functions or type. I can't really be offended by attacks against a function because I haven't internalized it as an identity. In this context other people always place you in a category, which doesn't bother me too much until it confuses communication beyond repair. I find that whatever type I am assumed to be creates mistaken assumptions about what I communicate. I suppose it isn't that different from real life, it just has a different vocabulary. I suppose this is drifting off-topic, but labeling does increase a sense of existential isolation in me. What if people never actually comprehend each other? That's a hard question to look into too deeply because it strikes at the heart of existence. It feels like we are all trees that fell in the forest and were never heard.

    MBTI is still interesting to me because I don't know of a particularly better system, and there is also a lot to learn about people based on their relationship to the system in terms of how it defines and shapes their view of self, and the resulting relationships and assumptions that result from those identities.
    Quote Originally Posted by Annwn View Post
    Well said. I would agree with this.
    Sorry if I am dissecting your posts but I always find your perspective to be rather interesting. You and Cascade seem to have a very similar views - that there is is more of a fluid spectrum between two poles than a real dichotomy. I notice also that both of you type as INFJ and yet don't feel the type descriptions really fit.

    I'm curious. If you were to say that it doesn't fit you, is it the whole thing that seems too binary or is it that there is not such a dichotomy for Fi/Fe only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Annwn View Post
    What I have noticed that could be organized in terms of Fi and Fe (or any of the functions) is the natural tendency to amass details, information, and connections within certain types of systems. I have seen Fe users who keep track of a myriad details about other people and how they relate. The stronger Fe users on this board ask people a lot of questions, and they actually remember all the answers. They see an entire system at work amongst all the people.

    My mother and sister are strongly Fi-dominant and they amass information about the internal workings of each individual, including self. Even if there is a larger system socially that defines behaviors, they can see how an individual would need to deviate. They take things on an individual basis for drawing conclusions.
    This seems like a very astute observation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Annwn View Post
    I know other people will pigeon hole me with one of the functions, and it's okay because it's outside my control, but it is more difficult to pigeon-hole self and identify with something that is external and absolute. There is also a lot of excess baggage that comes with each function and if you admit to one connection you are responsible for all the rest of the category, and that can be cumbersome.
    It's probably a good topic for another thread - or maybe there is one somewhere. How does this pigeon-holing negatively impact understanding and communication? Are the benefits worth the costs? I think it benefits some people more than others. A stereotypical NF may have less use for it than a stereotypical NT for example.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  6. #336
    Active Member Array Poki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    xSTP
    Posts
    9,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    OK I see - that's not what I meant at all. I guess you'd have to consider that statement in the broader context of the other things that I communicated. Maybe I am not explaining myself well. What I meant is that the Fi user is idealistic. They aren't satisfied unless reality matches the ideal. If they think this idealistic point of view is superior - that the internal idealistic view (Fi) is better than the more practical outer directed one (Fe) - that could lead to conflict because the Fe user senses this. So if we anthropomorphize the functions to make a point, Fe may feel Fi is in an ivory tower. Fi may feel that Fe doesn't live up to a grand ideal or expectation. Both see this in each other - that the other feels their point of view is somehow better or superior. That can lead to misunderstanding or conflict.

    As to the fact that I'm making statements - it's how I communicate. I often do that. It's a hypothesis that I'm throwing out there. If you have a better way of explaining things then please do.

    The whole point of thread is to explore how the two functions are different and how those differences can lead to conflict. It isn't to say that one is better than the other. Quite the contrary.
    Well said. Thanks

  7. #337
    Administrator Array highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    16,394

    Default

    This may have been posted before, but it seems relevant to the discussion.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...23601827072974

    Some choice comments:

    INFJ - To me, this whole values thing is like, "What? I don't get that"

    INFP - When we are talking about being at a party. I don't like being around a lot of people. I don't even know them but I am already judging... I don't know if I can trust these people. There is sense of don't get near me unless I know a bit about you... There is a guard up. I can see where the judgmental aspect comes in because i do have that up.
    INFJ - How long does it take for you to make your mind up about someone? 3 second, 3 hours, 3 weeks?
    INFP - Not long. It's about 20 seconds. It is a feeling right in my gut, in my heart. The words that come to mind is are they authentic, are they real, or are they trying to sell me something or try to manipulate me and I usually say no to that.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  8. #338
    Active Member Array Poki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    xSTP
    Posts
    9,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    This may have been posted before, but it seems relevant to the discussion.

    [YOUTUBE="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7165456003151024181#docid=-8026923601827072974"]INFP and INFJ[/YOUTUBE]
    The Fi feeling thats described in that video is much different then Fi being an idealist. Its more about "feeling" whats around you, not about being an idealist. Shooting for a certain feeling is an idealist, but just feeling whats around you is different. One is goal oriented and one experience oriented within Fi function.

  9. #339
    4x9 Array cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    At what point is it definitely a misapplication of functions?
    For me personally? Not that it's necessarily being done in this thread, but just generally speaking: When people attribute specific behaviors to one and only one function (basically similar to the concept of going... oh, I'm INFJ because I am x, y, and z... when in reality, x, y, and z can be attributes of other types as well, under certain circumstances), and basically the tendency, which is easy on this forum to fall into, to try to explain every psychological phenomena and interpersonal situation by using function-speak and only function-speak.

    This perspective appears to discount the notion of having categories of differences.

    What I find interesting is that in spite of individuals each having individual traits that make each one unique, there are certain psychological categories such that an individual is either one or the other. That the individual, having chosen (for lack of a better word) one path over another (e.g., one function over another), becomes inherently different, in a categorical way, from those who chose the other path.

    Or more plainly, there wouldn't be an endless generation of "Fe/Fi threads" if the differences were not observably real and categorical.

    That said, yes, individuals are unique, and are best understood as individuals with unique traits. But the categorical differences remain useful: it quickly becomes obvious why person A readily understands an idea, and person B does not, or vice versa ... NOT because person A is so smart, or person B is so dumb, but that the thinking of each are in entirely different spaces. And that understanding is what allows one to explain an idea such that both people understand it.
    Look, I am not trying to say there aren't observable categories of people. I mean, even without mbti, I think part of human nature is to categorize and observe trends/patterns. This has been going on for millenia. And without mbti, yeah, I could just as easily create my own categories of personality -- 'arrogant people', 'selfless people', 'materialistic people', 'timid people', 'drama-queens', 'stoic people', 'Republicans', 'Hipsters', 'Nascar people', 'Peta fanatics', whatever. And there will be commonalities among these varying groups, too.

    So totally - there are general categories. I have fun with mbti and absolutely, the 'Blueprint'/caricature of an ESFJ is quite different from the blueprint of an INTP. Obviously. And yes, those differences in priority and approach to the world are real and noticeable. I really don't have a big problem with the categories when it comes to discussing them - and the functions - theoretically. I just don't think the functions and such allign seamlessly when it comes to the individual level, nor that people necessarily HAVE to fall definitively in one place or the other. The places are real/valid in terms of a framework and 'starting point', if you will - a framework of 16 varying possibilities/trends. And conceptually that's very cut and dry and pretty and nice. And useful for discussing differences in personality - absolutely. And certainly some people fall quite solidly in one place. I just think it's dangerous ground when it comes to *applying* all of this in real life -- applying these nice crisp theoretical differences to everyone in real life. That's all. And I think it's especially easy to forget that, again, there's a myriad of other things that impact human behavior and interaction - various neuroses, individual life experiences, etc. So what people may throw off as 'Fe' when trying to showcase what Fe is, theoretically, may instead be codependency due to various things, and have nothing to do with Fe. You know, stuff like that.

    Edit: Explained another way, I DO when I zoom out notice/categorize group trends. And commonalities/definitions of those Group Entities are real/noticeable. That's how the groups differ. But zooming in, you can't necessarily apply the overarching group definitions to the individuals in the same way it defines/applies to the group. I've recently started thinking of mbti more in terms of Bell Curves -- that the majority of any type will fit in that middle section of the curve - and that middle section, if you will, 'defines' the group. But of course there are those on either side of the curve who deviate in some ways from the middle but still can fit into the overarching theme. What this means is that in Practice, applying the theory/cog functions to the Individual isn't a guarantee or even applicable in some cases.

    Phew. Sorry.
    "...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. #340
    Filthy Apes! Array Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    You know what, it seems INFJ and INTJ tend to have different enneagrams. Why is that?

    A quick skim of the data suggests that where types vary according just to Te/Fi and Fe/Ti, the enneagram changes too.

    But I know little about enneagram. I shall wildly posit that it's intended to describe a whole person. If we say then that change in enneagram follows just from the change in kind of judgment, there seems to have been ignored some important qualitative difference.

    That's to say, I have the impression that there is something extra going on in there, but I don't know what it is. It seems to me the analogies between Te and Fe and between Fi and Ti do hold at some level, but that there is something else to say too.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

Page 34 of 77 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The reason behind your user name.
    By Yloh in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 255
    Last Post: 09-27-2016, 12:57 PM
  2. NEW USER
    By swordpath in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 01-30-2011, 01:32 PM
  3. That new user smell...
    By ewomack in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-17-2008, 12:14 PM
  4. hello from user #982738291
    By Electric in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-10-2008, 04:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •