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

[Amargith]

^if you say so.

It's odd though, as you're the one who's fighting for her independence, and being 'selfish' in this story, and it's Fi that actually shares itself with someone else.

Edit: look at it this way: Fe may constantly seek to balance..Fi is not a balance, it's a pendulum. It'll go from one extreme to another..giving both sides the chance to be their authentic self, without having to compromise..but still, balancing out in the end

 

[Amargith]

We already know if you do it out of obligation or desire. We can sense that while we are taking you down that road. We can sense any hesitation and fight along the way.

Im not one to say I will race you to bed. I am more the one to hop over the couch, start kissing you on the neck. Or put my hand on the side of your face, touch foreheads, while I pull you close to me. I can sense the slightest hesitation when I take control and my mind is already racing to see if its fear, hesitation, etc, but you will never notice that as I continue to try to draw you in and I continue to try to figure out what path to take.

I can tell if you feel obligated, its a natural part of who we are and what we have become accustomed to sensing. Doesnt mean I wont stop, but it does mean that I need to figure something else out to get past that obligation feeling.

P.S. those that do speak in this fashion, it is EXTREMELY obvious when it is out of obligation as opposed to desire. It is felt even without words.

Grin.

Fi and Se seem to understand each other, at least on this matter

 

[Poki]

Grin.

Fi and Se seem to understand each other, at least on this matter

This carries over into pretty much every part of my life though, this is just where things become the most intimate.

It carries into trying to figure out if you enjoy being around me or not, sensing when someone pulls back in any form or fashion. Its like sensing harmony as opposed to bulldozing it.

 

[onemoretime]

^if you say so.

It's odd though, as you're the one who's fighting for her independence, and being 'selfish' in this story, and it's Fi that actually shares itself with someone else.

Odd that you see it this way. I see it as respect - recognizance of the humanity in the other, as being made of the same "stuff" as you are. It's not independence as much as it is recognizing that the other person isn't just a supporting role in the story of your own life, but the protagonist in their own story as well.

 

[Poki]

Odd that you see it this way. I see it as respect - recognizance of the humanity in the other, as being made of the same "stuff" as you are. It's not independence as much as it is recognizing that the other person isn't just a supporting role in the story of your own life, but the protagonist in their own story as well.

But what if you realize you were their story all along

 

[onemoretime]

Rosencranz and Guildenstern Are Dead is far more interesting than Hamlet, as I've mentioned before.

 

[Amargith]

Odd that you see it this way. I see it as respect - recognizance of the humanity in the other, as being made of the same "stuff" as you are. It's not independence as much as it is recognizing that the other person isn't just a supporting role in the story of your own life, but the protagonist in their own story as well.

I prefer writing a story together

Look, it's simple, we have different priorities. You wanna do all the lovey dovey together stuff when it comes to 'humanity' and mankind, and get a group to get along. Thats great. Me, on the other hand, I prefer respecting people's individuality at that point and compromising only where necessary in order to not get in each others way.

You consider this selfish on my part, and a negative trait.

When it's one on one, you consider it healthy to have an open line of communication and two seperate beings who cooperate but not unite. I prefer to make a unity, to become part of someone's life, but not only that, to be part of their soul, mind and body. To get to that point where not even half a word is needed to understand one another.

And yet again, you consider this negative, in this case manipulative.

Is it at any point at which I can win? Or is there any point at which you can understand that we do the same things but on different fields? And that both are valid?

Sorry..I'm kinda tired of the whole Fe judgement scales. Really am. You (= general you, for Fe-users who feel this way about Fi, btw) may consider Fe fairness, I consider it a jugmental bitch at times. You may consider Fi immature, but to me it stands for acceptance. Embracing differences and rising above them without losing your own identity in the masses, yet willing to share it with those that appreciate it, without paranoia or fear of judgement.

 

[Qre:us]

^if you say so.

It's odd though, as you're the one who's fighting for her independence, and being 'selfish' in this story, and it's Fi that actually shares itself with someone else.

Edit: look at it this way: Fe may constantly seek to balance..Fi is not a balance, it's a pendulum. It'll go from one extreme to another..giving both sides the chance to be their authentic self, without having to compromise..but still, balancing out in the end

Is this directed at me?

If so, can you explain how I'm being 'selfish'?

Compromise doesn't negate one's authentic self - it allows the authentic self to introspect deeper, to its relation with other. It provides further insight into one's self - why did I compromise for X, but, not for Y?

I guess I can't understand why you wouldn't want to seek balance, moment to moment, rather than imbalance, in hopes that in the end, it somehow equals out?

Of course, seeking it, and having it are two different things. Sometimes "imbalance" does occur, even in fairness.

As in, sometimes, fairness calls that one person gets the last piece of food, because they've gone hungry, while I just ate a while ago. However, my really wanting that last piece of food, because it's my favourite, while the other doesn't really like it, doesn't give me the option to eat it. As they're the one who is hungry. The moment is an "imbalance", yet, it's still a balance (not later on down the line, but, in that moment, itself).

I live moment to moment, and I try to honestly do each moment justice. Each moment itself is just as important as the culmination of moments. My memory is stored in parts, not as an amalgamed whole, and thus, I want to do each part justice.

Odd that you see it this way. I see it as respect - recognizance of the humanity in the other, as being made of the same "stuff" as you are. It's not independence as much as it is recognizing that the other person isn't just a supporting role in the story of your own life, but the protagonist in their own story as well.

Nicely put. I've said the same thing often in my own life.

But what if you realize you were their story all along

I would never want to be someone's story. It feels like stealing their identity. I'd love to be a significant part in their story, but, I would fight, on their behalf, to give them their own story, beyond me.

 

[SillySapienne]

Back to whether ENFPs and INTJs should make babies.

I think they should.

And practice makes perfect, and, regarding that practice...

You're gonna be as good as useless, tonight, seeing how you probably got around 2 to 3 hours of sleep!!!

 

[Amargith]

I don't see how this is achieved solely by manipulation, and cannot be achieved by persuasion (without manipulation)?

It is cooperative in that both acknowledge they want to "meld" into one another for that moment, and both come together, freely, both move to the center together, each taking their own step. To meet.

It's euphoric, when you know that they want to be there (not feeling like they "need" to be there - manipulated to feel so), and they met you there, out of their own free will.

And that is a beautiful thing as well. I used 'manipulation' coz that is how you perceive it. To me it's a friendly request. A nudge. And it can be persuasion just as much. I am not constantly tuned into the world. I am off doing my own things. I don't mind people nudging me if they need to do so, or requesting my attention.

To me, it's about them being naked emotionally, and I come to them, out of my own volition, because I see their nakedness, their honest vulnerability, and given such an honest state of being, I want to cover them.

I wouldn't need a nudge. I'd feel guilty if, in such a state, they needed to nudge me for me to come to them. Their state, with or without me there, that vulnerability of the emotion, the honest emotion, is what will draw me. Not the one they present because they just saw me walk in to the room.

To me, the naked emotionality is a given. Even when we don't sync up. It's there. But that doesn't mean we're making active use of that connection. And I might be busy elsewhere, and so are they. Still, that line, that connection is always open. So gently nudging me lets me know that they want my attention, which I'm happy to give.

Why are you associating manipulation with silence? Even if there's no manipulation, it can all occur without spoken words. Just as you have outlined above.

The 'manipulation' is in the unspokenness, or even hidden behind the words being spoken. The moment they gently nudge me, touch me emotionally, I get flooded with info on their emotional state. And nothing more, no other words are needed. I just naturally respond to what they need. I can manipulate with words as well, formulating flattery etc. I don't enjoy doing that. But I do enjoy dropping a line, have it mean nothing more than a greeting and attaching an emotionally charged message. Kinda like sending secret love notes

Edit: SS is right, we should stop derailing..i didn't even realize, sorry.

 

[Poki]

I prefer writing a story together

Look, it's simple, we have different priorities. You wanna do all the lovey dovey together stuff when it comes to 'humanity' and mankind, and get a group to get along. Thats great. Me, on the other hand, I prefer respecting people's individuality at that point and compromising only where necessary in order to not get in each others way.

You consider this selfish on my part, and a negative trait.

When it's one on one, you consider it healthy to have an open line of communication and two seperate beings who cooperate but not unite. I prefer to make a unity, to become part of someone's life, but not only that, to be part of their soul, mind and body. To get to that point where not even half a word is needed to understand one another.

And yet again, you consider this negative, in this case manipulative.

Is it at any point at which I can win? Or is there any point at which you can understand that we do the same things but on different fields? And that both are valid?

Sorry..I'm kinda tired of the whole Fe judgement scales. Really am. You (= general you, for Fe-users who feel this way about Fi, btw) may consider Fe fairness, I consider it a jugmental bitch at times. You may consider Fi immature, but to me it stands for acceptance. Embracing differences and rising above them without losing your own identity in the masses, yet willing to share it with those that appreciate it, without paranoia or fear of judgement.

edit: response was meant in response to your post, but not at you

I respect Fe wishes, but in all honesty why would you want the one place where 2 people are supposed to come together to be the place where you dont unite? I just dont understand.

The only thing I can think is that you feel an obligation to the world so when you find someone you have a desire to NOT feel obligated around them and any attempt to persuade is extremely touchy in regards to feeling obligated or manipulated. As we all need somewhere to be our unique self.

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[SillySapienne]

I see it as respect - recognizance of the humanity in the other, as being made of the same "stuff" as you are. It's not independence as much as it is recognizing that the other person isn't just a supporting role in the story of your own life, but the protagonist in their own story as well.

You see, I read a post like this and I want to scoff at all of you people who are freakishly obsessed with functions, functions, functions!!!

What wise person, regardless of their type wouldn't agree, or at least see, what onemoretime is talking about, here!?!!

I just got home from work and I'm far too lazy to read the context from which this came but I'm assuming at has something to do with Fi vs. Fe.

And, pfft, what he wrote rings all my bells, my neurons, my heart chakra, my right-o-meter.

So, yeah.

 

[disregard]

You see, I read a post like this and I want to scoff at all of you people who are freakishly obsessed with functions, functions, functions!!!

What wise person, regardless of their type wouldn't agree, or at least see, what onemoretime is talking about, here!?!!

I just got home from work and I'm far too lazy to read the context from which this came but I'm assuming at has something to do with Fi vs. Fe.

And, pfft, what he wrote rings all my bells, my neurons, my heart chakra, my right-o-meter.

So, yeah.

That post was clearly Ne; it's no wonder you relate.

!

 

[SillySapienne]

Rosencranz and Guildenstern Are Dead is far more interesting than Hamlet, as I've mentioned before.

Sacrebleu!!!



Granted, I never read the former, but I own a copy, but that besides the point.

Hamlet's not action-packed interesting, it is just ridiculously before its time, and deals with weighty existential concerns.

And, Shakespeare...

 

[onemoretime]

I prefer writing a story together

Look, it's simple, we have different priorities. You wanna do all the lovey dovey together stuff when it comes to 'humanity' and mankind, and get a group to get along. Thats great. Me, on the other hand, I prefer respecting people's individuality at that point and compromising only where necessary in order to not get in each others way.

You consider this selfish on my part, and a negative trait.

You mischaracterize my argument. I consider the selfish behavior to be in imposing one's will upon others without regard to volition. It disrespects their right to self-determination of emotional states.

When it's one on one, you consider it healthy to have an open line of communication and two seperate beings who cooperate but not unite. I prefer to make a unity, to become part of someone's life, but not only that, to be part of their soul, mind and body. To get to that point where not even half a word is needed to understand one another.

And yet again, you consider this negative, in this case manipulative.

It's not the union, it's the compulsion. It's using emotional power to compel someone to act or respond in a certain way. It's in a sense, enslaving that person to one's will.

When you act in such a way, you become a despot. A benevolent despot, perhaps, but a despot nonetheless.

Is it at any point at which I can win? Or is there any point at which you can understand that we do the same things but on different fields? And that both are valid?

It's not about winning or losing. It's about all parties understanding that there are some serious consequences to one's preferred way of engaging with the world, and that actions thought to be of a benign nature can have unpleasant reactions.

X-rays are incredibly useful. They are, however, dangerous even in their normal application. This is why we ask others permission before we x-ray them.

Sorry..I'm kinda tired of the whole Fe judgement scales. Really am. You (= general you, for Fe-users who feel this way about Fi, btw) may consider Fe fairness, I consider it a jugmental bitch at times. You may consider Fi immature, but to me it stands for acceptance. Embracing differences and rising above them without losing your own identity in the masses, yet willing to share it with those that appreciate it, without paranoia or fear of judgement.

Why do you consider it judgmental? Why do you feel the need to rise above others?

 

[Poki]

Is this directed at me?

If so, can you explain how I'm being 'selfish'?

Compromise doesn't negate one's authentic self - it allows the authentic self to introspect deeper, to its relation with other. It provides further insight into one's self - why did I compromise for X, but, not for Y?

I guess I can't understand why you wouldn't want to seek balance, moment to moment, rather than imbalance, in hopes that in the end, it somehow equals out?

Of course, seeking it, and having it are two different things. Sometimes "imbalance" does occur, even in fairness.

As in, sometimes, fairness calls that one person gets the last piece of food, because they've gone hungry, while I just ate a while ago. However, my really wanting that last piece of food, because it's my favourite, while the other doesn't really like it, doesn't give me the option to eat it. As they're the one who is hungry. The moment is an "imbalance", yet, it's still a balance (not later on down the line, but, in that moment, itself).

I live moment to moment, and I try to honestly do each moment justice. Each moment itself is just as important as the culmination of moments. My memory is stored in parts, not as an amalgamed whole, and thus, I want to do each part justice.



Nicely put. I've said the same thing often in my own life.



I would never want to be someone's story. It feels like stealing their identity. I'd love to be a significant part in their story, but, I would fight, on their behalf, to give them their own story, beyond me.

That sounds manipulative like you know what they want no matter how much they fight, you will fight harder. Sounds very blind and forcing what you care about onto them. May work for some types who feel an obligation to do things, but everything I do is my choice, thats how I create my own story.

 

[SillySapienne]

You mischaracterize my argument. I consider the selfish behavior to be in imposing one's will upon others without regard to volition. It disrespects their right to self-determination of emotional states.

I didn't even read the rest of your post, you need to check yo self, fool!!!

Fi may idealistically wish/fantasize to impose its vales onto the world, eh, no, impose is the wrong word, we just wished the world and more specifically, people, acted in a certain way, but we/it is all about RESPECT OF SELF, and VALUE OF SELF.

To say that Fi users IMPOSE their wills upon others is wrong.

The most emotionally ass imposing mofos I know are Fe doms, FO SHO!!!

Fe doms, and emotional/social retards who do not, or cannot, realize that they are infringing on your rights for personal space/time/processing, now, these are the people who one must fear for potential personal violation.

 

[Qre:us]

And that is a beautiful thing as well. I used 'manipulation' coz that is how you perceive it.

I perceived the original two quotes by you and SS as manipulation. Because, you (both) expected a certain response given a certain situation, but, in another time, with the same kind of situation (seemingly), it seemed you expect a different response.

Now all these have been addressed by you and SS earlier, and I understood where you were coming from.

But, what I initially termed emotional manipulation:
Cater to my feelings, be sensitive to me, but, I don't need to give the same back to you. - SS

Don't make me feel incompetent because I'll turn into a brat when you do, however, I will play up my weakness/incompetence/brattiness in another situation to make you feel like the "hero". - you

^ that was what I originally referred to as emotional manipulation, inconsistency.

As given the former part of each of those examples, it would seem that is what you value, yet, seem to give it up, that same value, in another moment. It makes me question how much then the value is truly valued. Or proposed as a "value" to manipulate for the time being.

I think what we're talking about now has moved away from the intent of those original posts, and, now I can't really figure out what you mean, in regards to manipulation as separate from persuasion (which I advocate). As you didn't clear up, when I continued to use that term, that it was no longer relevant? V confused

To me it's a friendly request. A nudge. And it can be persuasion just as much. I am not constantly tuned into the world. I am off doing my own things. I don't mind people nudging me if they need to do so, or requesting my attention.



To me, the naked emotionality is a given. Even when we don't sync up. It's there. But that doesn't mean we're making active use of that connection. And I might be busy elsewhere, and so are they. Still, that line, that connection is always open. So gently nudging me lets me know that they want my attention, which I'm happy to give.


The 'manipulation' is in the unspokenness, or even hidden behind the words being spoken. The moment they gently nudge me, touch me emotionally, I get flooded with info on their emotional state. And nothing more, no other words are needed. I just naturally respond to what they need. I can manipulate with words as well, formulating flattery etc. I don't enjoy doing that. But I do enjoy dropping a line, have it mean nothing more than a greeting and attaching an emotionally charged message. Kinda like sending secret love notes

Edit: SS is right, we should stop derailing..i didn't even realize, sorry.

 

[Amargith]

You mischaracterize my argument. I consider the selfish behavior to be in imposing one's will upon others without regard to volition. It disrespects their right to self-determination of emotional states.



It's not the union, it's the compulsion. It's using emotional power to compel someone to act or respond in a certain way. It's in a sense, enslaving that person to one's will.

When you act in such a way, you become a despot. A benevolent despot, perhaps, but a despot nonetheless.



It's not about winning or losing. It's about all parties understanding that there are some serious consequences to one's preferred way of engaging with the world, and that actions thought to be of a benign nature can have unpleasant reactions.

X-rays are incredibly useful. They are, however, dangerous even in their normal application. This is why we ask others permission before we x-ray them.



Why do you consider it judgmental? Why do you feel the need to rise above others?

Plz look at your responses, think them through and tell me how you're not being judgemental.

Oh and the last paragraph, I meant rising above the differences, that's what the *them* was referring to. Kinda..interesting to see you automatically assumed it was rising above people I wanted to do.

 

[Qre:us]

That sounds manipulative like you know what they want no matter how much they fight, you will fight harder. Sounds very blind and forcing what you care about onto them. May work for some types who feel an obligation to do things, but everything I do is my choice, thats how I create my own story.

I think you misunderstood the sentiment I tried to say there.

Not that I would know what they want, or make (force) them take up a want they do not...want. But when I see that they're catering to me, to make me their story, rather than a part of it, I will fight to seperate myself from being so intrinsic to their story.

It's all self-contained in the realm of me. There's no influence towards their actions, but, how much I will resist to be part of that story if I see that they're making me their story, rather than a part of it.

How is this manipulative if my actions are seeking to be self-contained?