[Fe] Fe and Selflessness: a misconception

[greenfairy]

Just some rather unrefined thoughts about what I believe is a misconception of Fe. I don't think "putting others before the self" is the most accurate way of looking at Fe behavior. It can take that form, but there is something more fundamental. I think this idea is related to a Christian doctrine of selflessness which we as a culture have absorbed. There is another way of looking at it which is not selfless and which is still Fe.

Being selfless is not sustainable. It has no foundation. It will eventually collapse in on itself and produce the opposite of what it is trying to accomplish. You see, if you don't love yourself you will be continually seeking it from someone else. Including God. Then whatever relationships you form in which you are giving without regard to self will involve need and the expectation and unconscious hope that they will return what you give. To truly be selfless you must not resent the other for failing to love you and failing to be grateful. Because you love you and you are grateful. You have to have a surplus of love in order to effectively give it away. If you are in a position of neediness you can never be truly selfless. You can never be selfless if you are expecting something in return for your actions.

The answer is not to deny your needs, but to fulfill them yourself. When you are happy and secure the decision to give to others will be free and you will be happy with it. To be selfless you must be selfish first.

Jesus said "Love your neighbor as yourself", which implies that you have to love yourself as much as you intend to love your neighbor, otherwise you have nothing to measure it by.

So I propose the idea of self transcendence as opposed to selflessness. Separation is an illusion. Love is an awareness of connectedness, of seeing the self in the other. It is a perception of collective wellbeing and a desire to promote that wellbeing, founded upon empathy. Fe is continually aware of the self as being collective, which is why it can readily focus on the needs of others and assume that the self's needs will be taken care of. There is no perception of separation.

Fe is collective and Fi is individual. I can talk more about Fi later.
[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] [MENTION=20856]grey_beard[/MENTION] [MENTION=25879]Jade Heart[/MENTION] [MENTION=22264]jscrothers[/MENTION]

 

[PeaceBaby]

Being selfless is not sustainable. It has no foundation. It will eventually collapse in on itself and produce the opposite of what it is trying to accomplish. You see, if you don't love yourself you will be continually seeking it from someone else. Including God. Then whatever relationships you form in which you are giving without regard to self will involve need and the expectation and unconscious hope that they will return what you give. To truly be selfless you must not resent the other for failing to love you and failing to be grateful. Because you love you and you are grateful. You have to have a surplus of love in order to effectively give it away. If you are in a position of neediness you can never be truly selfless. You can never be selfless if you are expecting something in return for your actions.

This is well said. I will be looking forward to more expansion of the idea from you.

 

[Forever]

Great talk by the way Greenfairy, love comes first to yourself most definitely. I don't know if it fully explains the nature of Fe but for the Fe user this could definitely be appropriate. When I get was a missionary the president always told me to forget about myself and go to work and serve others. But I was depressed, felt empty, didn't have any spiritual reserve or experiences directly tied to God in my life to lift me and boost me.

Love certainly has to come from yourself at first, when I started applying that, I became naturally altruistic in some circumstances while seeing others who so followed their religion didn't bother to move an inch.

And what you do to love yourself is different and individual to each person and sometimes religion wouldn't want that upon you, some Christian sects are more liberal but whatever.

No one wants to regret looking at their life looking back to a time where they said did I feel or gain anything from this life? Death will meet you alone and whatever may come after that will take place.

 

[greenfairy]

So once again, this applies to Fi to but in a different way; it's just a way Fe can be which is not a traditional idea of putting others first and selflessness. I post this because there are a lot of questions on tests about it, and I think that's not the best way to test for Fe. They don't really discuss collective wellbeing and interdependence as much, or seeing the self in the other, which I think is more fundamental.

Great talk by the way Greenfairy, love comes first to yourself most definitely. I don't know if it fully explains the nature of Fe but for the Fe user this could definitely be appropriate. When I get was a missionary the president always told me to forget about myself and go to work and serve others. But I was depressed, felt empty, didn't have any spiritual reserve or experiences directly tied to God in my life to lift me and boost me.

Love certainly has to come from yourself at first, when I started applying that, I became naturally altruistic in some circumstances while seeing others who so followed their religion didn't bother to move an inch.

And what you do to love yourself is different and individual to each person and sometimes religion wouldn't want that upon you, some Christian sects are more liberal but whatever.

No one wants to regret looking at their life looking back to a time where they said did I feel or gain anything from this life? Death will meet you alone and whatever may come after that will take place.

Yes. I came to this realization when I was taking care of my grandmother briefly when she broke her arm. I chose to do it, to learn about selflessness, because it's not really in my nature. I kept reminding myself of that fact. I was happy to do it, but I resented it the whole time. I had days when I was ready to snap, and had to do my regular meditation and yoga to keep sane and peaceful. I was also going through a breakup at the time. I kinda did snap one day and told them I had to take a break and then told them what was going on with me, and that helped us all a lot. I learned I had to take time for me to find inner peace before I could give time and energy to others. I had to release the guilt that went along with it. But the days when I put myself first and got to a place where I felt I had extra to give were the days I was able to do my job really well and be patient and considerate and helpful without resentment.

 

[Duffy]

So I propose the idea of self transcendence as opposed to selflessness. Separation is an illusion. Love is an awareness of connectedness, of seeing the self in the other. It is a perception of collective wellbeing and a desire to promote that wellbeing, founded upon empathy. Fe is continually aware of the self as being collective, which is why it can readily focus on the needs of others and assume that the self's needs will be taken care of. There is no perception of separation.

I was reading some text by A.H. Almaas a while back. Your realization is strikingly similar to this concept:

Point 4 – Holy Origin

What does this mean? Each Holy Idea, as we have seen, presents a particular implicit truth about reality, a certain facet of how reality is and how it appears. If we perceive reality as it is without any filters, we will see these nine Ideas as different manifestations of it. They are inseparable, since they are nine different aspects, expressions, or elements of the same experience. The facet of reality that is highlighted by Holy Origin is the perception and understanding that all appearance (meaning whatever can be experienced and perceived—inner or outer) is nothing but the manifestation of Being, the Holy Truth..........See also p186. This inseparability of appearance from its Source is the perception elucidated by Holy Origin. This is a very deep understanding which is not easy to apprehend. Without it, we can have experiences of our essential nature which actually feel separate from who we are. For instance, we might have a profound experience of the presence of boundless compassion or of indestructible strength, but actually feel that we are having an experience of something other than who and what we are. Essence can feel like something that comes and goes, rather than seeing that our perception of our inner nature is what comes and goes because that perception is not clear. Holy Origin is the knowledge that you and your essence are not two distinct things. Essence is the nature of the soul. We might believe that the Divine, or God, is something outside ourselves, residing somewhere else, which we are either connected to or not. Believing that you can be connected or disconnected from God means that you don’t understand the Idea of Holy Origin.

Facets of Unity, p. 185

Though I don't know if I agree with your statement that Fe is aware of the self as being a collective. It sounds bias in a sort of attachment style object relations sorta way. Sorry if I'm diluting MBTI talk with another framework.

 

[Eilonwy]

Well said.

I was wondering if all Fs relate to others in a personal manner, but, since Fe is pointed outward, it ends up with an illusion of selflessness. Perceiving itself as selfless might actually do Fe a disservice by keeping the Fe-user from healthy development in the ways you pointed out.

The way you stated this concept resonated with me. It will be interesting to explore it further.

 

[Bush]

Pretty much.

Say that an orientation toward Fe involves focusing on the needs, desires, and beliefs of others -- some definition along those lines. Placing too much emphasis on that orientation would cause burnout as the individual doesn't act upon or even notice their own needs.

"Selflessness," or unselfishness, isn't the right word here. That gives it way too much credit. Ignoring one's own needs in order to meet those of others is people-pleasing. And when you're doing that, you're still placing a strict partition between yourself and others.

Self-transcendence is a much better term than selflessness. It implies that there's a system, but also that the individual is a part of it.

The goal should be self-transendence, reached through life balance and the integration of many different perspectives. And, I guess, through developing inferior functions if you believe in that sort of thing etc.

Let's see if I can come up with a stupid analogy.

If you're a kidney, then functioning as part of the body is self-transendence. Along with other things, you help regulate blood pressure, the effects of which of course propagate virtually everywhere else in the body. You work with the bone marrow to generate red blood cells which are also shoved out there in every direction. You affect the whole thing, and the whole thing affects you.

From a holistic perspective, there's not a meaningful separation between the kidney and everything else -- the body itself is healthy or hurting as a function of what is going on inside.

Oh, and also you as a kidney will die if you're cut out of the body and placed on a shelf. Or something.

 

[grey_beard]

Just some rather unrefined thoughts about what I believe is a misconception of Fe. I don't think "putting others before the self" is the most accurate way of looking at Fe behavior. It can take that form, but there is something more fundamental. I think this idea is related to a Christian doctrine of selflessness which we as a culture have absorbed. There is another way of looking at it which is not selfless and which is still Fe.

Being selfless is not sustainable. It has no foundation. It will eventually collapse in on itself and produce the opposite of what it is trying to accomplish. You see, if you don't love yourself you will be continually seeking it from someone else. Including God. Then whatever relationships you form in which you are giving without regard to self will involve need and the expectation and unconscious hope that they will return what you give. To truly be selfless you must not resent the other for failing to love you and failing to be grateful. Because you love you and you are grateful. You have to have a surplus of love in order to effectively give it away. If you are in a position of neediness you can never be truly selfless. You can never be selfless if you are expecting something in return for your actions.

The answer is not to deny your needs, but to fulfill them yourself. When you are happy and secure the decision to give to others will be free and you will be happy with it. To be selfless you must be selfish first.

Jesus said "Love your neighbor as yourself", which implies that you have to love yourself as much as you intend to love your neighbor, otherwise you have nothing to measure it by.

So I propose the idea of self transcendence as opposed to selflessness. Separation is an illusion. Love is an awareness of connectedness, of seeing the self in the other. It is a perception of collective wellbeing and a desire to promote that wellbeing, founded upon empathy. Fe is continually aware of the self as being collective, which is why it can readily focus on the needs of others and assume that the self's needs will be taken care of. There is no perception of separation.

Fe is collective and Fi is individual. I can talk more about Fi later.
[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] [MENTION=20856]grey_beard[/MENTION] [MENTION=25879]Jade Heart[/MENTION] [MENTION=22264]jscrothers[/MENTION]

Several points. (For your consideration: I'm not trying to start any Fi flamewars.)

Then whatever relationships you form in which you are giving without regard to self will involve need and the expectation and unconscious hope that they will return what you give. To truly be selfless you must not resent the other for failing to love you and failing to be grateful.

I suspect that many make a mistake on this point, "tit-for-tat" in a good way, "I gave you and so you {implicitly} owe me"...this can cause confusion in dating, e.g. the "Nice Guy" syndrome, who thinks that when he does what he's told women want, then how come it doesn't work and all that..? But that's a thread hijack, so I'll just mention it and move on.

Jesus said "Love your neighbor as yourself", which implies that you have to love yourself as much as you intend to love your neighbor, otherwise you have nothing to measure it by.

...that is true, but there are a few follow-on points if you invoke Jesus. One is that when he mentioned "...love your neighbor as yourself" someone replied, "...and who is my neighbor?"
giving an opportunity to the parable of the Good Samaritan. The point of that parable was obvious to members of that culture, but not so much today: the Jews and the Samaritans did *not* get along; maybe not as bad as the Hatfields and McCoys, but certainly not apt to go out of their way to help each other. The Good Samaritan, on the other hand, did more for the man he found senseless after a mugging, than many of his own people: first aid, taking him to shelter, paying out of his own pocket for the man's care. Imagine what would happen, for example, if INFPs starting doing this for ESTJs or something...
The other point is more personal, and perhaps I'm laying my self open to all kinds of vile calumny here, but I noticed that one of the things people do more for themselves, than for others, is to make excuses or rationalizations for their *bad* behaviour, while taking full credit for their good behaviour. Just think how much more...peaceable, polite, less fractious, the world would be, if people's first instinct would be to excuse the minor transgressions of their neighbor, and to (at least *notice out loud*) their kind gestures. Say, in traffic?

And then, note that Jesus also called us to be kind *to* the ungrateful and the ungodly (insert your favorite boogey-men here)..."for your heavenly Father sends rain on the just and the unjust."

So I propose the idea of self transcendence as opposed to selflessness. Separation is an illusion. Love is an awareness of connectedness, of seeing the self in the other. It is a perception of collective wellbeing and a desire to promote that wellbeing, founded upon empathy. Fe is continually aware of the self as being collective, which is why it can readily focus on the needs of others and assume that the self's needs will be taken care of. There is no perception of separation.

Fe is collective and Fi is individual.

Whoops! *NOW* you've gone and stepped in it, [MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION].

I agree that Fe is collective and Fi is individual: and, yes, for many items, it is true that promoting collective wellbeing, will encompass, incorporate, include the well-being of the many: such as, just economic policies will likely make sure there are fewer in abject want. But, for a number of items, ... or shall I say, *traits*, the wellbeing of the many, the sense of connectedness, is itself an offense:
as for example when dealing with an Fi-dominant INFP, or an INTJ in thrall to tertiary Fi, where merely "going along with the crowd" is like rubbing a cat's fur the wrong way. For the INFP, it might be the tragic sense of being unique and misunderstood (stereotype), and for the INTJ it might be "none of this crowd of rabble can keep up with me" (other stereotype).

What then is love to do in those cases?

Sorry, but there's another Christian answer, in St. Paul. From his first letter to the Church in Corinth, chapter 12 --

15Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

Look at it this way, within your own body. If your elbow itches, your hand *automatically* moves to scratch. If you're hungry, chances are your eyes and feet and hands and out all *cooperate* in getting lunch.

Remember the commonality, but do not enforce it; honor the individuality, but do not idolize it.

 

[grey_beard]

So once again, this applies to Fi to but in a different way; it's just a way Fe can be which is not a traditional idea of putting others first and selflessness. I post this because there are a lot of questions on tests about it, and I think that's not the best way to test for Fe. They don't really discuss collective wellbeing and interdependence as much, or seeing the self in the other, which I think is more fundamental.


Yes. I came to this realization when I was taking care of my grandmother briefly when she broke her arm. I chose to do it, to learn about selflessness, because it's not really in my nature. I kept reminding myself of that fact. I was happy to do it, but I resented it the whole time. I had days when I was ready to snap, and had to do my regular meditation and yoga to keep sane and peaceful. I was also going through a breakup at the time. I kinda did snap one day and told them I had to take a break and then told them what was going on with me, and that helped us all a lot. I learned I had to take time for me to find inner peace before I could give time and energy to others. I had to release the guilt that went along with it. But the days when I put myself first and got to a place where I felt I had extra to give were the days I was able to do my job really well and be patient and considerate and helpful without resentment.

Go read Madeleine L'Engle's The Summer of the Grand-mother.

 

[Eric B]

That Fe is not “selfless” is reminded to me a few weeks ago, when my wife was preparing the house for a worship meeting (or any other social event), and everything has to be “PERFECT”. I always keep thinking to myself “This isn’t for the people…”. They didn’t request what she’s doing. Many would probably not care, or maybe even notice particular details she is fixing up. They go to others’ houses who are not so meticulously fixed up, and are apparently not “offended“. It’s purely for herself (and she will often admit this). You might think this is really Fi (from the way the functions have been portrayed, with Fi as “selfish”, or “doing it for self” is Fi), and you could see it that way, as possibly “backing up” or “shadowing“ dominant Fe.
But the conscious ego perspective is still clearly environmental moreso than individual. The individual (subject) simply “merges” with the environment (object), taking its values or harmony as its own. And while not being directed by stated needs of individuals, the standard of the rational judgment is a sort of “traditional” model of “niceness” informed by an introverted Sensing well of practical knowledge and memory. (That of course, is the “individual” component here). It’s what people generally liked “historically”, and thus became a part of “culture”, which is the other aspect of the “environmental” extraverted standard.

With an introverted Feeling perspective, (and where Perception is what draws on the environment), like with an ESFP, there will be a general sense of what looks “nice” that probably won’t focus on meticulous details of order. Feeling provides the general “atmosphere” of “fun” or harmony that the host can generalize to others from their own individual sense of “good”. This sounds similar to the Fe example above, but won’t be as much about a cultural standard, but instead, more from “nature” (like a general sense of “people need to recreate”). This will likely be focused on more than something like “neatness“ (Here showing us the typical J/P difference).
Like if the goal is to party, then creating the atmosphere and whatever facilities/devices necessary for that will be more important than the details of neatness. (For SFP “artistry”, or their own personal appearance in social events, physical detail may be focused on more, but this is more apart of “self-expression” than the perspective of others, and likewise if the party host chooses to focus on some details of the house that might include things being “neat”. Then, culture will come into play, as what they draw from through Se as determining what’s currently in style, and the conformity there is more “being in the moment” than a rational judgment).

 

[á´…eparted]

Anyone who thinks Fe is by default selfless and altruistic does not understand what Fe actually is.

 

[fetus]

Furthermore, I get a little annoyed when people assume that everyone who's nice and altruistic is Fe. I like to think that I'm a good person, but I know that I'm definitely more Fi than Fe. Misconceptions, y'all.

 

[greenfairy]

I was reading some text by A.H. Almaas a while back. Your realization is strikingly similar to this concept:



Though I don't know if I agree with your statement that Fe is aware of the self as being a collective. It sounds bias in a sort of attachment style object relations sorta way. Sorry if I'm diluting MBTI talk with another framework.

I agree with the excerpted paragraph; a lot of spiritual paths teach this. It sounds most like the Course in Miracles.

These thoughts are still unrefined. I haven't fully explained how they apply to Fi, since the language is phrased in Fe terms. I think it can, however, since self transcendence, if it is indeed a universal phenomenon, should be translatable to any viewpoint. Interesting idea about attachment styles. I don't think I yet have a completely secure attachment style, but I think when I do this view won't change. It's more of a philosophical idea. Though I do think Fe users more keenly perceive themselves as being fluid and collective. Can you explain more about this attachment thing?

 

[greenfairy]

Several points. (For your consideration: I'm not trying to start any Fi flamewars.)


I suspect that many make a mistake on this point, "tit-for-tat" in a good way, "I gave you and so you {implicitly} owe me"...this can cause confusion in dating, e.g. the "Nice Guy" syndrome, who thinks that when he does what he's told women want, then how come it doesn't work and all that..? But that's a thread hijack, so I'll just mention it and move on.



...that is true, but there are a few follow-on points if you invoke Jesus. One is that when he mentioned "...love your neighbor as yourself" someone replied, "...and who is my neighbor?"
giving an opportunity to the parable of the Good Samaritan. The point of that parable was obvious to members of that culture, but not so much today: the Jews and the Samaritans did *not* get along; maybe not as bad as the Hatfields and McCoys, but certainly not apt to go out of their way to help each other. The Good Samaritan, on the other hand, did more for the man he found senseless after a mugging, than many of his own people: first aid, taking him to shelter, paying out of his own pocket for the man's care. Imagine what would happen, for example, if INFPs starting doing this for ESTJs or something...
The other point is more personal, and perhaps I'm laying my self open to all kinds of vile calumny here, but I noticed that one of the things people do more for themselves, than for others, is to make excuses or rationalizations for their *bad* behaviour, while taking full credit for their good behaviour. Just think how much more...peaceable, polite, less fractious, the world would be, if people's first instinct would be to excuse the minor transgressions of their neighbor, and to (at least *notice out loud*) their kind gestures. Say, in traffic?

And then, note that Jesus also called us to be kind *to* the ungrateful and the ungodly (insert your favorite boogey-men here)..."for your heavenly Father sends rain on the just and the unjust."




Whoops! *NOW* you've gone and stepped in it, [MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION].

I agree that Fe is collective and Fi is individual: and, yes, for many items, it is true that promoting collective wellbeing, will encompass, incorporate, include the well-being of the many: such as, just economic policies will likely make sure there are fewer in abject want. But, for a number of items, ... or shall I say, *traits*, the wellbeing of the many, the sense of connectedness, is itself an offense:
as for example when dealing with an Fi-dominant INFP, or an INTJ in thrall to tertiary Fi, where merely "going along with the crowd" is like rubbing a cat's fur the wrong way. For the INFP, it might be the tragic sense of being unique and misunderstood (stereotype), and for the INTJ it might be "none of this crowd of rabble can keep up with me" (other stereotype).

What then is love to do in those cases?

Sorry, but there's another Christian answer, in St. Paul. From his first letter to the Church in Corinth, chapter 12 --

15Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

Look at it this way, within your own body. If your elbow itches, your hand *automatically* moves to scratch. If you're hungry, chances are your eyes and feet and hands and out all *cooperate* in getting lunch.

Remember the commonality, but do not enforce it; honor the individuality, but do not idolize it.

I agree with all that. And the self as part of the collective really does mean what you said in your body analogy- except it's a little more complicated. Like we are all cells in the kidney, so we are alike in every important way, but individual. Every living thing is a part of the body of God/dess. I think Jesus or some Christian teaching said that we are the body of Christ or God; I think this is what was meant. Divinity is in every living thing. That's my view.

I am aware also of the political implications of individuals versus collectives; I think Fe users are more likely to hold views emphasizing collectivity and Fi users are more likely to focus on the experiences of the individual. Of course any type can adhere to any political set of beliefs, but it is the motive that is important. I used to get into political arguments with an ISFP and he annoyed the heck out of me because he just didn't seem to get the concept of systemic oppression and kept talking about racism as prejudice and good and bad people. That's more like Fi. Other Fi users I have talked to have sometimes been more sophisticated and educated in their beliefs, but still seem to have that focus on the individual, whether they are a liberal Democrat or socialist or whatever.

 

[miss fortune]

I am not a primary Fe person, so my perspective on this is probably a little different from what you were initially looking for

to me it's that little reminder in the back of my head that points out that there are people involved and that I am a part of greater society and not some feral creature living by my own needs or a machine programmed to complete tasks within a certain time frame. It's that nagging voice that pops up after I've done something quickly and expediently (and often, to me, quite cleverly!) and reminds me that "you were kind of an asshole there... everyone is going to resent what you just did and you'd better go back right now and apologize"... of course, I'm a little paranoid about such things sometimes and end up apologizing to people who actually weren't offended. A tether to common humanity, I guess, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing

I do forget about my own interests fairly frequently, but I wouldn't particularly blame that on Fe half as much as I'd blame it on me finding something interesting or imperative and chasing that like a dog after a rabbit...

 

[Forever]

[MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION] lol, how do you know they're just using Fe back just to hide themselves from being offended and keep the status quo?

Ooooohhhh. Lol but you don't need to over analyze situations like me.

 

[miss fortune]

[MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION] lol, how do you know they're just using Fe back just to hide themselves from being offended and keep the status quo?

Ooooohhhh. Lol but you don't need to over analyze situations like me.

noooo.... don't add to my paranoia!

 

[Forever]

noooo.... don't add to my paranoia!

dang... I shouldn't spread my INFJ problems on you lol. Forget I said that



I think enough physical contact has now drowned out the mental paranoia lol

 

[miss fortune]

dang... I shouldn't spread my INFJ problems on you lol. Forget I said that



I think enough physical contact has now drowned out the mental paranoia lol

oh god no! not being smothered in hugs!

always remember... just because a person appears to be confident does not mean that they aren't constantly questioning absolutely everything somewhere in the back of their minds

*runs away before more feeler hugs appear*

 

[Forever]

oh god no! not being smothered in hugs!

always remember... just because a person appears to be confident does not mean that they aren't constantly questioning absolutely everything somewhere in the back of their minds

*runs away before more feeler hugs appear*

*throws away mbti title* I'm normal like everyone else I'm free. I'm FREE