[ENFJ] Are ENFJs the least "thoughtful" NF?

[Kalach]

The Jungmeister sez:

The essence of the inferior function is autonomy. It is independent, it attacks, it fascinates, and so spins us about that we are no longer masters of ourselves and can no longer rightly distinguish between ourselves and others.

but also

The unconscious has an inimical or ruthless bearing towards consciousness only when the latter adopts a false or pretentious attitude.

And Lenore sez:

The Inferior Function pressures you to take a different interpretation of certain signs than you are used to. However, this can lead you to become Semiotically Disoriented. Suddenly your inferior function confronts you with strange goals (due to different interpretations of signs), but your dominant function offers you no way to relate to them, let alone meet them. In fact, your dominant function will deny that these goals are even valid in the first place. It would love to sweep them under the carpet, and the Tertiary Temptation offers an excuse to do so. However, the secondary function may offer a way of interpreting signs that allows the dominant function to properly orient itself in relation to the goals of the inferior function.


Thus, therefore, and willing I conclude, as should all good people, that ENFJs are least thoughtful when they are least engaged in investigating "What would happen if...."


When they are unwilling to truly reflect, "Is there really only one way to do this?"


Not endlessly to so reflect though, of course. That would to some degree be equally thoughtless. No, to reflect just the right amount. It's up to them how much.

But anyway by the time they're, like, twelve years old, pretty much every person has started using their auxiliary function at least a little, right? So the word "thoughtful" has a pretty broad sweep. But I have no idea which whole type is more likely to fall prey to tertiary temptation most often and thus be, possibly, the least thoughtful of types.

 

[jenocyde]

I think this is a part of it. They are extremely sensitive to criticism. And this goes both ways, as they are careful not to offer criticism (or comments that could be miscontrued as criticism) that would endanger their relationships with others.

I hate bringing up any negative things at all around them. One just started a new job and complained about his new staff. I pointed out that if he tried to be a little more strict, he would get a better response. He fought me for hours, tooth and nail, following me around my apartment, not letting anything go when I repeatedly relented (it was too much, even for me). After 3 hours of being badgered by him, he finally said "well, maybe I just need to put my foot down more"

In my experience, it's never the topic he gets upset about, but more the audacity that someone would dare critique him - even though he asked me to.

 

[Totenkindly]

That's what I wonder when I hear NTs saying they don't know how they feel. How is that even possible?! It could be the case with not knowing what they "think."

I guess because it seems to me like we all think every day, we HAVE to in order to do anything.

However, we do not HAVE to feel anything. We can be functional in society while just thinking, without any emotion whatsoever. Therefore it seems believable to me.

So what level of "thought" are we talking about? Obviously we think enough to drive a car without hitting someone else, or making coffee and putting cream in it, or thinking about what clothes to wear. How can Feelers be COMPLETELY unaware of their thinking, in the same way / to the same depth that a cold/terrified Thinker can be UTTERLY oblivious to their feelings? We all have to think a little bit, at least; we don't have to feel ANYTHING, though.

I can understand "not thinking" in the sense that Feelers have value judgments rather than conclusions that way that Thinkers derive them, so if you ask one why they believe something to be true, they have no answer for it... they just have a conviction, and this is why the "logic" that some use to support their values sounds like they made it up to support their values... because they did, after the fact, in the attempt to explain their values. But this doesn't work because the values are the basic building blocks and were never drawn as conclusions of some thinking process.

 

[jenocyde]

How can someone not be conscious of their thoughts? Please explain more deeply, I'm not understanding what is meant by this.

The ENFJs I've known (male and female) were capable of deep thinking/insight; the main issues were that their thinking was tied to their values and used to defend them.

That's what I wonder when I hear NTs saying they don't know how they feel. How is that even possible?! It could be the case with not knowing what they "think."

Seriously, this man is in love with like 10 different girls right now. He talks about each one each day with such passion. If he speaks of Jessica and I mention that he said the same thing about Rachel 3 hours earlier, he'll deny it outright or say that this isn't the same, the other was just puppy love. In 3 hours, he'll make a remark about Rachel and I'll remind him about what he said about Jessica, at which point he'll deny it.

He's sleeping with all of them, but he compartmentalizes it in his mind (at least that's what I think). When he's with one, it's like he blacks the others out and they never happened. Whatever he is feeling right now, at this very second, is the ultimate truth.

Ti/Si seems a bit weak.

 

[Totenkindly]

Seriously, this man is in love with like 10 different girls right now. He talks about each one each day with such passion. If he speaks of Jessica and I mention that he said the same thing about Rachel 3 hours earlier, he'll deny it outright or say that this isn't the same, the other was just puppy love. In 3 hours, he'll make a remark about Rachel and I'll remind him about what he said about Jessica, at which point he'll deny it.

He's sleeping with all of them, but he compartmentalizes it in his mind (at least that's what I think). When he's with one, it's like he blacks the others out and they never happened. Whatever he is feeling right now, at this very second, is the ultimate truth. Ti/Si seems a bit weak.

Okay, so we are identifying "thought" here as the force that permits behavior and motives to be consistently identified over time. (Or something like that?)

IOW, "it has to make sense" (from a T's perspective, anyhoo).

Actually, that is interesting, I've seen that pattern far too much, especially in my F kids. The "data' gets changed or dropped or ignored, to accommodate the values/desires.

 

[proteanmix]

Thus, therefore, and willing I conclude, as should all good people, that ENFJs are least thoughtful when they are least engaged in investigating "What would happen if...."


When they are unwilling to truly reflect, "Is there really only one way to do this?"


But by the time they're, like, twelve years old, pretty much every person has started using their auxiliary function at least a little, right? So the word "thoughtful" has a pretty broad sweep. But I have no idea which whole type is more likely to fall prey to tertiary temptation most often and thus be, possibly, the least thoughtful of types.

Yeah, bad word. I didn't mean least thoughtful as in doesn't think.

I'm trying to think of an example that's Fe-dom specific and showcases how Ti would be utterly ignored but useful if engaged.

The only think I can immediately think of is the alleged ability for ENFJs to see "potential" in other. Usually this is described as positive potential. I think potential should also encompass negative potential as well. If a Fe-dom is engaging their Ti they'd also be keen on what negative potential is there as well as positive potential. I remember a Fe-dom coworker of mine were talking about what would we do if our child was accused of a murder. My coworker said she wouldn't care if he did it or not, that's her son and she'd even go as far as hiding the murder weapon and actively lying in his defense if he turned out to be guilty.

Any type would probably react that way if it was their child, but I wonder if there was some Fe-specific reaction embedded in there. I don't know if there is or not, I'm trying to figure that out. Would it be considering your child might be guilty or just fighting it and disbelieving it no matter what evidence is presented to you? I'm not sure, this is just an example.

 

[jenocyde]

Okay, so we are identifying "thought" here as the force that permits behavior and motives to be consistently identified over time. (Or something like that?)

IOW, "it has to make sense" (from a T's perspective, anyhoo).

Actually, that is interesting, I've seen that pattern far too much, especially in my F kids. The "data' gets changed or dropped or ignored, to accommodate the values/desires.

It's all just speculation, but that's exactly how I perceive it to be. The feelings are the truth, the catalyst for action. But the feelings seem to change with the wind.

 

[proteanmix]

Hey I don't want this to turn in a T vs F thread.

 

[Totenkindly]

Would it be considering your child might be guilty or just fighting it and disbelieving it no matter what evidence is presented to you?

IOW, the belief in the person's positive potential trumps the evidence? ("My son couldn't have done THAT, he's BETTER than that!")

Is that Fe, Ni gone out of control, or just a parental reaction to the fruit of one's loins?

My INFP friends are better at it but still sometimes have that reaction when someone "lets them down" by doing something they didn't expect of them, because they had a positive-potential view of them.

(To contrast, I can see someone as having positive potential; but their screw-ups don't surprise me either, and I accept them as facts as soon as I verify the event occurred, it just becomes part of my internal dataset on them. I just want to have an ACCURATE picture of someone, even if I have certain hopes for them.)

... Protean, you might not be able to avoid some reflection on the T vs F dichotomy here, if the things you are categorizing as Fe-specific are actually broader than that. To just confine it erroneously to Fe would be, well, erroneous!

 

[jenocyde]

Hey I don't want this to turn in a T vs F thread.

I think of it more as Ti vs Fe fighting for internal control. I have the same. Like you said with that example, I would never turn my child in. But not because he's my child. Only because the legal system doesn't make sense to me in this country, and the rehabilitation system makes even less sense. I would be a stronger fighter against his being caught because of the familial bond (Fe) but I think that I would fight for anyone who had a reasonable explanation as to why they did what they did.

And because of that, I would rely on my Fe to guide me through feigning shock when the cops question me, smiling and crying on cue, etc...

 

[proteanmix]

... Protean, you might not be able to avoid some reflection on the T vs F dichotomy here, if the things you are categorizing as Fe-specific are actually broader than that. To just confine it erroneously to Fe would be, well, erroneous!

So what's a Fe-specific reaction against Ti, rather than a F reaction against T?

And because of that, I would rely on my Fe to guide me through feigning shock when the cops question me, smiling and crying on cue, etc...

See that's a ExTPs use of Fe, not a ExFJs use of Fe. I'm not saying there's no overlap but it's different. You're using Fe manipulatively, not as your raison d'etre. Do you see the difference?

 

[Totenkindly]

So what's a Fe-specific reaction against Ti, rather than a F reaction against T?

I'm not sure, but you lump a lot of stuff that I see expressed by Fi people along with Fe people into the category of Fe... so then the whole discussion fuzzies up for me, or the MBTI theory itself is bad. I can't draw precise conclusions (only fuzzy ones) if the objects I'm playing with are fuzzy.

Whatever. Keep talking, there is some good stuff being brought up here, and it's nice to see a deeper level of conversation occurring.

 

[jenocyde]

See that's a ExTPs use of Fe, not a ExFJs use of Fe. I'm not saying there's no overlap but it's different. You're using Fe manipulatively, not as your raison d'etre. Do you see the difference?

Yes, I see that there is a difference, but I am unable to identify the difference. can you give me an example of the ENFJ usage?

EDIT: or rather, can you give me an example of how you think an ENFJ uses Ti?

 

[proteanmix]

I'm not sure, but you lump a lot of stuff that I see expressed by Fi people along with Fe people into the category of Fe... so then the whole discussion fuzzies up for me, or the MBTI theory itself is bad. I can't draw precise conclusions (only fuzzy ones) if the objects I'm playing with are fuzzy.

Whatever. Keep talking, there is some good stuff being brought up here, and it's nice to see a deeper level of conversation occurring.

Game over. Maybe that's my Ti?

ETA: I had a discussion once with my ol' friend Solitary Walker and he said it's impossible to bring the types to earth. Let's dig into some phi-lo-so-phy. Ideal forms, never meant to be placed on earth.

 

[proteanmix]

OK I think I found one!

I wrote this a long time ago about Time Travel. The reason why I think this is a Ti interuption of Fe is because everyone was having a good time and then I went and threw a wet blanket on everything. Would you say this is a Fe-specification reaction against Ti?

This topic evolved into a pretty good discussion I had with some college friends of mine a couple of years ago. We were watching Sense and Sensibility (or some Jane Austen movie) and my friends were like, oh we'd love to go back to this time period! And I rolled my eyes and said I wouldn't. Of course they asked why and I said because I'd be a slave! It was dead silence while people took in the gravity of the statement. It hurt a little bit because these are people I considered friends, and it just showed me how rarely they thought about what it's like to be me in our own little group (so I'd basically figured out what they thought about it on a larger scale). Statements would be made that I just laughed off or ignored, but I couldn't let this one pass without giving my perspective.

This has always been the funny thing with me and history and why the past has never held much appeal to me. I much prefer from this moment on. How far back could I go: 100, 200, 500, 1000 years? Is there any point in time that it would be OK for me to travel back when either my race or sex wouldn't be a big deal? I have no desire to see dinosaurs or sail with Christopher Columbus. I wouldn't mind witnessing the beginning of the universe. I wouldn't want some invisibility cloak so I could silently observe. I'd like to be an active participant. So I decided I'm not going to sacrifice the most salient parts of my identity just to experience history. I'll move forward and I can move into the future as the complete me.

 

[heart]

How can someone not be conscious of their thoughts? Please explain more deeply, I'm not understanding what is meant by this.

Thinking for me seems to come as inspiration and I just know if something is logical or not but don't ask me to draw any diagrams or make any explainations. I likely won't hold my logic up so someone else can tear it apart but it serves me internally...from where ever it springs. (so when I think I am thinking, I am really Ne-ing?)

Also many times when I would say I am thinking, I really running something through my data base of Fi and deciding how I feel about it.

 

[jenocyde]

OK I think I found one!

I wrote this a long time ago about Time Travel. The reason why I think this is a Ti interuption of Fe is because everyone was having a good time and then I went and threw a wet blanket on everything. Would you say this is a Fe-specification reaction against Ti?

Hahaha, I can totally identify! This is Fe to the fullest, imo. I mean the thought is Ni, but the delivery - you wanted to make them feel it. You wanted to give pause for them to be aware. I do stuff like that all the time for dramatic effect, appeal to the emotions.

I did like to read this, though. Very well said.

 

[Totenkindly]

Why are you categorizing the time travel thing as Ti?

You sort of used Ni to overlay a values context on the discussion. It was clear they meant one thing or were approaching the conversation in one frame of mind; you took it into a different framework in order to make a social values point relevant to you individually.

I guess it would be Fe since you were taking advantage of the relationships in order to stick up for your own rights as a human being (that's only fair -- if you are catering to them as part of your friendship, they need to give you the same flex), and what was driving you was a sense of being unfairly ignored/disregarded in their particular fantasizing. Still not sure whether you used Ti or Ni to insert the "race" card, though.

 

[Usehername]

OK I think I found one!

I wrote this a long time ago about Time Travel. The reason why I think this is a Ti interuption of Fe is because everyone was having a good time and then I went and threw a wet blanket on everything. Would you say this is a Fe-specification reaction against Ti?

This seems similar to how I, as an NT, might engage my emotions. (And also use Ni to extrapolate deeper meaning behind one minute exchange, forever colouring my perception of those individuals.)

 

[jenocyde]

OK I think I found one!

I wrote this a long time ago about Time Travel. The reason why I think this is a Ti interuption of Fe is because everyone was having a good time and then I went and threw a wet blanket on everything. Would you say this is a Fe-specification reaction against Ti?

The funny part is that you took it so personally that they didn't "know what it's like to be you" never considering the gravity of them not even seeing you as a separate entity from themselves, which is my definition of closeness.