[ENFP] ENFP+INTJ=Disasterous Combo o' love

[onemoretime]

A few pages past since I my last post. This is moving too quickly.
'Maybe' implies a possibility or uncertainty. Possibilities and uncertainties exist when not enough knowledge is known.

Once again, quantum physics. Observer effect influences everything, therefore certain knowledge of all facets of a thing is impossible.

Alright then what if the universe doesn't exist? Everything you know about the universe is 'knowledge'.

What if they are merely delusions?

What you are telling me is by your knowledge. What if your knowledge is false? That all your perceptions of the universe is not truly how it is. The universe is just a perception.

Ahh, but then what makes yours more correct than mine? What then defines "true" from "false" at this moment? Was the Matrix a false reality?

You tell me if knowledge is controlling when you can't live without it. You will use knowledge to write your next post, and to think of what to say, and to control your schedules. Controlling you.

No, I'll use a complex assortment of molecules and electric fields to influence the other assortment of molecules and electric fields into making this post. Or maybe I won't. Or maybe the universe is static and perpetual, and we don't even know where to start on all of this.

Empiricism doesn't dominate science because it's true, it dominates because it works.

 

[uumlau]

On the Fi threads mirroring was brought up. It isnt really a choice-it is an innate biological response. I dont choose it, it just happens. Evolution found a cute way to cheat and insure that we aid the weakest members of the group, as otherwise we suffer their pain. So while I can pick these behaviors apart and describe them analytically, recognize they are as innate as your Ti/Fe. When I cheated with Fe, Fi went away. It was so calm and peaceful.

I'd like to hear more about this. I think it might be similar to INTJ using Te. When I -really- use Te, there is no Fi, for the time being. Everything is logical. Everything makes sense. There is no right or wrong, just correct and incorrect observations. It's like listening to a Bach fugue, everything in its place, perhaps with a quietly joyful serenity or slight wistfulness, but otherwise dry of emotion: a very peaceful feeling.

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mZvdGAGlOo"]The orderliness of Te placates Fi for a short while ...[/YOUTUBE]

I would suggest Fi is the most draining of the judging functions to use.

Very possibly. The thing about introversion is that it works from the inside out: Fi is drawing on your inner energies, and eventually drains you without a pause to rest and replenish. Fe works from external energies, and energizes you as you use it.

Ti and Te have a similar behavior, but I suspect the quietude of reason involves less energy flow either way.

As for Fi truth? For another Fi user, it is the truth, albeit then judged according to the standards of Te. Yes, help them through pain, react to the Fi presentation, but then apply Te to give them advice-ie tell them what they need to do. Te is pretty fucking bossy. But from the perspective of Fe, it looks like Fi just won. But later the other Fi users will observe if the Fi user repeats and then judge them via Te accordingly. Te is fucking harsh.

Good characterizations.

To be honest-
Ti often feels "mean" and Fe feels "manipulative" from my perspective. I always thought that the Fe and Ti users were playing mean games and manipulating each other and calling it flirting. But in reality, that game is how you do exactly what you describe above. It's how you bond. If Ti is logical, competitive understanding and Fe is warm compassion with social reciprocal bonds-well you mix those up in layers as you describe above and forge a deeper connection.

I'd completely agree with this assessment. When typing others, I look for whether I see the Fi/Te or the Ti/Fe axis, first. Then I worry about I/E and J/P. Sadly, it's the "mean" and "manipulative" I sense from perfectly nice people that lets me type them. I just fake Fe back at them by using Te to decide what to say and Fi to emote it, and they think I'm so wonderfully polite and considerate.

It's the same game with the same end, but played through a different set of functions-Te and Fi. So it looks very different. Te is an assertive function and Fi an empathic one, so the game looks very different, trading of assertive protection with softness, understanding, but back in forth, deeper and deeper to forge those connection. Same result in the end.

I could never match the ENTPs dance steps and got hurt over and over again. However to play the Te/Fi game is exceptionally easy and very natural. It just flows with no thought needed. You just do exactly what pops into your head because that is the right answer. I cant emphasize how simple it feels. It may not work out between particular individuals but the cadence is very natural.

OK, now this is starting to get unfair. You aren't supposed to be more insightful about this than I am. Hmmph.

*furiously takes notes on the wisdom of the Happy Puppy*

 

[sculpting]

Please god someone save me. I am trapped at the dvm but I have to replace my lost drivers liscence so I can rent a can tommorow.

Forget all these phisophical meanderings-on a practical note-

I am number 22. We are currently on number 73. Is the dvm, unlike the universe, a spherical entity in which eventually it will cycle back around to my turn? Or is it really flat and I am totally hosed??? (But the butt of some hysterical joke)

If it cycles does it cycle at 100? 1000? AhhhhhHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

On a bright note, this damned crackberry makes me read your posts more slowly so I garner more meaning.

 

[Amargith]

Why limit yourself to one function? I'm neither Ne or Ti. I'm me. I have several traits about me that may correspond with certain Jungian archetypes. However, I certainly don't think those archetypes have a thing to do with who I am, they just help others know better how I tick. It's like the highway a couple of miles from here - does "Interstate 95" have any inherent, tangible meaning? Of course not. That strip of pavement is in no literal way "Interstate 95". However, it does help a person understand where that highway goes, in the entire network of strips of pavement known as the "Interstate Highway System".



I'm sorry you don't like that characterization, but that's what it is. My perception of it isn't wrong, even if you don't see it that way.



There are other options to prevent this sort of "mix-up".



No means no.



Is this about you or the other person?

So, it is not that you're missing something? It's not that you might be misinterpreting a friendly nudge for a hostile take over? I dunno, for me it feels very friendly and tender when people do that, at least, if they're not bulldozering all over the place. It is possible to force yourself on someone but most people just gently tap you on the shoulder, ime.

And it's about both of us. All I'm doing is instead of verbally offering a connection, a chance to get to know one another (or if you already know each other, a chance to just enjoy each others company intimately), is doing it by touching upon your emotions. It's just another language, nothing more. It's an offer..one you're more than free to refuse if you're not comfortable with it

 

[onemoretime]

So, it is not that you're missing something? It's not that you might be misinterpreting a friendly nudge for a hostile take over? I dunno, for me it feels very friendly and tender when people do that, at least, if they're not bulldozering all over the place. It is possible to force yourself on someone but most people just gently tap you on the shoulder, ime.

And it's about both of us. All I'm doing is instead of verbally offering a connection, a chance to get to know one another (or if you already know each other, a chance to just enjoy each others company intimately), is doing it by touching upon your emotions. It's just another language, nothing more. It's an offer..one you're more than free to refuse if you're not comfortable with it

Once again, and I hate to belabor the analogy, would you "misinterpret" a guy penetrating you with a finger on the dance floor as something other than a "friendly" gesture? He might just be wanting to "sync up" with you physically.

I'm dead serious - that's what we mean when we say "violated".

 

[Amargith]

Once again, and I hate to belabor the analogy, would you "misinterpret" a guy penetrating you with a finger on the dance floor as something other than a "friendly" gesture? He might just be wanting to "sync up" with you physically.

I'm dead serious - that's what we mean when we say "violated".

Actually, I'm dead serious when I say that what I do is the equivalent to a guy just touching me on the shoulder. I may not like him touching me, but i won't kill him over it. I don't think you really know what I mean by a nudge.

What you're suggesting is something I only do with those incredibly close to me and my lovers. And even then I'll check for permission. I'm all about free will, trust me. On that, I think most NPs will agree.

 

[onemoretime]

Actually, I'm dead serious when I say that what I do is the equivalent to a guy just touching me on the shoulder. I may not like him touching me, but i won't kill him over it.

What you're suggesting is something I only do with those incredibly close to me and my lovers.

To. You.

It might just be a guy copping a feel on a crowded subway. It might be full-blown roofies. It's still the same - someone's getting something without the other person's permission, and the other person generally feels wronged for it.

It's the point I've been trying to get across - our (at least Fe terts) emotions are very intimate things. They don't belong to you or anyone else. Getting at them without our express, uninfluenced consent has the same emotional impact upon us that rape would have on many people. A "nudge"? Mild annoyance, indignation, but it eventually passes. Full-blown emotional manipulation? Takes years for us to get over, and casts a heavy shadow over the rest of our lives.

Do you understand? This isn't fucking harmless.

 

[Thalassa]

It just wouldn't be an ENFP/INTJ thread without ENTPs coming in to criticize us with their superior insight.

 

[Oaky]

Once again, quantum physics. Observer effect influences everything, therefore certain knowledge of all facets of a thing is impossible.

Absolutely. And does this affect us?

What if they are merely delusions?

Yea, why not? They can be can't they?

Ahh, but then what makes yours more correct than mine? What then defines "true" from "false" at this moment? Was the Matrix a false reality?

Truth is reality. Not perception of reality. Now what perception must we have to actually see reality? Every person that ever lived has a different perception on things and you will find no two people that have exactly the same perception. What is reality is that which connected equally in every single perception.

No, I'll use a complex assortment of molecules and electric fields to influence the other assortment of molecules and electric fields into making this post. Or maybe I won't. Or maybe the universe is static and perpetual, and we don't even know where to start on all of this.

Well I would guess that if your knowledge was equal to that of a baby we would never have this conversation.

Empiricism doesn't dominate science because it's true, it dominates because it works.

But it works because it's true.

 

[Amargith]

To. You.

It might just be a guy copping a feel on a crowded subway. It might be full-blown roofies. It's still the same - someone's getting something without the other person's permission, and the other person generally feels wronged for it.

It's the point I've been trying to get across - our (at least Fe terts) emotions are very intimate things. They don't belong to you or anyone else. Getting at them without our express, uninfluenced consent has the same emotional impact upon us that rape would have on many people. A "nudge"? Mild annoyance, indignation, but it eventually passes. Full-blown emotional manipulation? Takes years for us to get over, and casts a heavy shadow over the rest of our lives.

Do you understand? This isn't fucking harmless.

And you call us oversensitive? You do the same with mind-rape, dude. And you also tell us to grow up and get over it. And once again, I might not like a guy's hand on my body, but it's not something to scream 'rape' over. I'll just tell him it's not appreciated. Period. As for full blown emotional manipulation, I only use that out of sheer self-defense and even then I'm reluctant, or when it is in fact invited and requested (and yes, I do check that twice before going for it), though maybe you've met people who are less ethical, I dunno. That Fi-connection is somethign I treasure anyways, and don't just share with anyone as it makes me vulnerable too.

I agree that forcing something on someone is never right. And I for one very much get pissy when I see someone forcing someone else into something they clearly don't want. I'm also the first to stop if I notice that the other person isn't enjoying what I'm doing, whatever that may be, emotional manipulation or not. I'm agreeing with you on this, 100 per cent.

But realize this isn't evil. It's just not your preference. And other people do very much enjoy it, and that doesn't mean you get to scream 'rape' every time you see it happening.

 

[Qre:us]

As for emotional manipulation, I only use that out of sheer self-defense and even then I'm reluctant, or when it is in fact invited and requested (and yes, I do check that twice before going for it), though maybe you've met people who are less ethical, I dunno.

I can't see how it would still be considered emotional manipulation if it was invited and requested? Emotional persuasion, but, I can't see manipulation.

 

[onemoretime]

Absolutely. And does this affect us?

As far as we can tell.

Yea, why not? They can be can't they?

And render the distinction between reality and delusion meaningless. Yet another meaningless distinction, as I was mentioning.

Truth is reality. Not perception of reality. Now what perception must we have to actually see reality? Every person that ever lived has a different perception on things and you will find no two people that have exactly the same perception. What is reality is that which connected equally in every single perception.

Is it? Or is that simply the best working model we have? Do multiple observers clarify, or muddle the picture even more?

Well I would guess that if your knowledge was equal to that of a baby we would never have this conversation.

What makes that baby's knowledge different from mine?

But it works because it's true.

Is it? I can make a missile fly to anywhere in the world using Newtonian physics, but I won't make that warhead explode unless I completely disregard that model.

 

[Amargith]

I can't see how it would still be considered emotional manipulation if it was invited and requested? Emotional persuasion, but, I can't see manipulation.

It's a game
One upping, much like you guys do, beating each other with wit. I do that with emotions. And yes, then it is manipulation, and the other is doing the same to you, to see who can make the other feel uncomfortable, or make them blush, or make them speechless the first. It's still the 'manipulation' of each others emotions, changing your emotional states as such. But it's for fun. It can also be done to benefit the other, to change their mood from sad to happy, or to make them experience pleasure. That too can be requested.

 

[Poki]

And you call us oversensitive? You do the same with mind-rape, dude. And you also tell us to grow up and get over it. And once again, I might not like a guy's hand on my body, but it's not something to scream 'rape' over. I'll just tell him it's not appreciated. Period. As for full blown emotional manipulation, I only use that out of sheer self-defense and even then I'm reluctant, or when it is in fact invited and requested (and yes, I do check that twice before going for it), though maybe you've met people who are less ethical, I dunno. That Fi-connection is somethign I treasure anyways, and don't just share with anyone as it makes me vulnerable too.

I agree that forcing something on someone is never right. And I for one very much get pissy when I see someone forcing someone else into something they clearly don't want. I'm also the first to stop if I notice that the other person isn't enjoying what I'm doing, whatever that may be, emotional manipulation or not. I'm agreeing with you on this, 100 per cent.

But realize this isn't evil. It's just not your preference. And other people do very much enjoy it, and that doesn't mean you get to scream 'rape' every time you see it happening.

I agree, some can handle it while others cant. This is nothing like rape as rape is forced. Dont confuse lack of self-control with rape. I know exactly what you are talking about and because I am married I have actually had to ask an NFP stop looking at me in a certain way and everything went back to normal. I did enjoy it, it was intoxicating, but I have the control to ask her to stop(though it took awhile), she willingly stopped and we went on and enjoyed each others company. If she would have not stopped I could have easily stopped being around her.

Can I ask if you see it as rape because its not something you feel comfortable talking about or asking someone to stop since it emotionally touches you very deep, but others will see it as just emotions like Amar does?

Some will misuse this and some may not even be Fi, they may be Fe using it as a tool that they picked up with full intentions on using it in this fashion which puts a bad taste people mouth in regards to people who dont do it conciously. This is why intentions and conciousness matter. Because some of us dont use things as a tool, but we get pinned for "our" intentions.

 

[Qre:us]

It's a game
One upping, much like you guys do, beating each other with wit. I do that with emotions. And yes, then it is manipulation, and the other is doing the same to you, to see who can make the other feel uncomfortable, or make them blush, or make them speechless the first. It's still the 'manipulation' of each others emotions, changing your emotional states as such. But it's for fun. It can also be done to benefit the other, to change their mood from sad to happy, or to make them experience pleasure. That too can be requested.

But, when I do that, I will not ever trespass on the integrity of their thought -otherwise, I'd be accused of, or accuse the other of, intellectual dishonesty.

I'll play around with their thought, challenge the thought, give my interpretation (incorporate something I liked about their thought as my own), but, the essence of their thought is wholly preserved, and owned by them. I don't trespass that territory.

If somehow, due to an interest from my end, their thought becomes mine as well (internalize), and once it's taken up, I do with it as I please.

I don't see the translation as easily when it's in the emotional realm - playing around with another's emotions (at their "request"?).

Thoughts aren't felt, emotions are.

Another's emotion can never become mine, regardless of how much I try to take it up (internalize), emphathize, sympathize, thus, I cannot do with it what I please.

 

[Poki]

But, when I do that, I will not ever trespass on the integrity of their thought -otherwise, I'd be accused of, or accuse the other of, intellectual dishonesty.

I'll play around with their thought, challenge the thought, give my interpretation (incorporate something I liked about their thought as my own), but, the essence of their thought is wholly preserved, and owned by them. I don't trespass that territory.

I don't see the translation as easily when it's in the emotional realm - playing around with another's emotions (at their "request"?).

Thoughts aren't felt, emotions are.

I have to disclose if I intentionally play with peoples thoughts and it is not very obvious.

edit: I have actually feel bad when I make a comment, they respond and I turn it into something that would be considered like I manipulated you into believing or thinking what I think.

 

[Oaky]

Is it? Or is that simply the best working model we have? Do multiple observers clarify, or muddle the picture even more?

You have to look at why the multiple observers see something and why it would connect to one another. There is an underlying reason for everything.

What makes that baby's knowledge different from mine?

Quantity and perception. Again, we wouldn't be having this conversation if your knowledge was equal to that of a baby.

Is it? I can make a missile fly to anywhere in the world using Newtonian physics, but I won't make that warhead explode unless I completely disregard that model.

Why?

 

[Amargith]

But, when I do that, I will not ever trespass on the integrity of their thought -otherwise, I'd be accused of, or accuse the other of, intellectual dishonesty.

I'll play around with their thought, challenge the thought, give my interpretation (incorporate something I liked about their thought as my own), but, the essence of their thought is wholly preserved, and owned by them. I don't trespass that territory.

I don't see the translation as easily when it's in the emotional realm - playing around with another's emotions (at their "request"?).

Thoughts aren't felt, emotions are.

You're thinking of someone under the duress of self-defense, I think.

You can say and do certain things to make people feel things. And..some people don't know how to actually feel those things. Hell, some aren't even aware that they feel those emotions, ime. By pushing buttons, they get to experience those things in their own time, at their own convenience. Again, this is at their request only.

As for one upping, I usually do it with innuendo, or bodylanguage, to put them in a socially difficult situation, which inadvertently causes a sense of uncomfortableness, or blushing. But it's a pleasurable jolt..kinda like an adrenaline rush. And they'll retaliate, causing the same jolt in me, and building on each other. Then it's a matter of calling each others bluff and seeing who will be willing to push the limits. Easiest way to do this is by flirting imo, though it's possible to do it by for instance changing moods every 5 seconds and watching them try and keep up. Or playing around with like personal barriers (you know, that personal space thing you have physically).

As for changing someone's sad mood to happy...it's pretty much the comforting-process. You let them know they're not alone, they can let go, and you let them ramble about it. Then, at the right time, you enter a lighthearted joke, give them a different way of looking at the situation, and go from your calm comforting demeanor, to a happy and lighthearted one. Most people will follow suit

 

[onemoretime]

You have to look at why the multiple observers see something and why it would connect to one another. There is an underlying reason for everything.

Does there have to be?

Quantity and perception. Again, we wouldn't be having this conversation if your knowledge was equal to that of a baby.

By what standard?

Why?

Because nuclear physics doesn't work with the Newtonian model.

 

[Qre:us]

I have to disclose if I intentionally play with peoples thoughts and it is not very obvious.

Thoughts aren't owned in the same way emotions are owned by a person. Because one is felt, and the other is not.

I don't care if you play with my thoughts, only rule: do not attribute that thought to me, once you've played with it.

Otherwise, go ahead, knock yourself out (and, most times, I'd even want you to play around with it, I lead with Ne).

However, the same thing cannot be done with emotions. Because....it is personally felt.

edit: I have actually feel bad when I make a comment, they respond and I turn it into something that would be considered like I manipulated you into believing or thinking what I think.

?? I don't understand what you're meaning here. If you mean that you misrepresented what the other said/meant (manipulation), then, see above, my point about "only rule".
Also, see:

But, when I do that, I will not ever trespass on the integrity of their thought -otherwise, I'd be accused of, or accuse the other of, intellectual dishonesty.