Dear Fe User,

[Kalach]

Well if I did elaborate, I'd be describing an overview of some relatively impersonal aspects of the system as I see it, wouldn't I. And if you have some interest in introvertedly intuitive extroverted thinking, you'd have something to add or discuss or argue against, wouldn't you. The environment would be conducive to that kind of talk and you wouldn't have to create the whole thing anew to make your own points.

As for examples, ^ that's one. Heavy on the abstraction. Meant for mostly Ni consumption.


Either way, if people readily and adequately access their "lesser" functional strengths, duality is meaningless. And is it, as a rule?


(^^and that's (the start of) another example, and that one leans more on using superficial surface data from the outside world to prove that something is "true", aka it's (relatively shallow) extroverted thinking. Wanna join in?)




Thus, as a rule of thumb, if people are doing something their type structure says they usually can't, then they're probably doing something else. Or the environment is helping in some way. And if that environmental influence was sustained enough that the person genuinely does develop unusual strengths and focuses, pffft, whatever, they're a different type now or they're a stressed normal type with some scars--who cares?! If you want to study environmental impact on persons, go for it. If you want to say environmental impact is more substantial than whatever creates Jungian appearances, go for that too. And some other stuff that I don't care about. Freaking extroverts claiming the environment is most important but still not recognising their own bias toward the environment and thus attempting to alter theory of ALL people?! Pffft.




(^^^ Ni, Te AND Fi example, booyah.)

 

[Poki]

Well if I did elaborate, I'd be describing an overview of some relatively impersonal aspects of the system as I see it, wouldn't I. And if you have some interest in introvertedly intuitive extroverted thinking, you'd have something to add or discuss or argue against, wouldn't you. The environment would be conducive to that kind of talk and you wouldn't have to create the whole thing anew to make your own points.

As for examples, ^ that's one. Heavy on the abstraction. Meant for mostly Ni consumption.


Either way, if people readily and adequately access their "lesser" functional strengths, duality is meaningless. And is it, as a rule?


(^^and that's (the start of) another example, and that one leans more on using superficial surface data from the outside world to prove that something is "true", aka it's (relatively shallow) extroverted thinking. Wanna join in?)




Thus, as a rule of thumb, if people are doing something their type structure says they usually can't, then they're probably doing something else. Or the environment is helping in some way. And if that environmental influence was sustained enough that the person genuinely does develop unusual strengths and focuses, pffft, whatever, they're a different type now or they're a stressed normal type with some scars--who cares?! If you want to study environmental impact on persons, go for it. If you want to say environmental impact is more substantial than whatever creates Jungian appearances, go for that too. And some other stuff that I don't care about. Freaking extroverts claiming the environment is most important but still not recognising their own bias toward the environment and thus attempting to alter theory of ALL people?! Pffft.



(^^^ Ni, Te AND Fi example, booyah.)

LMAO. Dont know what it is about it, but I like that last part of that last paragraph. Taken to the extreme it reminds me of one of theose people who write books on how everyone should be extroverted and how much better it is. Then they dont even realize what the hell extroverted is, they just pin it to "social". Pfft, ENTJs, lol. Its like someone who thinks that everyone who is introverted has no personality. Its just that we dont want to talk to you, possibly because we dont like your personality, lol. Its fun to flip things around for the hell of it You do gotta watch though who you do this with, when, and the subject.

 

[Poki]

for example, i have seen a few times in this thread when i have read a Fi user's post that i assumed was a "public broadcast" post - speaking to everyone in an explanatory manner, as myself and many Fi users seem to do. and then a single Fe user has assumed the post was about them, and responded personally, being somewhat upset because they did not align with the personal experience of the Fi user. the miscommunications seem to be that (a) the post is about the Fi user / everyone, not [the Fi user + someone else], so it's an error in the Fi paradigm to interpret it as if it's about someone's relationship with someone else, and (b) that the post is about the Fi user, so it's an error in the Fi paradigm to try to match one's own experience or feelings up with those of the poster.

i'm curious how it looks from the other side? as if a Fi person is targeting a specific individual or a few, and blanketing them with statements that might not apply to them or to everyone, and assuming those statements are universally true?

Here in lies where a part of the miscommunication is. Not where you think either. Take this chance of Fe taking it personal to delve into that person instead of seeing it as a miscommunication gap. Be able to take a step back and understand why they felt that way, responded that way. Try to not take it personally, but use it to dig deeper. To me understanding how to work with people "IS" what it takes to communicate effectively, its like a step in understanding someone before you can actually understand them, if that makes sense. You will more then likely get into the meat of the problem, like it opens a door to reasonings, deeper understanding, instead of just piecing together what people say.

Also understanding differences in poster and other person usually brings up more detail about the situation and leads to a better understanding. Until someone starts name calling *cough Jag* *cough people who get into it with Jag*, lol, just playing. feelings, emotions, redirections, etc. are all part of communication and understanding.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Hope those who celebrate Christmas had a lovely one yesterday.

I've missed too much to fully rejoin the conversation atm, but will share on a couple of points.

My ONE system - my 'ONE' unification of ideas - is a composite of various systems. It's the composite that creates the whole. I'm trying to say that I use a variety of systems and while there's 'truth' in one, in terms of what it's trying to capture, there's untruth in the sense that one individual system isn't factoring in other things. The other things are accounted for in another system/approach. Or in a third, or a fourth.

I agree with this, and the whole concept of relying on multiple models, accompanied with individual assessment tailored to each person, bearing in mind a whole host of other factors, such as life experience, gender, age, upbringing, health - physical, mental, emotional or spiritual etc etc. This is what I think you are expressing here - is that right?

Using MBTI alone is like having a toolkit yet using only one tool out of it to try to work on everything ... what you really need are all the tools in the box and the knowledge, wisdom and sensibility to know when the usage of each is appropriate.

When looking at MBTI though, it's interesting to see how far it will stretch out, how far the usefulness of that particular tool extends. It's not that we've forgotten the other tools or their well-documented uses. Sometimes, although all of the above appears forgotten, I think it's simply assumed obvious in the context of trying to see what typology can "do". Is that helpful to explain why you get warning bells that the premise is unsound?

-----

Listen to the Fe side, PB. They feel like they're the ones bending over backwards to understand/translate.

Hmm yes, I know. I think that although there's misinterpretation that occurs from either perspective, I do think Fe users have a much harder time to "translate" Fi and feel like it makes "sense" in the Fe world. It's not because Fi is more "meaningful": just that any inner workings of the Fi process is not on display IRL, and only sometimes the outer manifestations, thus people with other preferences don't get much "practice" at recognizing Fi, let alone validating it or understanding it. I've been around strong Te and Fe users practically all my life, so have had a lot more exposure to the external workings of each and can (even if imperfectly at times) translate back and forth. As a person who prizes harmony, it's a skill I practice often.

Although I haven't acknowledged my deep appreciation to the Fe users in this (and other) threads, I do hope everyone here knows how much I sincerely care about you and of the effort being put forth. Please accept this as my heart-felt thank you. I try to acknowledge many of you in reps or wall posts, but maybe a public thank you is more meaningful. So, to my Fe friends who have gone on these long journies exploring both Fe and Fi - fidelia, cascadeco, Z Buck McFate, Tallulah, cafe, proteanmix, Jennifer, Tiltyred, Annwn, MacGuffin .. I appreciate you all. Now I risk leaving someone out, so if I have, forgive me. I'll search through my threads and memory-bank to try to ensure no one is forgotten. <3

-----

I think "talking Fi" might be like saying, "Can't I just play heavy metal music really loud and not have anyone complain?!" or "Can't I play Beethoven and not have anyone complain?" Everyone has their tastes. In order to accommodate all tastes, one either needs to express things neutrally (and rather uninterestingly), or state things in several different ways.

However I choose to express my ideas, it is always "me." I'm not sure why others have a difficulty changing modes of expression. Maybe because to me it just feels like different arbitrary protocols, not a requirement for me to change an integral part of myself.

In these threads, Fe users ask many questions ... since I see the effort being made to try to understand, I try to explain, thus it does set up a cycle (in these particular situations) where I am trying more to be understood than to understand myself. In my perhaps flawed logic, to understand me, means you can understand a little slice of Fi, so I try to offer myself kind of unvarnished, if you will - the acoustic version of PB ... and then when (if) each Fi user does this, the larger patterns of Fi will be more heard, more visible, more real to people.

@bold: What I am trying to say, in another way, is that I want to explain Fi by being Fi, by talking in Fi terms, otherwise I am diluting and altering the message. Then, it's not really Fi anymore, not really "me " anymore. To "play" on the music analogy uumlau, you won't really understand heavy metal or one of Beethoven's sonatas until you really listened to each ... me describing the music to you in terms of another style of music is not going to replicate the actual experience of hearing that music for yourself. It's not about expecting everyone to accommodate my music. If a person does try to listen to my music but doesn't like it, I guess one of us has to bend ... either I don't play my music, or I try to make it sound more like yours in order to effectively communicate and have a relationship. Or, I can just keep playing it my way and let the chips fall where they may.

Going even farther on a personal level with the analogy, instead of being appreciated for playing my music (displaying that level of honesty on this forum) I feel especially lately that I have lost credibility points for doing so. In sharing on my terms, I am well aware I risk alienating the very people I want to make connections with. And I know I likely have; this really saddens me. It's totally clear to me that IRL I have to use all of my tools to communicate with people. Here on the forum, I wanted to try a different approach for a while, let the PB song play a little more loudly. But, since I like harmony too much to keep playing my tune and offending the ears of some of the audience, I need to contemplate turning it down for a while.

And hey, this is no pity party on my end. It is what it is, and I accept that.

-----

Just as an aside, I've paid attention to some of your posts and you appear to be somewhat surrounded by ExxJs, and as an IxxP you may feel drowned out. I simply wonder if this is really an Fi/Fe issue, or you just feel like you're not able to assert yourself the way you'd like to IRL.

Well, thanks for paying attention to some of my posts ... I am no wallflower, but it's true there are lots of ExxJ's in my life, and I do a lot of accommodating to more defined personas than my own. If anything, I hoped on the forum I could share the less practical aspects of my thinking and have those thoughts be ... welcomed? IDK, will think about that more. Lots of Fe and Te doms in my family, that's true.

 

[Poki]

In these threads, Fe users ask many questions ... I feel as though they are the ones reaching to understand, so I try to explain, thus it does set up a cycle (in these particular situations) where I am trying more to be understood than to understand. In my perhaps flawed logic, to understand me, means you can understand a little slice of Fi, so I try to offer myself kind of unvarnished ... and then wheneach Fi user does this, the larger patterns of Fi will be more visible, more real to people.

@bold: What I am trying to say, in another way, is that I want to explain Fi by being Fi, by talking in Fi terms, otherwise I am diluting and altering the message. Then, it's not really Fi anymore, not really "me " anymore. To "play" on the music analogy uumlau, you won't really understand heavy metal or one of Beethoven's sonatas until you really listened to each ... me describing the music to you in terms of another style of music is not going to replicate the actual experience of hearing that music for yourself. It's not about expecting everyone to accommodate my music. If a person does try to listen to my music but doesn't like it, I guess one of us has to bend ... either I don't play my music, or I try to make it sound more like yours in order to effectively communicate and have a relationship. Or, I can just keep playing it my way and let the chips fall where they may.

I agree, look at me and what I do to define who I am. As when I define I will use a part of me to define a part of me and things can get lost in translation within myself. Words are words, functions are functions, but no matter what I say or how I respond i am a representative of me which I believe 99.9% is Dom Ti. Even if I say something I want everyone to compare it to myself and make their own judgement based on what they see. Test me if you have to. Thats all I ask of people is to open your eyes and make your own judgements.

Define yourself by who you are and what you do. I am learning to define myself by what impression people get of me, but its uncomfortable for me to do that. But it does make me more comfortable to open up a different side of me as I play with it and push things more then I am used to.

 

[skylights]

(edit.)

Take this chance of Fe taking it personal to delve into that person instead of seeing it as a miscommunication gap. Be able to take a step back and understand why they felt that way, responded that way. Try to not take it personally, but use it to dig deeper. To me understanding how to work with people "IS" what it takes to communicate effectively, its like a step in understanding someone before you can actually understand them, if that makes sense. You will more then likely get into the meat of the problem, like it opens a door to reasonings, deeper understanding, instead of just piecing together what people say.

that's a good point, i agree with you... the point at which a Fe user reaches out and takes things personally is an excellent place to open up and explore that person deeper. and yes, i would do well in general not to take things so personally, lol

though i did also want to try to describe how my Fi(/Te) "space" (to borrow uumlau's metaphor) works, so others could better understand the points that myself and others like me are trying to convey. i would enjoy if others would explain their "spaces" in the same way. it wasn't meant to say that i shouldn't be the one reaching out too... i feel like IRL i am reaching out and molding myself to fit Fe requests very frequently.

To "play" on the music analogy uumlau, you won't really understand heavy metal or one of Beethoven's sonatas until you really listened to each ... me describing the music to you in terms of another style of music is not going to replicate the actual experience of hearing that music for yourself. It's not about expecting everyone to accommodate my music.

ha ha, "play"!

well, and honestly, as a Ne dom, it's really weird to think of myself as not adapting to my external environment. i am constantly changing and adapting, and other people are part of that environment to which i adapt. an easy example - my parents are from a different place than i was born in, and when i travel to their home, we act and speak differently than the way we do here to better communicate with others.

i'm not sure i really am in total agreement with this idea of Fi not being willing to change to suit others. i think there is plenty of space within Fi for the accommodation of everyone, but it's a different sort of accommodation than that of Fe. Fe's accommodation is more active; Fi's is passive. Fe directs a chorus to help everyone sing together beautifully while Fi just lets everyone sing what they want and gather at will. angelic choir and dionysian revelry...

 

[Thalassa]

Well if I did elaborate, I'd be describing an overview of some relatively impersonal aspects of the system as I see it, wouldn't I. And if you have some interest in introvertedly intuitive extroverted thinking, you'd have something to add or discuss or argue against, wouldn't you. The environment would be conducive to that kind of talk and you wouldn't have to create the whole thing anew to make your own points.

As for examples, ^ that's one. Heavy on the abstraction. Meant for mostly Ni consumption.


Either way, if people readily and adequately access their "lesser" functional strengths, duality is meaningless. And is it, as a rule?


(^^and that's (the start of) another example, and that one leans more on using superficial surface data from the outside world to prove that something is "true", aka it's (relatively shallow) extroverted thinking. Wanna join in?)

Well...I think it's pretty obvious that some people can access their lesser functions more than others, and that it's not purely a case of communicating with a person who has those functions as their dom or aux. Some ENFPs appear to use Te more than other ENFPs, and INTJs seem to express their feelings and morality different than INTPs, which would indicate to me that their Fi is more obvious than just a passing thing they access when communicating with FPs.

Duality exists because people who actually have your lesser functions as their dom/aux use those functions more frequently and skillfully, and fall back on them as their default setting. That doesn't mean that I only use Si when talking to SJs or Te when talking to TJs.

I do see what you're saying though...in order to talk to someone who leads with your lesser functions you MUST access those functions in order to communicate clearly, so then you are forced to exercise those functions in a way you might be able to avoid otherwise if you were so inclined.

Which brings me to your next point about environment...this means environment surely would play a role if you were frequently in close contact with people who lead with your lesser functions.

Thus, as a rule of thumb, if people are doing something their type structure says they usually can't, then they're probably doing something else. Or the environment is helping in some way. And if that environmental influence was sustained enough that the person genuinely does develop unusual strengths and focuses, pffft, whatever, they're a different type now or they're a stressed normal type with some scars--who cares?! If you want to study environmental impact on persons, go for it. If you want to say environmental impact is more substantial than whatever creates Jungian appearances, go for that too. And some other stuff that I don't care about. Freaking extroverts claiming the environment is most important but still not recognising their own bias toward the environment and thus attempting to alter theory of ALL people?! Pffft.




(^^^ Ni, Te AND Fi example, booyah.)

I tend to think people are a combination of nature and nurture, not one versus the other.

 

[Kalach]

Well...I think it's pretty obvious that some people can access their lesser functions more than others, and that it's not purely a case of communicating with a person who has those functions as their dom or aux. Some ENFPs appear to use Te more than other ENFPs, and INTJs seem to express their feelings and morality different than INTPs, which would indicate to me that their Fi is more obvious than just a passing thing they access when communicating with FPs.

"The environment" is only FPs? Phew, Fi really does think it owns the world.

Moving right along...

Te is a prestige function. It's manly and cool. If anyone was actually able to impersonally assess the environment and decide what was right and wrong with it and perhaps even discover a procedure for dealing with that lack, then one wouldn't have to hope and pray and get angry. Rule that aspect of being FP out of the "I so haz killer Te" story and we can talk some more.

Furthermore, in my humble estimation it's a deeply anti-Jung thing to suppose lower level functions actually attain any notable prominence without the aid of the higher level functions. ENFPs and any other retard with an extroverted perveiving function in a dominant role USE THE OBJECTIVITY OF THEIR PERCEIVING FUNCTION FAR MORE THAN THE OBJECTIVITY OF Te. "Use". "Rely on". "Are defined by". Etc. It makes far, far more sense to speak of a person who focuses on the outside world as a source of objective imagery and sensation who also tends unconsciously to understand those images and sensations as indicative of an impersonal order to the world.

In general, no one ever accesses a function. People do however behave in ways that highlight aspects of their consciousness. They are sometimes even aware of doing it, and in that sense a function becomes consciously "used". The person may even promote situations and habits that lead to more "use" and grow objectively better at "that function". Observe however, extrovert, that what happens in the environment isn't the whole truth of what happened. Something else did. I don't know what yet, but I suppose it to have something to do with functions being identifiable aspects of a more complex whole.


Using functions is like using your arms. They don't actually do very much if you decide to have them do something independent of what they're attached to.

 

[Thalassa]

"The environment" is only FPs? Phew, Fi really does think it owns the world.

Moving right along...

I meant IF, hypothetically, there were a bunch of FPs around, or a particular FP you interact with constantly, silly.

Te is a prestige function. It's manly and cool. If anyone was actually able to impersonally assess the environment and decide what was right and wrong with it and perhaps even discover a procedure for dealing with that lack, then one wouldn't have to hope and pray and get angry. Rule that aspect of being FP out of the "I so haz killer Te" story and we can talk some more.

Te is very manly, I agree. I like having it around me to remind me to stop being such a spaz.

"I so haz killer Te" should be my new user title.

Furthermore, in my humble estimation it's a deeply anti-Jung thing to suppose lower level functions actually attain any notable prominence without the aid of the higher level functions. ENFPs and any other retard with an extroverted perveiving function in a dominant role USE THE OBJECTIVITY OF THEIR PERCEIVING FUNCTION FAR MORE THAN THE OBJECTIVITY OF Te. "Use". "Rely on". "Are defined by". Etc. It makes far, far more sense to speak of a person who focuses on the outside world as a source of objective imagery and sensation who also tends unconsciously to understand those images and sensations as indicative of an impersonal order to the world.

I saw what you did there. Would you like to explain yourself? That didn't seem very objective.

In general, no one ever accesses a function. People do however behave in ways that highlight aspects of their consciousness. They are sometimes even aware of doing it, and in that sense a function becomes consciously "used". The person may even promote situations and habits that lead to more "use" and grow objectively better at "that function". Observe however, extrovert, that what happens in the environment isn't the whole truth of what happened. Something else did. I don't know what yet, but I suppose it to have something to do with functions being identifiable aspects of a more complex whole.


Using functions is like using your arms. They don't actually do very much if you decide to have them do something independent of what they're attached to.

Since I'm such a retard, you'll have to explain what you mean there. Each function doesn't live in a vaccuum, I get that much, it's not independent of the others, so is filtered through the dominant function.

But then again I know that it's hard for INTJs to have to explain things. Not that you guys are retards or anything.

 

[Kalach]

Since I'm such a retard, you'll have to explain what you mean there.

Can't. I don't have the answer yet. I'm just doing what my kind of introvert does, insisting that there's something behind the appearances. In this case the something is something about what it is to have, as apparently we all do, some kind of foundational pattern to our consciousnesses.

Beneath functions is type dynamics and beneath type dynamics is.... something. And if there is... something, then mix-n-match functions and "having" and "using" and "developing" functions and doing anything called "intense" probably all get some meaning other than what play they currently stand in for.


RARR, I SO AM INTROVERTED!!!!


grrr

 

[sculpting]

Do you become Te lazy IRL? Just wondering since on here our(I's) inner world comes out which is our dominant direction. Do you think that in actual interactions tertiary becomes lazy with Es? Like an ENFJs Se becomes lazy and they stop really picking up on things. They fall back more on Fe. Or Te becomes lazy with ENFP in actual real life interactions?

IRL my ability to use what I perceive to be Te to structure things seems to vary-oddly with my monthly cycle. I may say I can use "more Te" but in reality it may be that when I think Te feels stronger-I am really using less Ne. I dunno. Trying to pin Ne ideas down can be very hard as they ramble on and are constantly in motion-so Te steps in and stabs a pin in them-which given the club like nature-can appear way too absolute and concrete. I couldnt give a damn as, to be honest, I need the pin downed point so that I can make the next Ne leap. However if the goal is to convey an idea, well, total fail as everyone gets pissed because you come across as a know it all.

There is something interesting about the internet though-people think I am very sweet in real life but rude online. A couple of INTPs were saying on another thread that people think they are really nice online but IRL they are assholes. The INTJs come across as very sweet online but IRL, can seem much more abrupt. I once saw someone say we loose upwards of 70% of the content in textual communication due to loss of nonverbal content..

standard theory says Tert functions can be used under a lot of stress and be brutal, they can be developed over time and be a tool for the dom-aux functions or they can be developed due to weird influence from the outside world. Being that I am Ne and that I seek to extend the Te structure to the max-I assume that the above three developmental paths apply to each type-however I havent observed enough Fe doms to say yes or no to your question. If I dont see data to back something up-I dont trust the validity of the idea, even if Ne sees connections.

I am gonna have to find a way around this lazy Te function because I do see it IRL a couple times with ENFPs. It has caught me on this board one time in particular. I wont generally put up with lazy Te. The way it comes out is you believe what you want to believe about me. Very few people can get me to try to get them to believe something else, eventually I give up though because I am not gonna force people to believe anything. Over my life as I become quieter and quieter it has turned into a huge huge key I use to determine if someone knows me or not. I will let them run off in there own direction and it helps me understand who they are. That should change now that I am changing my life to get past what has lead up to me being this introverted.

I would say this is the ENFP projecting their worldview upon you. This is a common enfp thing to do-"I know how you feel", when in reality to try and understand what an Fe user feels is doomed to fail. Be aware you are setting a trap though-by not contridicting what the enfp says in the moment, -it speaks to your agreement. Thus the enfp will move forward assuming the initial foundation was true. You are expecting them to be able to infer what is going on in your head-your motives. It isnt what we do.

Now if you correct the enfp-and they keep insisting, well that is a bit rude of them-there is something a little funny going on with respect to what they are hearing. As Marm said-when young we can be more convinced we are correct about emo.

 

[sculpting]

This is different then what I was thinking of when I said lazy Te. I was referring to just accepting "groupings" as truth. More like a static framework as justification. Maybe this is just a part of sloppy. I dont know.

Completely lost yet?

I wanted to start with this part-the groupings are sounding very NeTe-vague generalities. This is okay because, somewhat problematically, the TRUTH is the underlying Fi connection. Oops, you dont have Fi huh? Hehehe, what a mess. The undelying Fi is what is REAL and that Fi is the ultimate reality of the individual-not the sloppy box. The sloppy box is kinda like using the automatic pilot to line you up for a plane landing. Once you are in close-80% of the way there, you manual take over the controls and fine tune the landing based on all the micro signals received from Fi.

I bet the ENTPs take the opposite approach-Their automatic pilot is Fe and then once in close they optimize the landing with Ti in social situations. Do the INFJs do this as well?

Could it not be a reluctance, but more of a not being Ne. With me, half truths I tend to agree with in regard to myself. Kinda like a reluctance(lazy) to dig any deeper by following the path. It takes alot for me to seperate half truths into full truths or work out the details. I have to follow the path and figure out the seperation, possibly short sighted Ti.

I'd say not short sighted-but TiSe. You are working with the immediate reality. If you dig too far down a given path, the probability of accuracy declines greatly? Thus instead you explore and context shift around the immediate paths? I totally understand how sloppy Ne could mess that up as the paths are poorly defined generalities.

I do follow paths at times, though sometimes I do get lazy and just follow others. I dont really think about expanding in a Ne way though, its not reluctance, its just not even close to the normal paths I take. This is why I mentioned being quieter and letting people believe what they want, because I lose follow up with a convo or sometimes dont want to follow up with clarification. May be a good thing or a bad thing, I dont know. I dont always want people to know who I really am, especially the things I consider a good quality. One of the co-workers I IM with alot we tend to revisit things alot and this causes us to dig deeper or possibly expand into other areas in relation to areas we have already explored. It may be her building her framework and lattice. In IM and being Ti I tend to just follow and play with thoughts, contexts, shifting, etc. I dont do this quite as much in person though. The shifts can be pretty entertaining sometimes and go in directions that lead to OMGOSH. To me this is playing(alot of it turns into things that are generally inappropriate, stupid context shifting always ends up in the gutter). I build my frameworks after the fact.

This is a really beautiful insight into how TiSeNi flow together. Thanks for sharing this Poki, I really appreciate it. The bold part-totally cool-it is the lesson I wish folks could grasp. The idea that it is okay to take a different path-not my path-but that's okay. There is no one correct path.

Framework building after the fact? Yikes...!

Ni is more about the concept as opposed to the detail. So expanding on the concept will be much different then expanding on the detail. I work with an ENTP and he really likes to dig into the detail, while I enjoy digging into the concept. He made a comment one time about me basically rewriting a framework because I dissected it, figured out the concept and shifted that concept over to what we were doing. He would find the details of the framework and bring it into our project as a whole. For him our project is designed of patterns and frameworks, to me I build the framework off of understanding the concepts of other frameworks. We work completely different. I will understand what we are doing and create the concept and piece together the details as I work in a very sloppy approach that I streamline and rewrite as I go. Alot of rewriting, debugging, logging, etc. Kinda like you sloppily painting the details and restructuring on the fly. I lose pretty much everyone if they watch me work as I bounce around. My code ends up with alot of fail overs where I seperate paths at key points and I kinda create switches to move between the paths, eventually killing off the old path and using the new improved path. Is this what NFPs do with NeFiTe? Like an internal rewiring, that affects things externally as well.

I would describe more as an internal remolding-not rewireing. Hehehe! Te vs Ti methinks. Since we are feeding off of external data-the data is "correct" and "real" due to the tert Te. What changes is either our structure we have built or we re-understand a part of our analysis thus the data fits in a new way. With Fi this is far, far harder-like your Ti frameowkr being built after the fact, my Fi is built after the fact and can take a pretty long time to rebuild.

(The ENTP comparison was beautiful btw!)

 

[Poki]

IRL my ability to use what I perceive to be Te to structure things seems to vary-oddly with my monthly cycle. I may say I can use "more Te" but in reality it may be that when I think Te feels stronger-I am really using less Ne. I dunno. Trying to pin Ne ideas down can be very hard as they ramble on and are constantly in motion-so Te steps in and stabs a pin in them-which given the club like nature-can appear way too absolute and concrete. I couldnt give a damn as, to be honest, I need the pin downed point so that I can make the next Ne leap. However if the goal is to convey an idea, well, total fail as everyone gets pissed because you come across as a know it all.

There is something interesting about the internet though-people think I am very sweet in real life but rude online. A couple of INTPs were saying on another thread that people think they are really nice online but IRL they are assholes. The INTJs come across as very sweet online but IRL, can seem much more abrupt. I once saw someone say we loose upwards of 70% of the content in textual communication due to loss of nonverbal content..

standard theory says Tert functions can be used under a lot of stress and be brutal, they can be developed over time and be a tool for the dom-aux functions or they can be developed due to weird influence from the outside world. Being that I am Ne and that I seek to extend the Te structure to the max-I assume that the above three developmental paths apply to each type-however I havent observed enough Fe doms to say yes or no to your question. If I dont see data to back something up-I dont trust the validity of the idea, even if Ne sees connections.

I try to limit my asshole-s-ness online. It can be fun and entertaining as long as you dont take it as far as an "ENTP" . ESTPs have the smoothness to know when and where online. They can sense things much better and bend and flex, where "ENTP" gets a huge kick which an SFP could play along with in a "Nicki Minaj" style if they so wanted to. NFPs though are different, you have to play with them differently. Its fun to play with INTJs because underneath I know they are serious people, though they "can" have fun. Give em a beer, or wait awhile and it will eventually show up. Its like me turning to my ESTP niece and saying, well I cant be boring all the time as I take a curb, cut across the grass so I can make a right hand turn at a backed up intersection. I can easily be way to laid back and boring to others, especially when I have no desire to engage. Had no reason to, it just seemed like something fun to do. For me reasonings are fun to play with, see what you can and cant get away with. Unlike an IJ my mind doesnt wander with Si or Ni when I talk to people in person, I follow them, just about every word. The easiest way to throw off an IJ is to weave in something they like. At that point they hear what they want, ignore everything else, and become blind to half of what they hear. Then are clueless to why things happened the way they did. Its not fare, I have to willingly become blind after the fact....try and figure that one out. Anyway as much blasting as I do to IJs I personally have no problems with them in regard to Me and Them. I get along with them really good, Fe at its best...or worst

I would say this is the ENFP projecting their worldview upon you. This is a common enfp thing to do-"I know how you feel", when in reality to try and understand what an Fe user feels is doomed to fail. Be aware you are setting a trap though-by not contridicting what the enfp says in the moment, -it speaks to your agreement. Thus the enfp will move forward assuming the initial foundation was true. You are expecting them to be able to infer what is going on in your head-your motives. It isnt what we do.

Now if you correct the enfp-and they keep insisting, well that is a bit rude of them-there is something a little funny going on with respect to what they are hearing. As Marm said-when young we can be more convinced we are correct about emo.

Yes, my predicament, and my screw up

 

[sculpting]

hehehe, was looking for a plot for poki but found this:

Me=Fi
You =Fe
Us=a very confused place where we are missing 80% of the messages the other intends to communicate.

 

[uumlau]

When looking at MBTI though, it's interesting to see how far it will stretch out, how far the usefulness of that particular tool extends. It's not that we've forgotten the other tools or their well-documented uses. Sometimes, although all of the above appears forgotten, I think it's simply assumed obvious in the context of trying to see what typology can "do". Is that helpful to explain why you get warning bells that the premise is unsound?

FYI, everyone: pay attention to the bolded. We are, after all, on a typology forum. To respond to any sort of typological statement with the "but typology does not (or cannot) explain everything" platitude means nothing without an additional explanation of how and why, in whatever particular case, typology is insufficient or limited, beyond just saying that people are unique or whatever other catch-all explanation for dismissing typology first occurs to one's mind. There is no way to prove, one way or another, whether a specific application of typology is true or false; at most, a discussion can shed light on which applications of typology appear to be useful or not so useful.

In these threads, Fe users ask many questions ... since I see the effort being made to try to understand, I try to explain, thus it does set up a cycle (in these particular situations) where I am trying more to be understood than to understand myself. In my perhaps flawed logic, to understand me, means you can understand a little slice of Fi, so I try to offer myself kind of unvarnished, if you will - the acoustic version of PB ... and then when (if) each Fi user does this, the larger patterns of Fi will be more heard, more visible, more real to people.

@bold: What I am trying to say, in another way, is that I want to explain Fi by being Fi, by talking in Fi terms, otherwise I am diluting and altering the message. Then, it's not really Fi anymore, not really "me " anymore. To "play" on the music analogy uumlau, you won't really understand heavy metal or one of Beethoven's sonatas until you really listened to each ... me describing the music to you in terms of another style of music is not going to replicate the actual experience of hearing that music for yourself. It's not about expecting everyone to accommodate my music. If a person does try to listen to my music but doesn't like it, I guess one of us has to bend ... either I don't play my music, or I try to make it sound more like yours in order to effectively communicate and have a relationship. Or, I can just keep playing it my way and let the chips fall where they may.

Going even farther on a personal level with the analogy, instead of being appreciated for playing my music (displaying that level of honesty on this forum) I feel especially lately that I have lost credibility points for doing so. In sharing on my terms, I am well aware I risk alienating the very people I want to make connections with. And I know I likely have; this really saddens me. It's totally clear to me that IRL I have to use all of my tools to communicate with people. Here on the forum, I wanted to try a different approach for a while, let the PB song play a little more loudly. But, since I like harmony too much to keep playing my tune and offending the ears of some of the audience, I need to contemplate turning it down for a while.

And hey, and this is no pity party on my end. It is what it is, and I accept that.

A part of what happens with respect to translating between contexts/frames/spaces is that some things don't translate well or at all. Moreover, some information is even extraneous, filler material, patterns of speech or thought that enter the communication, but are not actually relevant to any particular message.

Here is a song with a very Fi message. I'm going to post three versions of it, here. I believe every version has the core message, but each is in a different frame, with extraneous elements that don't translate.

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW88EvEAd0k"]Pop version (Joshua Tree)[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejc8a5wW8QI"]Gospel Version (from Rattle and Hum)[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpgXT2n0YWg"]Salsa Version (Coco Freeman)[/YOUTUBE]

The core Fi message is along the lines of, "There's something here I need to know/understand/figure-out/discover. I will know what it is when I find it, but beyond that, I cannot say." It is a statement of the nature of faith, that in spite of belief, there is something missing. That in spite of overcoming many challenges, of having known love/desire, knowing both good and evil, it is still missing ... but it is out there to be found.

Note that in the music I've posted, as good as it is, there are elements that repulse some others, including other Fi users. Heck, an Fi-dom salsa friend of mine doesn't like the salsa version, because she hates pop music turned into salsa, and that makes it not really salsa in her mind. (But, proving her Fi-frame-of-mind, she'll then say, "Oh, yeah, you like this song, so it's OK if you dance it with me.")

So part of the challenge of communicating ideas, especially complex ideas, especially abstract ideas that cannot be stated in concrete terms, is to figure out how to convey the idea such that the proper "resonance" is achieved in the other person. That resonance isn't an exact replication of the original idea. Even when it's a concrete idea, different people will "store" it differently, e.g., Ni storing "meaning" while Si often recalls the exact words. But the idea is conveyed and understood after a fashion.

There is another aspect of this resonance: especially in Fi terms, what one will hear in return for one's own song is a very different song. You still hear your own song in there, but now it carries two hearts instead of one. The Joshua Tree version is the original, but someone else heard the rather hidden "gospel" tones of the song, and brought those out: it's the same song, sung by a different heart, emphasizing what that heart heard and resonates, and adding that heart's own characteristic touch. Similarly, the salsa version takes the original and seamlessly adds a salsa beat, a Spanish translation, and some spectacular brass that takes the original question of faith and turns it into a celebration of life.

Same song, same Fi. Entering new hearts reveals new understandings.

So part of the reason I explicate this is to give the Fe side of the equation an idea of how Fi interacts in its own terms. Those who identify with Fe (plus Ni) in this thread will most likely find my explanation to resonate more with Ni than Fe.

The other part of the reason I explicate this is that in order to convey an idea, it isn't enough to just be authentic and express it as one understands it oneself: some people will get it right away, but most won't. One must also listen to the hearts of others and express it in a way that properly resonates in those hearts as well as one's own.

So back to my heavy metal music analogy, one's own heart might be heavy metal, but perhaps the other heart needs to hear a power ballad version of what you have to say, and not "Highway to Hell" version. No, it's not the "complete truth," but if one evokes enough of the truth, the other can use that to find the rest, or even truths that you don't see, yet.

And finally, in order to properly listen and translate, one eventually needs to be able to hear all of the different versions in their own terms without being repulsed by some element or another. By instantly rejecting some aspect of a message, one actually changes the message one hears into a message very different from the one sent. Ironically, yes, I am on the one hand saying that one should frame the message so that others don't instantly reject it, but on the other hand that one should strive to not instantly reject others' messages: these points are complimentary, however, not contradictory.

 

[sculpting]

okay, totally dorking out:

Imagine these plots above are representative of each personality type.
Notice that in each plot, there are areas that are very dark-these are areas where there is a very high certainty that, for our purposes, knoweldge is "correct" or "right".
Now imagine an ENFP as being (2,1,0). Imagine an INFJ as being (2,1,1).
When you overlay the plots, notice neither individual will feel comfortable-as the areas where each is highly certain, dont overlap cleanly. Where one is highly certain the other is totally uncertain.

Since we cant see these probabilities in advance for anyone but ourselves-we must assume other people share the same probability areas that we do. Projection of our worldview/probibility of being correct onto them. As an ENFP I would assume everyone sees the world as I do-from a (2,1,0) perspective.

If the other person continues to insist they are correct-in what appears to be an impossible way from our perception-we will retreat into defensive behavior-as our worldview is totally correct to us. Why cant they see how wrong/incorrect they are?

In reality both plots/worldviews are legitimate and each individual can be trusted in their particular worldview.

There is not one path. There is not one worldview. If we can bring ourselves to trust those who see into other worldviews-we can learn enormously and complement our knowledge-but we have to be willing to legitimately recognize they have a right to their worldview first.

If our worldview is value-linked....Fi or Fe...we have to be willing to step away from the innate feeling of offense felt-and try and to gain neutrality and recognize we are offending ourselves-by forcing our worldview onto someone it was never meant to fit. We-not the other person-are the problem.

 

[Poki]

hehehe, was looking for a plot for poki but found this:

Me=Fi
You =Fe
Us=a very confused place where we are missing 80% of the messages the other intends to communicate.

Yet alot of whats not intended is picked up Or maybe this is the NiSe and NeSi.

Honestly in this regard I fall back on their Fi. It shows how they feel, its concrete and real. It shows who they are, else they use Te. People will argue that Fi is selfish, but if you learn to work with that selfishness, its like feeding a killer whale fish so it does tricks, then Te is not heavily used in a defensive manner. To me Fi is real, Te seems to be what is real to you. This is part of my live and let live attitude, its this aaceptance of what is. Either I am worth it or I am not. I dont actually pay any attention to what I am worth, at the end of the day decisions are what decides worth. A baseball that a book says is worth $500 is not worth it until anyone actually decides to buy it. Until then its nothing more then potential energy.

edit: of course there is a time when you question if what you bought is worth it after you buy it, or if the value sinks 10 years down the road, or you try to decide before hand if it really is worth the potential energy. Different people worry about different areas. THey usually do focus on one more then the others though when it comes to worth.

 

[Poki]

If our worldview is value-linked....Fi or Fe...we have to be willing to step away from the innate feeling of offense felt-and try and to gain neutrality and recognize we are offending ourselves-by forcing our worldview onto someone it was never meant to fit. We-not the other person-are the problem.

That makes sense, still dont like one person taking the blame when 2 people are involved. One of my values that coincide with yours it seems as you blame yourself solely

 

[sculpting]

incidentally - i find preserving external harmony when i'm not aligned really taxing. it's akin to hearing a fire alarm blaring and not doing anything about it... it makes me fidgety and uncomfortable and guilty-feeling and eventually exhausted.


that's why i think all this Fe-Fi breakdown is so important - to those of you who are questioning why we need these Fi and Fe threads at all. because we need to know the spaces we're dealing with before we can hope to properly translate.

so it really feels a bit ridiculous ("ridiculous" not meant to carry a connotation of offense - the word just captures the feeling of... well, silliness) to have people keep pointing out that maybe everything can't be attributed to cognitive functions. that's a given in the Fi paradigm (at least as i know it and have seen in others thus far). it's almost insulting, to keep getting told that we're overapplying. i work so hard to deconstruct boxes people put around one another ALL THE TIME irl that it's awful to have the accusation thrown at me online that i would do such a thing. and it seems illogical, too, to be told that it's overanalysis. since when has expounding upon and refining ideas become bad? this confrontation/warning that's been raised a few times by Fe users - i've seen similar posts from proteanmix, cascadeco, jaguar, and fidelia - all seem so counterintuitive to a Fi/Te approach.

and maybe that explains, a bit, why it's so frustrating to some when others point out that it sounds like we're overapplying, or accusing anyone specifically of being a certain way because of the way we tend to make large-scale grouping characteristics. i think it's a communication gap because the Fi users are leaving out the "assumed" information that we do acknowledge that there will always be exceptions to any trend and that we don't mean to blanket others, just to group for better understanding.

The above in bold resonates very strongly with me.

Thus, as a rule of thumb, if people are doing something their type structure says they usually can't, then they're probably doing something else. Or the environment is helping in some way. And if that environmental influence was sustained enough that the person genuinely does develop unusual strengths and focuses, pffft, whatever, they're a different type now or they're a stressed normal type with some scars--who cares?! If you want to study environmental impact on persons, go for it. If you want to say environmental impact is more substantial than whatever creates Jungian appearances, go for that too. And some other stuff that I don't care about. Freaking extroverts claiming the environment is most important but still not recognising their own bias toward the environment and thus attempting to alter theory of ALL people?! Pffft.

But types live in the external world. Thus, for an extrovert, heheheh, the final person is what is of value interest. Excellent point regarding introverts being less influenced btw. I'd say Ni doms are by far the least influenced by externalities, thus would Ni doms would be by far the most likely to project "normal" functional development on their extroverted peers? An interesting question: Do Ni doms always develop in the expected functional order? If not....then what influences them? something internal? *chews cud*

When looking at MBTI though, it's interesting to see how far it will stretch out, how far the usefulness of that particular tool extends. It's not that we've forgotten the other tools or their well-documented uses. Sometimes, although all of the above appears forgotten, I think it's simply assumed obvious in the context of trying to see what typology can "do". Is that helpful to explain why you get warning bells that the premise is unsound?

Going even farther on a personal level with the analogy, instead of being appreciated for playing my music (displaying that level of honesty on this forum) I feel especially lately that I have lost credibility points for doing so. In sharing on my terms, I am well aware I risk alienating the very people I want to make connections with. And I know I likely have; this really saddens me.

^^The parts in bold resonate very deeply with me as well. Specifically, this thread...has been very...painful for me at points. In the past, accusations that I am broken because of how I analyze the world, have been very painful for me. However the polite thing to do is not to dump that pain at others, or respond defensively in anger, thus I try and be more analytical-even if it means detaching from the emotions of others-and thus not validating their discomfort at the pressure being applied upon them in the thread. I am deeply saddened that I might have hurt or made others offended-as I care very much for them-but the issue isnt about me-it is about seeing others go through this same issue, the same pattern being repeated again and again. So I would sacrifice my relationships to potentially forge a new understanding, in that others are not hurt in the future.

 

[Poki]

It sucks to see an ENFP whos worldview has overtaken their internal view and lost that balance. Oro, the way I see this fix is when your ENTP suggested that you meld(I dont remember your exact word, maybe anneal) what you saw as Fi and Te to strengthen yourself which allows you to bring it back into balance. I dont know how I would define your Fi and Te that you merged. Fi sounded like a halfway point between what I see as Fi and Si. *edited*: I am lost though as to Te, maybe that one stood alone and pushed you back to Ne openness and experience.

I am lost as to what ENFPs go through the world doing. It seems they go through the world upbeat, get burned, settle with a worldview, and then get stuck in a rut based on this worldview. At that point control things to make it through this world view to avoid getting stepped on again and aim for the lesser of 2 evils. Not realizing that "evil" has been defined by their "worldview", which is based on experience. More will come as I try and figure you people out

edit: All along the way they try their hardest to keep that upbeat, no matter how beat down they get. Avoiding this melding of Fi and Te and trying to balance each individually maybe.