User Tag List

First 32404142434452 Last

Results 411 to 420 of 767

Thread: Dear Fe User,

  1. #411
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau
    The primary thing I've noticed - and I've mentioned this before - is that Fe tends to talk in terms of "you" (or other third parties, never "I"), while Fi tends to talk in terms of "I".
    I've gone back referentially and this actually is not accurate ... most Fe users posts are referred to in first person, not third. But, what I do think is the pattern, is that when unsure or questioned, Fi backs off into "hey this is only me talking, I can't speak for everyone else" and Fe to "you aren't really listening to what's being said, otherwise you would get it".

    Thoughts?
    "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

  2. #412
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    I've gone back referentially and this actually is not accurate ... most Fe users posts are referred to in first person, not third. But, what I do think is the pattern, is that when unsure or questioned, Fi backs off into "hey this is only me talking, I can't speak for everyone else" and Fe to "you aren't really listening to what's being said, otherwise you would get it".

    Thoughts?
    Yes, that is likely more accurate than my representation. However, I try to err on the side of caution and avoid the you/I formulations whenever possible.

  3. #413
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I'm not going to respond to your question but here is some of what I think is going on. If you think about how as INTJs, we have this depth and breadth of understanding of topics that interest us - a big part of what we are about is to bring these insights to the table on these areas we are focused on. It helps us to define the expected outcomes, chart the course of action, plan for contingencies, etc. The INFJ is the same except the thing they are focused on is people and human relations. So, when you think about putting people into these boxes, given the depth and breadth of their perspective, they view the system as overly simplified. They like it because it is an interesting data point that can be brought into their overall framework of understanding, but they recognize it is only that - a data point.

    As an INTJ, you no doubt have felt this way in the past about things. That there is this complex system with interrelated parts that are all working together. You've heard people come in (sorry, I will pick on STJs for the moment) and make some direct statements that we should do X and Y and Z. They are focused on a short term goal. They may be very tactical. You are wondering - should be be doing these things at all? Are they missing the bigger picture? Are we forgetting about A, B, and C. You might think their view is overly simplified. This is how the INFJ views MBTI. It's too simplistic. It's not considering all of the complexities, nuances, the bigger picture and the details.

    Edit: To describe it a different way, where I work, we have lots of frameworks and methodologies we can apply for projects. There are people who memorize these things and execute the hell out of them (usually STJs). I find them enormously useful but always think they are flawed. I don't want to waste energy re-inventing the wheel, so I steal very liberally from what has been done before. Still, I want to customize the approach for the client. I use the methodologies and frameworks as more as a data point than a bible on how to execute on something. I'm always wanting to improve them but am relentlessly focused on what works. In a sense, this is how I think an INFJ might approach human relations. The methodologies and framework in the consulting example are comparable to MBTI, Enneagram, etc.

    And in saying these things, I know some of them may feel that they don't like the box I'm putting them in
    Totally!!!!


    Kalach - as to why specifically I think it's 'dangerous'. Firstly, 'dangerous' is a loaded word and I probably should have used another one. Secondly, many are focusing on the phrase 'why I thought it was 'dangerous' to apply mbti to all human behavior and such' and converting that to equal my thinking applying mbti to human behavior is dangerous, period. Not true. Every single little word I include in a sentence is key. If you gloss over a word, it destroys the context/meaning of what I'm trying to say. So in this particular phrase, the word 'ALL' is key. I'm saying it's dangerous to utilize mbti to describe ALL human behavior. And, in the end, I'm guessing many FiTe users would agree with that.

    It really boils down to finding the true causation/root problem of things. So, if one would use mbti/function theory to describe and explain everything going wrong in an interaction, while mbti might be playing a role in some of the problems, it very well may be that the *actual* real problem - the truth of the matter - is that someone has \ narcissistic personality disorder, or has severe social anxiety, or grew up with a mother who was domineering and now has a total aversion/defense mechanism built up against those types and that's therefore impacted his or her interaction style and tolerance level much more than mbti accounts for.... etc. My being pretty unpopular and friendless growing up, and heavy into the maths and sciences and those sorts of things, is going to mean I'm an incredibly different sort of INFJ than some of my other INFJ friends who struggle with different sorts of problems and who also have very different Conflict styles - for example I go incredibly quiet and overanalyze, my INFJ friend escalates towards anger and saying things in the heat of the moment. VERY different, in other words. Those sorts of things.

    Also - functions do not equal behavior. There are trends between function and behavior, but there's a lot of overlap. So it's not a 1:1 mapping of one function = one behavior, another function = opposite behavior.

    So basically - mbti is useful, yes. But it may drastically miss the mark if one would depend on it to explain everything, and in doing so, would begin formulating all of ones' intuitions and interactions with people based on it alone. Might result in starting on a faulty premise. So when I read statements on the forum that begin 'INFJ's do this behavior', 'ISTP's do that', whatever... I immediately think of the ones who don't do that, and aren't represented by what is being said. What I DO find useful in terms of mbti discussion and application is purely cognitive - INFJ's tend to approach/think about these things this way (nothing to do with resultant behavior), Fe as a cognitive process is this, Fe approaching Te's should think of the fact that Te's approach and see the world in such and such way, Ni doms are similar in that they both xyz, when Ni doms interact with Si doms it should be remembered that Si doms instead assimilate information and view the world in abc way. It sounds like Orobas uses mbti in this way in some of her Examples, but in other examples, such as the one I questioned her on, I didn't understand what she was assuming or thinking. I realize I sound really soap-boxy and I apologize.
    "...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

  4. #414
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Synarch View Post
    Cut. To. The. Chase.

    But then again, my empathy is damaged and I'm a selfish prick who hates listening to other people. So, for me getting to the point is the only point. Information exchange. But, relating makes me uncomfortable, though I see the value of it through the other side of the glass where I'm fogging up the window.
    I'm not quite to this point, but I'm getting there with these F threads. How many more hundreds of posts are needed? My eyes glaze over and I just skim, not even really reading. Around and around they go.

    I'd like a thread where everyone summarizes their thoughts and conclusions on the subject. No back-and-forth, just one statement per person.

  5. #415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    Totally!!!!


    Kalach - as to why specifically I think it's 'dangerous'. Firstly, 'dangerous' is a loaded word and I probably should have used another one. Secondly, many are focusing on the phrase 'why I thought it was 'dangerous' to apply mbti to all human behavior and such' and converting that to equal my thinking applying mbti to human behavior is dangerous, period. Not true. Every single little word I include in a sentence is key. If you gloss over a word, it destroys the context/meaning of what I'm trying to say. So in this particular phrase, the word 'ALL' is key. I'm saying it's dangerous to utilize mbti to describe ALL human behavior. And, in the end, I'm guessing many FiTe users would agree with that.
    Just because a logic system cannot be expected to explain everything-does that mean it shouldnt be applied to anything?

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    It really boils down to finding the true causation/root problem of things. So, if one would use mbti/function theory to describe and explain everything going wrong in an interaction, while mbti might be playing a role in some of the problems, it very well may be that the *actual* real problem - the truth of the matter - is that someone has \ narcissistic personality disorder, or has severe social anxiety, or grew up with a mother who was domineering and now has a total aversion/defense mechanism built up against those types and that's therefore impacted his or her interaction style and tolerance level much more than mbti accounts for.... etc. My being pretty unpopular and friendless growing up, and heavy into the maths and sciences and those sorts of things, is going to mean I'm an incredibly different sort of INFJ than some of my other INFJ friends who struggle with different sorts of problems and who also have very different Conflict styles - for example I go incredibly quiet and overanalyze, my INFJ friend escalates towards anger and saying things in the heat of the moment. VERY different, in other words. Those sorts of things.
    So again-just because the system will break down and points and fail to be complete-is that reason to not attempt to use the system at all? Is it okay to push the system to the breaking point? then fill in the gaps with understanding of the particular individual?

    For instance above-each possible issue described sounds overgeneralized and generic to me, yet simultaoneously too isolated to a given individual to help people at large.


    I wrote a huge wall post to address you previous question but-perhaps the gist-

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    even if this behavior of trying to change people has nothing to do with Fe/Fe-dom and ESTJ's (or other types) are just as liable. Or it might be someone who is narcissistic (or another character trait) who projects onto everyone else - who could be any type.

    but do you assume that because I only describe how an Fe dom was being controlling in my example.....that what I meant was that only Fe doms are controlling? You seem to imply this in your initial quote. This is really important.... Just because I didnt talk about other people being controlling doesnt mean I dismissed the possibility.

    (Sorry to seem as if I am picking on you in anyway cascadeco, you bring up really awesome points, thus I am enthusiastic to address them.)

  6. #416
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    Just because a logic system cannot be expected to explain everything-does that mean it shouldnt be applied to anything?



    So again-just because the system will break down and points and fail to be complete-is that reason to not attempt to use the system at all? Is it okay to push the system to the breaking point? then fill in the gaps with understanding of the particular individual?
    Again - I don't think I've said the system shouldn't be applied to anything. ??

    Is it ok for YOU to push the system to the breaking point? Sure, if you want to and you think it helps you, go ahead. For me personally it is not useful in that way.

    For instance above-each possible issue described sounds overgeneralized and generic to me, yet simultaoneously too isolated to a given individual to help people at large.
    Back to one of my first posts, 'people at large' can be categorized and there are patterns/trends in personality. You can lump personalities in various ways. I can look out at the whole world and see these various categories of people. But I'm not interested in helping people at large; I'm not even sure what that means. Maybe that's a difference? How in the world do I help people at large? I'm not addressing large groups of INFJ's or ESFP's, it's always individuals who will be interacted with.

    but do you assume that because I only describe how an Fe dom was being controlling in my example.....that what I meant was that only Fe doms are controlling? You seem to imply this in your initial quote. This is really important.... Just because I didnt talk about other people being controlling doesnt mean I dismissed the possibility.

    (Sorry to seem as if I am picking on you in anyway cascadeco, you bring up really awesome points, thus I am enthusiastic to address them.)
    That's why I was asking you for clarification - because yes, my initial thought was to think you were connecting Control with Fe. I didn't see what the purpose was of bringing that anecdote up, otherwise.

    No worries... I will admit I'm not entirely comfortable having been drawn into the conversation this deeply... lol... I like saying my piece and then that's a wrap ...
    "...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

  7. #417

    Default

    I wanted to highlight this quote from Syn-to be honest it was like a huge breath of fresh air, such a relief to read it. This describes how Ne views the world- patterns connections across huge gaps. The future possibilities and paths crystallize out of those patterns.

    I suspect we are no longer simply dealing with Fe/Fi but instead with Ni-Fe-Ti-Se and Ne-Fi-Te-Si. Every single aspect of how we perceive and judge the world will differ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Synarch View Post
    I see everything that way.

    When I look at attractive women I can see what they look like when they're old. When I look a children I can see how they might grow up to be cool or an embarrassment to their families. When I look down the street I can see the future overlaid like a glittering snow obscuring the present. Sometimes when I look in the mirror I can see my own skull lying in repose.
    The INTJ is correct with respect to Ni-Se-and how important Se is for an Ni user.

    Note how Synarch didnt specify a specific women, specific child, or a specific instance-every single thing he said was free of a specific Se context. It was all generalized Si rules that could be applied to "any" child, "any" women, or "any" instance of Syn looking in the mirror. Based upon the Si generalized rules in his mind-Ne patterns remembered through Si-he can reapply those patterns to any new women, new child or new instance looking in the mirror.

    Of course when he applies this to the new women, he will fill in the details of that particular women in that moment-not having those details, that Se context before hand-but that doesnt invalidate his Ne generalized pattern and confidence in his ability to do make predictions based upon the Ne pattern. Maybe the next time he looks in the mirror-it will be a cracked mirror, so his predicted observations will need to modifed in accordance with what he actually saw-and so on...

  8. #418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    Is it ok for YOU to push the system to the breaking point? Sure, if you want to and you think it helps you, go ahead. For me personally it is not useful in that way.
    This may be a key conclusion actually

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    Back to one of my first posts, 'people at large' can be categorized and there are patterns/trends in personality. You can lump personalities in various ways. But I'm not interested in helping people at large; I'm not even sure what that means. Maybe that's a difference? How in the world do I help people at large? I'm not addressing large groups of INFJ's or ESFP's, it's always individuals who will be interacted with.
    Hmmmm-check out the post about Ne above....I think this is poking at the diff between Ne-Si and Ni-Se. The people at large means apply what i learn to large groups -of individuals-so I MUST have generic things to apply-then remold to the individual. Te builds generic rules, Fi adapts to the individual. Perhaps for an INFJ-Fe builds generic rules and Ti adapts to the individual? I dunno...


    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    That's why I was asking you for clarification - because yes, my initial thought was to think you were connecting Control with Fe. I didn't see what the purpose was of bringing that anecdote up, otherwise.

    .
    It was linking Fe with a specific type of control-but it almost sounded more like you heard it to be that Fe doms are the only ones who control and only do so in a specific way. Since I didnt mention all the other ways I see people being controlled-then what i mentioned was taken...almost as an insistence of a universal truth. This is very much like the Ni-Si issues I sometimes stumble across with the INTJs....*ches cud for a bit*

    Thanks so much cascadeco, I fell saddened that have created angst and stress as I dont seek to be combative-but i do seek to really understand what isnt clear.

  9. #419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    I've gone back referentially and this actually is not accurate ... most Fe users posts are referred to in first person, not third. But, what I do think is the pattern, is that when unsure or questioned, Fi backs off into "hey this is only me talking, I can't speak for everyone else" and Fe to "you aren't really listening to what's being said, otherwise you would get it".

    Thoughts?
    I agree with this-however pay attention to sentence structure. I am such a grammer fail-but note how the sentence structure reduces the usage of "I" in Fe users speech, posts and emails-this is a generic Te style observation of course and individual Fe users may choose to use 'I" much or less often. I note usage of "we" rather than "I" quite often as well. ENFPs use "I" so much that it can be interrpreted as being very self centric.

  10. #420
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    Totally!!!!


    Kalach - as to why specifically I think it's 'dangerous'. Firstly, 'dangerous' is a loaded word and I probably should have used another one. Secondly, many are focusing on the phrase 'why I thought it was 'dangerous' to apply mbti to all human behavior and such' and converting that to equal my thinking applying mbti to human behavior is dangerous, period. Not true. Every single little word I include in a sentence is key. If you gloss over a word, it destroys the context/meaning of what I'm trying to say. So in this particular phrase, the word 'ALL' is key. I'm saying it's dangerous to utilize mbti to describe ALL human behavior. And, in the end, I'm guessing many FiTe users would agree with that.

    It really boils down to finding the true causation/root problem of things. So, if one would use mbti/function theory to describe and explain everything going wrong in an interaction, while mbti might be playing a role in some of the problems, it very well may be that the *actual* real problem - the truth of the matter - is that someone has \ narcissistic personality disorder, or has severe social anxiety, or grew up with a mother who was domineering and now has a total aversion/defense mechanism built up against those types and that's therefore impacted his or her interaction style and tolerance level much more than mbti accounts for.... etc. My being pretty unpopular and friendless growing up, and heavy into the maths and sciences and those sorts of things, is going to mean I'm an incredibly different sort of INFJ than some of my other INFJ friends who struggle with different sorts of problems and who also have very different Conflict styles - for example I go incredibly quiet and overanalyze, my INFJ friend escalates towards anger and saying things in the heat of the moment. VERY different, in other words. Those sorts of things.

    Also - functions do not equal behavior. There are trends between function and behavior, but there's a lot of overlap. So it's not a 1:1 mapping of one function = one behavior, another function = opposite behavior.

    So basically - mbti is useful, yes. But it may drastically miss the mark if one would depend on it to explain everything, and in doing so, would begin formulating all of ones' intuitions and interactions with people based on it alone. Might result in starting on a faulty premise.
    Oh, you Ti types...

    The possibility of faulty premises isn't going to bug me as much because I'm working from, more or less, a checklist. X premise is dumb if there is no way to say it describes the world, Y premise is good if there is some way, and so on.

    One presumes then that Fe has a similar shortcut available. The whole Fi rigmarole of making all the subjective checks to determine the coherence of a given feeling is unnecessary because........ [something]

    So what's a good way of finishing that sentence? I totally don't know because I normally assume other people are without determinate feeling relationships to one another. I mean, I expect people to be coherent, but I also expect them to be discrete.

    But then, you do too, right? Every person is a separate atom in one sense or another, yeah? Fi people assume it's via a feeling that's completely their own; Fe people assume it's their truth. Shall I go out on a limb and start describing that truth? The truth of whatever it is has happened to them, the truth of their pasts, the truth of their responses to things... the individual details of who they are and what they developed into. Or did I just describe Fi and call it Ti?

    So anyway, I don't know how to see the world as a system of relationships because although relationships exist, they're "unique". Which isn't in the least bit true, is it? It's just that I'm not attending to the formal aspects of people related to people. I'm imposing a view of specialness on each person, that they have some significant affective subjective component... and it might be dangerous to suggest too much form inheres in the way people relate... one might start with faulty formalisms..........

    But one doesn't if one knows how.


    Right?
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

Quick Reply Quick Reply

  • :hi:
  • :bye:
  • :)
  • :hug:
  • :happy2:
  • :wubbie:
  • :smile:
  • :D
  • :wink:
  • ;)
  • :newwink:
  • :cry:
  • :(
  • :mad:
  • :dry:
  • :doh:
  • :unsure:
  • :shock:
  • :huh:
  • :shrug:

Similar Threads

  1. The reason behind your user name.
    By Yloh in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 263
    Last Post: 06-11-2017, 07:02 AM
  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
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO