For me, forceful implies "unequivocal" or "non-negotiable" - anything that isn't tentative.
(esp. of a person or argument) Strong and assertive; vigorous and powerful: "she was a forceful personality".
powerful - strong - vigorous - potent - mighty - forcible
It's an adjective that gets applied to me a good deal and I've never taken it to mean that I've been coercive...
Perhaps I've been shitting myself?
I guess it becomes important in this context because we are talking about theories of personality. We are talking about the way the inferior function manifests and whether there are common, recognisable patterns. I have not arrived at an understanding of my faults solely through introspection. Nor do I give undue weight to JCF theory. But when theory supports self-awareness and is reflected back to you from multiple sources, it gains a certain legitimacy and weight that your alternative speculations simply do not have.I have that reaction pretty much anytime someone insists they know what their own pitfalls are. I said it’s available to believe about ourselves to point out that it’s a bold claim and to point out that asserting it doesn’t make it true. I can’t help but suspect, if an INFJ were to say that INFJs have an “unparalled ability to cut through all the extraneous crap and get to the heart of a problem”….you’d have your own opinions about it. But I agree- whether or not it’s true shouldn’t matter to me, and whether or not I agree with it shouldn’t matter to you.
Again, you are telling me about your own frustrations (and the people who share them) rather than anything useful about my type. And you seem to be (wrongly) assuming that those frustrations have universal significance. They do not. Incompatibility is just that. It doesn't reflect inferiority on either side.It seems like claiming it was the equivalent of tunnel vision was a bad choice of expression, it’s more like having blinders on. And even that will probably be met with contention. This frustration I’m talking about- it’s like talking to a kite that thinks it’s still attached to the ground even though the string clearly broke.
That ‘string’ is what’s clear to introverted perceivers (even though it’s exactly what causes our tunnel vision- and fyi that tunnel vision doesn’t give the stability it appears to when it’s based on unconscious impulses, secure stability comes from the experience of actually being on the same page with other people). The problem with NTPs- and it isn’t only to me, there’s a distinct behavior I’ve seen and discussed with others enough to know it’s a thing, and it’s there as sure as there’s an issue which presents specific to NFJ and there’s an issue specific to NTJ- is there’s a shiftyness that flits from one convenient ‘truth’ to another to suit one’s immediate argument/needs/wants. They can be relentlessly pushy with it, picking and choosing details which support their view (and THAT’S what I’m referring to as the tunnel vision) and completely oblivious to how the string (which attaches it to shared reality) has clearly broken. It can be just as astounding to deal with and as anti-dialogical as when Js get dogmatic.
Besides which, what you are describing is nothing like tunnel vision (kind of the opposite) but this could just be about the subjective colour of words again...
You do not seem to understand the flexibility of the NTP mind, what you see as a flaw, we see as a strength. It really is that simple. Rest assured we know when we've broken strings (and we know when we're pulling them too ).
I will stay alert to this in the future though to try to better understand your perspective. (Perhaps you could PM me any exceptional examples?)
If you extrovert this principle still further - into the domain of hippy-trippy random Ne, you might be able to acknowledge how inevitable the "shape-shifting" is for us. You do all your sorting and sifting internally. We don't - we do it out there. With Ne-doms obviously the dialogue is far more out there than for introverted NTPs, who like to maintain some kind of consistency that satisfies Ti.Another problem here is that I forget to do some version of what Kalach does when he ends his post with “/might not be true”. I’ve been arguing some theoretical formula of functions to speculate on some kind of ‘why’ which could very possibly be wrong. I take for granted that’s understood- I’m not in a lecture hall here coming from a place of assumed authority; I’m in a forum having a conversation with others on a level playing field. I don’t even know that my theory about NFJs or NTJs is ‘accurate’ either, as far as “it happens specifically because blah blah inferior blah Ti/Fi blah blah”- only that the behavior consistently presents amongst the types. It’s all just an exercise in defining some abstract concepts about *stuff* that happens in our heads. ‘Function theory’ give us terms to use to talk about abstract concepts but half the time I’m not even confident people in discussions here have similar understandings of what each function is. I take for granted that it also seems to others like the whole purpose of participating here is to bounce our understanding off others to better refine it. And as if it isn’t hard enough to define, ego attachments interfere left and right, so (to me) it should all be taken with a grain of salt. I forget to always explicitly add that disclaimer.
You are conflating "inferior" with "irrational". All perception is irrational, not all perception is inferior.And because it’s so impulsive (which shows externally in how immediate and irrational it is), I do think it pertains to this thread in that it seems largely ruled by unconscious impulses.
I forget that Js don't always appreciate my tongue-in-cheekiness. Even when accompanied by a winky guy.*cough*