A Few Observations on Fundamental Differences between Types

[Glycerine]

I don't know why everybody has to take this personally.

Who's says I am taking it personally...? Just a honest inquiry. Your response seemed like a deflection to be honest.

You had a hypothesis, we responded with what anecdotal evidence we had, it did not match up with your hypothesis and then since most disagree with you, we're taking it personally.

 

[entropie]

p. 318: "...organizing data by relatedness to ourselves."

p. 318: "Extraverted Feeling is conceptual and analytic. It encourages us to make rational choices, to measure our options for relationship against an external standard of behaviors. What distinguishes this function from Extraverted Thinking is the fact that relatedness involves human beings, not impersonal abstractions."

p. 323: "The customs that constitute our [Extraverted?] Feeling vocabulary are (socially) inherited forms that shape the relationships we establish and maintain. Their meaning is not straightforward but cumulative, becoming apparent as we use them and recognize their effects." (As a Function Attitude, then, Fe would be the ability to see people's behaviors in terms of such customs: as recognizable declarations of different kinds of relationship.)

Proposed definition #1

Hypothesis: Extraverted Feeling is the attitude of viewing everything in terms of what role it defines for people to play in regard to each other. When you say "How are you?" to someone, you are playing a role. It's a role that is intrinsically connected to other people's social roles; you can't play it by yourself. When the other person says, "Oh, not too bad. How about yourself?", they are playing out the complementary role. From an Fe perspective, by definition, every act is a declaration of what role you would like to play in the social setting.

When people speak of someone else's action as an attempt to "define them", they are making a proposition that only has meaning through Fe. For example, if a male boss says to a female employee, "Get me a cup of coffee," from an Fe perspective, this would be an attempt to "define" the employee as subservient and as a waitress or personal caretaker. If she goes along with it, then she is accepting that as her social role. Of course, she has the option to not go along with it. She can negotiate to play a different role, and the only way to do this is to push her boss into modifying his role. She could say, "I'm an engineer, not a waitress." Her boss now must choose roles when he responds. He could insist firmly on the dominant/subservient roles, with something like "I'm the boss here, and I just asked you for a cup of coffee. Now get it," in which case he risks having other people refuse to play along with his desired role, which could leave him playing big boss all by himself, which is no fun. Or he could go along and establish his boss role in a slightly modified form: "Ah, terribly sorry. I'll call the cafeteria staff. What'll you have to drink?"

In this manner, from an Fe standpoint, everyone is continually defining each other and getting defined by each other, as they establish social roles that others implicitly agree to go along with.

Fact is even by not accepting that you are playing a role. Fe is everywhere and it will eat you alive, too

 

[entropie]

Every act a display of loyalty: neutrality not possible

Sometimes you get into situations where some people you know will play along with one role and other people will give you a hard time if you do. For example, if you do things outside of the usual gender roles, some people won't care and others will ostracize you or worse. Or if you wear the traditional clothing of one religion, other people of that religion will treat you with great respect, but people from different religions will often treat you badly. Because of this ever-present possibility, every act you take is a proclamation of which group of people you choose to cast your lot with. From the Fe perspective, everything you do says, "My loyalties are with these people. Deal with it."

There is no escaping the fact that everything you do is such a declaration; no statement, no matter how factual or impersonal, can be truly neutral. Every statement is acting out a role, which some people will play along with and others won't.

.

 

[entropie]

Questions

Is it possible to take an Extraverted Feeling attitude alone on a desert island?

Extraverted feelers are forced to, but they might very well quickly become neurotic. If they had at least one other person to orient to they would probably be ok, or at least stable. Long term effects of isolation would be interesting (possibly look at psychological records of people who have been kept in solitary (some of which would probably be Fes)).

To maintain sanity, they would most likely turn to romantic fantasies (esp. romantic fantasies of being rescued), etc....

This might actually force them to focus on improving themselves.

I am embarassed by how much they know about me

 

[Glycerine]

[MENTION=4109]entropie[/MENTION]: is that addressed to me or just in general?

 

[Mal12345]

Who's says I am taking it personally...? Just a honest inquiry. Your response seemed like a deflection to be honest.

You had a hypothesis, we responded with what anecdotal evidence we had, it did not match up with your hypothesis and then since most disagree with you, we're taking it personally.

What hypothesis?

 

[Mal12345]

The person you're talking about sounds like a retard, (hopefully she's not a poster on this forum or I will be you-know-what)- but it's funny anyway.

I wouldn't be able to handle her screech-owl voice if I worked for her. (Screech owls, by the way, don't screech, Barn owls do. But it wouldn't be an effective analogy to compare her to a Barn owl.)

 

[Venom]

... Fe and math ... IQ.

As a Fe person Ti almost "looks" like a form of intuition to us (not is, but looks). When we sit in math class in high school we literally see the "jump" from 47654765376536 to 67653765675 and without the faculty to understand "necessary and universal, it must follow with universal necessity and no other way" it looks like intuitive magic to us. So we try "uhhhh I guess this number goes there!" some people have great mathuition and there you get hour Infps math geniuses.

I didn't understand math until I studied logic in college. I'm a "smart guy" in many traditional subjects, but until I learned logic away from numbers and then applied it to math... It was either
<> you memorize steps like it's a chemistry class
<> or you poke around and hope your mathuition is right today!

 

[Mal12345]

As a Fe person Ti almost "looks" like a form of intuition to us (not is, but looks). When we sit in math class in high school we literally see the "jump" from 47654765376536 to 67653765675 and without the faculty to understand "necessary and universal, it must follow with universal necessity and no other way" it looks like intuitive magic to us. So we try "uhhhh I guess this number goes there!" some people have great mathuition and there you get hour Infps math geniuses.

I didn't understand math until I studied logic in college. I'm a "smart guy" in many traditional subjects, but until I learned logic away from numbers and then applied it to math... It was either
<> you memorize steps like it's a chemistry class
<> or you poke around and hope your mathuition is right today!

Universal and necessary, i.e., a priori. Even the person who claims "the truth is, there is no truth" is expressing a universal and necessary truth. This person is speaking from an a priori faculty.

The mathuition type of person would have flunked out of my algebra classes. It was methodology all the way. We couldn't just intuit the correct answer, we had to prove our work. Isn't that the basis on which all math teachers grade papers?

I don't think you're seeing Ti necessarily, unless one solved the problem "in head," invisibly to you, but using proper methodology. That's the only way I think it could look like intuition at work. And yet there are the amazing intuitives out there who simply do a quantum leap to the conclusion, and get it right. But their weakness lies in floundering around with the methodology when it is called for.

 

[Venom]

Universal and necessary, i.e., a priori. Even the person who claims "the truth is, there is no truth" is expressing a universal and necessary truth. This person is speaking from an a priori faculty.

The mathuition type of person would have flunked out of my algebra classes. It was methodology all the way. We couldn't just intuit the correct answer, we had to prove our work. Isn't that the basis on which all math teachers grade papers?

I don't think you're seeing Ti necessarily, unless one solved the problem "in head," invisibly to you, but using proper methodology. That's the only way I think it could look like intuition at work. And yet there are the amazing intuitives out there who simply do a quantum leap to the conclusion, and get it right. But their weakness lies in floundering around with the methodology when it is called for.

I couldn't dream up a math problem for you.. I think that's hurting me explanation here. Let me try again.

X^2 - 25 = 0

<> chemistry/cookbook style learning... The Ti challenged would memorize that when we see a problem like this, we root the number and put it into (x + _ ) ( x - __) bubbles. Very visual style... But no real mathuition or logic is helping us really "learn math"
<> mathuition style ...root that number... Cancel the middle.. oof: ... answer!
<> logic based...
X^2 - 25 = 0
it must follow that if we add 25 to both sides, that we haven't changed the fundamental problem. It's analytically equivalent
x^2 = 25
It must follow that if we root both sides, that we haven't changed the fundamental problem. It's by definition still an equivalent problem
x = 5 and -5 there is no other possibility! No mathuition!

Have I butchered and shoehorned this example to fit my opinion? Absolutely. What do you expect from an F? I really just wanted to communicate a potential way of seeing how some people get throu math, but never really learn it even with a normal IQ. Poor mathuition and no logic is a problem when cook book math stops being acceptable!

 

[Mal12345]

I couldn't dream up a math problem for you.. I think that's hurting me explanation here. Let me try again.

X^2 - 25 = 0

<> chemistry/cookbook style learning... The Ti challenged would memorize that when we see a problem like this, we root the number and put it into (x + _ ) ( x - __) bubbles. Very visual style... But no real mathuition or logic is helping us really "learn math"
<> mathuition style ...root that number... Cancel the middle.. oof: ... answer!
<> logic based...
X^2 - 25 = 0
it must follow that if we add 25 to both sides, that we haven't changed the fundamental problem. It's analytically equivalent
x^2 = 25
It must follow that if we root both sides, that we haven't changed the fundamental problem. It's by definition still an equivalent problem
x = 5 and -5 there is no other possibility! No mathuition!

Have I butchered and shoehorned this example to fit my opinion? Absolutely. What do you expect from an F? I really just wanted to communicate a potential way of seeing how some people get throu math, but never really learn it even with a normal IQ. Poor mathuition and no logic is a problem when cook book math stops being acceptable!

You got the wrong answer. I agree that -5^2 = 25; however, the square root of 25 is 5 and not (5,-5). It's not solved like you're trying to find the x-intercepts on a graph. I found your Fe solution to be more logical. It just happens to be the correct method for solving x, because factorization leads to the unfortunate contradiction of square roots of natural numbers always leading to a positive value.

But anyway, I do feel sorry for anybody who has to "get throu" math.

 

[Venom]

You got the wrong answer. I agree that -5^2 = 25; however, the square root of 25 is 5 and not (5,-5). It's not solved like you're trying to find the x-intercepts on a graph. I found your Fe solution to be more logical. It just happens to be the correct method for solving x, because factorization leads to the unfortunate contradiction of square roots of natural numbers always leading to a positive value.

But anyway, I do feel sorry for anybody who has to "get throu" math.

I hope you understood that solving my on the Spot made up problem really wasnt the point ... Did the idea of "actually learning math" vs "getting through math, idiot style" make sense?

Ps: I was and still am one of the aformentioned

 

[Rail Tracer]

I was good at math in school. I prefer algebra, and dislike geometry (this might just be more a female, non-spatial brain characteristic), with calculus being a close second to that, as in not liking. I liked following formulas, and the rules involved in that, still do. Also love chemistry equations, which are similar.

It was harder for me to abstractly understand the math principles behind the math problems. But some of this, I think, was just the way math is taught in school, with kids not really having time or space to think about the concepts behind the math problem. Might not have been due to my more inferior T. I don't think ability to understand and do well at math has as much to do with N/S as it does with T/F. I know lots of S's good at math, if they have T in their top two preferences.


EDIT: I suck at programming. I elected to take statistics, which I really like, over some basic programming class requirement in college. And I think the best programmers are those that are Ti dom.

Studies have shown that, during K-12, females were generally better at some form of language (say, in this case, English.) Males, on the other hand, were better apt at doing math.

I believe most kids were taught mostly deductive reasoning during K-12, it wasn't until Calculus-ish was when I started hearing about inductive reasoning.

I've been able to do math, from Pre-Algebra to Calculus, I just find it excruciating boring. Programming? I can do...just... do enough of it and I might just feel like punching the monitor.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Studies have shown that, during K-12, females were generally better at some form of language (say, in this case, English.) Males, on the other hand, were better apt at doing math.

I was better at math for sure. I didn't like writing/English until I was an adult.

I believe most kids were taught mostly deductive reasoning during K-12, it wasn't until Calculus-ish was when I started hearing about inductive reasoning.

Makes sense. I like to use induction when Ni leads. I prefer deductive reasoning when using Ti, as I imagine I use with most math.

I've been able to do math, from Pre-Algebra to Calculus, I just find it excruciating boring. Programming? I can do...just... do enough of it and I might just feel like punching the monitor.

I hear ya.

 

[entropie]

[MENTION=4109]entropie[/MENTION]: is that addressed to me or just in general?

just in general, dont relate everything onto yourself you evil Fe

Fe is actually a very strong function of my own, tho I feel pretty insecure when running only on Fe, no matter how secure I already am in a thing.

 

[Glycerine]

Haha, I was just curious because it came right after my post.

 

[Ginkgo]

But then, at the same extreme of the Intuitive, there is on the contrary no interest in the immediate present surroundings, and that's also a problem. This person is very disorganized and disoriented in the real world.

I disagree. The perceptive element of intuition deals with the present surroundings, but mostly in the extraverted flavor of intuition.

 

[Stanton Moore]

I'm an 'extreme intuitive' and I have no problem dressing myself or walking without falling down. Guess I must be a sensor after all!

 

[Mal12345]

I hope you understood that solving my on the Spot made up problem really wasnt the point ... Did the idea of "actually learning math" vs "getting through math, idiot style" make sense?

Ps: I was and still am one of the aformentioned

I understand getting through math, but not via your example. It's as if you're trying to make a difficult problem easier, but the problem itself is easier than you make it. Your approach was best, after all (even though you stole the answer from the Ti solution).
I guess you were trying to take a shortcut to get the result?

If you simply follow your own approach to the conclusion, you will get the right answer.

 

[Mal12345]

I'm an 'extreme intuitive' and I have no problem dressing myself or walking without falling down. Guess I must be a sensor after all!

I wasn't talking about you people, or even INFPs in general. That's not even intuition dominant.