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

[Qre:us]

Yes, I am. Note the common story of the child who falls and hurts himself outside. Bravely and quietly gets up, walks inside, and the moment he sees Mommy, starts crying.

In this case, he probably doesn't realize he's being manipulative, but it's the rudimentary beginning of understanding communication. Crying "doesn't work" if Mommy isn't there.

It's only when one knows better that it becomes evil and manipulative.

That said, I -am- INTJ, and I don't personally understand Fe that well. I'm going by definitions, that crying to manipulate others is necessarily extroverted feeling, even if an INTJ does it.

A type's given functions explains their cognitive process. It's not as simple as social manipulation = always the work of Fe.

One has to look at the cognitive process at work. What is its thought process, what is its motivation?

What is the function of this social manipulation (the cognitive process by which they arrived at social manipulation)? In that we'll understand what function(s) is/are at work.

If we go by what I said earlier of Fe and Fi, the former being about fairness, and the latter being about authenticity....

...then, using the crying example of my ESFP ex-roomie, if it was Fe-manipulation, it would mean that her aim was to bias fairness towards her favour. She had no acknowledged of fair, unfair; that wasn't her motivation. It was about validation of self. She was feeling like her self was infringed upon, being oppressed (by me), attacked, and she wanted some kind of validation that she mattered, her feelings mattered (she, as an individual, was valued). Because my attack was making her feel devalued. She was wanting someone to believe in her. My other roommates would validate such motivations spurred by her Fi.

She didn't go the route of expressing why one should believe in her, value her, no, she took that feeling spurred by Fi feeling infringed upon, and ran with it. And, what better way then to utilize Te, which, in her case, says (FiTe), hey, the fastest and most effective way to gain emotional leverage over others, so I can be validated, feel valued, is to bring on the waterworks, force it on the table. And, thus the crocodile tears ensued.

She had the emotional realm (F) covered, by Fi (more natural a function for her), thus she didn't need Fe to reach any conclusion. She wanted to, if I may borrow this phrase from Amar earlier in this thread, sync up her projected emotional state with my other roommates, which would validate her being. "Pain" for pain. I show "pain", they will feel pain (for me). And, Te helped it be projected externally. There was no need for Fe to come into play. Fi+Te would get the job done much faster, and more readily available to her.

In the end, the same conclusion is reached, social manipulation. Which Fe can reach too (all by its own). A lot of same conclusion (in terms of manifested behaviour, e.g., social manipulation) is reached by all types, but it doesn't mean, according to function theory, that it's all the same function, every time, that's manifesting said behaviour. One has to dig deeper - into the cognitive process - to unravel the functions at play.

Hence, why I called this example, Fi manipulation (not being authentic in her pain, yet wanting acknowledgement of its "authenticity"). Fi was the judgement making function at play. It was manifested (externalized efficiently) with the help of Te.

 

[SillySapienne]

I'm with my INTJ love, right now.

And it is simply sublime.

We get each other.

He makes me happy, and I him.



I'm his baby, but he's my baby, too!!!

 

[Kalach]

...then, using the crying example of my ESFP ex-roomie, if it was Fe-manipulation, it would mean that her aim was to bias fairness towards her favour. She had no acknowledged of fair, unfair; that wasn't her motivation. It was about validation of self. She was feeling like her self was infringed upon, being oppressed (by me), attacked, and she wanted some kind of validation that she mattered, her feelings mattered (she, as an individual, was valued). Because my attack was making her feel devalued. She was wanting someone to believe in her. My other roommates would validate such motivations spurred by her Fi.

She didn't go the route of expressing why one should believe in her, value her, no, she took that feeling spurred by Fi feeling infringed upon, and ran with it. And, what better way then to utilize Te, which, in her case, says (FiTe), hey, the fastest and most effective way to gain emotional leverage over others, so I can be validated, feel valued, is to bring on the waterworks, force it on the table. And, thus the crocodile tears ensued.

She had the emotional realm (F) covered, by Fi (more natural a function for her), thus she didn't need Fe to reach any conclusion. She wanted to, if I may borrow this phrase from Amar earlier in this thread, sync up her projected emotional state with my other roommates, which would validate her being. "Pain" for pain. I show "pain", they will feel pain (for me). And, Te helped it be projected externally. There was no need for Fe to come into play. Fi+Te would get the job done much faster, and more readily available to her.

In the end, the same conclusion is reached, social manipulation. Which Fe can reach too (all by its own). A lot of same conclusion is reached in terms of manifested behaviour, but it doesn't mean, according to function theory, that it's all the same function, every time, that's manifesting said behaviour. One has to dig deeper - into the cognitive process - to unravel the functions at play.

Hence, why I called this example, Fi manipulation (not being authentic in her pain, yet wanting acknowledgement of its authenticity). Fi was the judgement making function at play. It was manifested (externalized) with the help of Te.

But where does the sense that it's okay to manipulate that way come from? Busted Ni probably, changing perspectives to make it right--the inner INTJ saying "Whatever, man, it worked!"

ENFPs have the Si...

 

[kyuuei]

I feel like I have no where to go anymore.. I've been holding this dark, deep secret in my chest. and.. I feel like. Im such an emotional rapist.. Like I use my Fi to MANipulate, if you will..

 

[Sniffles]

I feel like I have no where to go anymore.. I've been holding this dark, deep secret in my chest. and.. I feel like. Im such an emotional rapist.. Like I use my Fi to MANipulate, if you will..

You aweful aweful woman!

 

[uumlau]

In the end, the same conclusion is reached, social manipulation. Which Fe can reach too (all by its own). A lot of same conclusion (in terms of manifested behaviour, e.g., social manipulation) is reached by all types, but it doesn't mean, according to function theory, that it's all the same function, every time, that's manifesting said behaviour. One has to dig deeper - into the cognitive process - to unravel the functions at play.

Frankly, I think this is taking MBTI and cognitive processes far beyond the role of utility into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation.

Personally, I buy the concept of the ESFP wanting "validation" as a primary motivation, and wanting to fight back against feeling oppressed, but that's as far as I go.

I find your speculation that she used Te to gain emotional leverage to be particularly implausible. The only reason to invoke Te is because one believes that Fe is somehow excluded, and I don't believe that is true. In particular, I believe much of the function ordering to be a linear simplification of a much more complex set of priorities.

Yes, my Fe explanation is just as unfalsifiable as your FiTe explanation.

I use MBTI and Jungian functions as general guidelines and a 1st-order approach. It lets me sort through a limited set of possible scenarios for communication purposes. After that, it loses all utility, and has no predictive power. E.g., yes, there is a tendency for ENFPs and INTJs to like each other, but that doesn't mean the love of an ENFP's life will turn out to be INTJ. Rather, it works the other way around: if the love of your life is an INTJ, here are the problems to look out for, and some possible solutions. Beyond this, it just doesn't matter what functions one is "really using." No useful observations can be made, and no useful conclusions can be drawn.

 

[Qre:us]

The games we play with Type theory....

Frankly, I think this is taking MBTI and cognitive processes far beyond the role of utility into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation.

Personally, I buy the concept of the ESFP wanting "validation" as a primary motivation, and wanting to fight back against feeling oppressed, but that's as far as I go.

I find your speculation that she used Te to gain emotional leverage to be particularly implausible. The only reason to invoke Te is because one believes that Fe is somehow excluded, and I don't believe that is true. In particular, I believe much of the function ordering to be a linear simplification of a much more complex set of priorities.

Yes, my Fe explanation is just as unfalsifiable as your FiTe explanation.

Some basic assumptions from both of our ends. I made, you implicitly agreed to, when we engaged in this exercise.

- She is ESFP (she never took the test, it's my best guess for her)
- I have no way of knowing her function order, as an individual case (she may very well have Fe).
- You not challenging her type as stated by me, and applying certain functions to her, through my given limited information of her, means you have engaged in this mental exercise with me.

Thus, I'm going to work with the framework of an archetypical ESFP.

Se, Fi, Te, Ni.

Neither you, nor I can speculate anything beyond that.

Given these assumptions, and that we both made sound arguments for each of our cases, mine being FiTe, yours being Fe...the only way to break this tie is by going back to the assumption that we can only know of her behaviour if we treat her as an archtypical ESFP.

As such, my FiTe is more plausible than your Fe, because of the bolded, as we are only limited to treating this example as an archtypical ESFP.

Otherwise, this game can go in any direction each of us pleases, without any kind of systematic thought. And, we'd all be "right".

Heck, I could rationalize a case for Si or Ne being the culprit.

I use MBTI and Jungian functions as general guidelines and a 1st-order approach. It lets me sort through a limited set of possible scenarios for communication purposes. After that, it loses all utility, and has no predictive power. E.g., yes, there is a tendency for ENFPs and INTJs to like each other, but that doesn't mean the love of an ENFP's life will turn out to be INTJ. Rather, it works the other way around: if the love of your life is an INTJ, here are the problems to look out for, and some possible solutions. Beyond this, it just doesn't matter what functions one is "really using." No useful observations can be made, and no useful conclusions can be drawn.

Cool. I feel the same about the bolded. Heck, even when people start attributing the failure of a relationship to must be cuz of the functional mismatch, I'm a little skeptical, beyond all the other things that goes to make a relationship dynamic work. E.g., An ESTP and an INFJ can be stellar together, if they have common views about their principles, outlook on life, beyond what their functional matchup predicts. Individual supercedes type. The variety and dissent within ENFPs on this forum (even this thread), about manifestations of Fi, backs up this point.

Personally, I have issues attributing functions to behaviours myself, in any practical sense (I've brought this issue up in the past), and other issues with MBTI, which I won't get into here.

But, for all intent and purpose, neither you, nor I, nor any of us in this thread, can apply with any accuracy, behaviours to be the sole domain of certain functions. All we can do is, given certain assumptions, make a case for why it is, or is not, a valid argument. Certain assumptions being, the ENFPs in this thread, are always using Fi for the behaviours we attribute to Fi. It could very well be a combination of other functions. Even...Fe.

As you said, it's all unfalsifiable speculation - not just this exercise of my ex-roomie ESFP, but, everything we do with type theory on this forum. As none of us are ever a clean case of an archetype, behaving 100% like the theory would predict.

MBTI is not predictive, it certainly wasn't my assumption, nor did I think it was yours, when we engaged in this little analysis. We can only make a case for what is likely (to be happening) given what we know of type.

 

[Amargith]

I don't get this response. It's like any time some suggestion is made, it's interpreted as though we want to imprison people for bothering us. I mean, have you noticed how much ENTPs don't like to be controlled, either?

If we're commanding anything, it's that you simply be careful with what you do, and preferably don't do it towards members of the general public, and make for damn sure that you aren't inadvertently inflicting harm on someone you care about. A monstrous thing to say to someone, right?



Your guess is as good as mine.



Can't you take any comment that isn't waxing poetic about the glories of Fi without resorting to the fangs? At the very least, can't you accept that our opinions on the subject are just as valid as your own?



Shouldn't have done this. I told Q I wasn't going to do this, but you couldn't leave well enough alone:

Amazing how a paragraph can start and end with completely contradictory sentences, right?

Oh, and for all the lovely prose about "acceptance" and "understanding":

Oh really?

The healthy among us at least admit our "games of wit" can have grave and serious consequences.

Oh, and the best of all:

Not seeking to convert. Only seeking to understand. Right.

Q's not hypocritical at all. She's deadly accurate.



A conversation is a free-flowing thing. It goes from one place to another. That you would suppress others' thoughts on things because you think we "think everything is about [us]" (blatant projection if I've ever seen it) suggests a disturbingly Orwellian facet to your character that I'd hope we would have all grown past at this point.



Those who would reject a gift outright - do they even know the impact that it has on the giver?

Did you not read the whole story about the goddamn burrito?



We're not always right - but we always do have a nugget of validity hidden in everything we say. It's good to have feedback from others who see things differently, and are interested in growth.

HP's my friend. She's also one of the wisest people I've met, both online and IRL. That's because of Fi - she "gets" the big picture on a metaphysical level that I'll probably never understand. However, she also understands that every one of her actions impact others, and that no matter what, even if she doesn't "feel" the Fe, hurting others hurts her as much as it does them. We've had several discussions where we've genuinely disagreed, but never these sorts of flamewars because both of us understood that the disagreement was where the opportunity for learning and growth lay.

Thank you for this.

Kindly refrain from taking quotes out of context and for that matter commenting if you cannot figure out how to understand my words without twisting them. All of those quotes, if read in proper context are in fact meant either as clarifications, in the hopes of sharing and demystifying how this process works for me, or genuine questions as to why it is so hard to have this discussion, or what road block causes you to have trouble grasping something that you asked about, aka Fi. Something I've tried to explain (the way it works for me), genuinly so, and stupidly so, for the gazillionth time.

As for the 'gift', judgemental comments from people who have no clue as to who I am and who have demonstrated that misunderstanding, are of no use to me.

Maybe I'm at fault as I suck at debating and refining my words in a second language that I speak. This is your turf, afterall, since you won't meet me on mine. And I'm willing to try my best. But when I tell you that you misunderstand me, take my word for it. I have no problem with people who've demonstrated a clear understanding of who I am, and why I do things, telling me that this is a part of me they do not agree with. There are such people on this forum, just as there are plenty who've appreciated my gentle emotional shoulder tapping, and I appreciate them equally as I know they took the time and effort to actually understand it without judgement, making sure they grasped it properly before coming to the conclusion that it was something they wanted to take part in or not. I am who I am, and I don't expect you to like what I do or who I am all the time. But at least, before you judge, *know* me and show me that you do. After that, your feedback is much appreciated.

As for your comment that at least you fess up that your games can harm others, I never denied this wasn't dangerous and should be done with care. On the contrary in fact, I commented on these 'games' and Fi for that matter needing a steady hand, that it was the wielder that made it evil or good. Someone who isn't skilled at this can easily cause harm without intending to do so, as can a skilled wielder hell-bent on doing 'evil. But as most Fi-users have the 'harm none' clause in their value-set, it's ime usually inexperience that causes the pain, unintentionally. And I personally have accidentily harmed people in the past, but I also make amends for that and learn from that. As I explained to Puppy on her wall already, I learn to do this 'manipulation' consciously, so I have a better control over it, so I can prevent damage from happening as I'm aware of what I'm doing, instead of noticing it too late. It comes natural to me, so it's not likely that I can stop doing it alltogether. I might as well get a handle on it and keep from harming others.

I'd also advise you to look at yourself before you go pointing out the inaptitude and incompetence of others in their games, coz I have to wonder how aware you are of your own 'games' causing harm. But hey...I don't know you that well, so I'll refrain from judging for now

I'm done with this thread and this topic.

 

[INTP]

I've read a great deal of posts, and I have yet to see one reasonable explanation why this dynamic is 'disastrous.'

this whole topic is a disaster..

 

[Qre:us]

this whole topic is a disaster..

What gave you that idea?

79 pages = thread WIN

*takes a bow for her part in the act*

 

[Valiant]

Here's your bow, Qre:us. May I have the stern?

 

[Valiant]

ANYWAY.


This whole ENTP debacle made me think of the cackling Harley Davidson people in South Park.

[YOUTUBE="q8eYzMHGjrE"]lol[/YOUTUBE]

 

[onemoretime]

Kindly refrain from taking quotes out of context and for that matter commenting if you cannot figure out how to understand my words without twisting them.

Did I inaccurately quote anything?

All of those quotes, if read in proper context are in fact meant either as clarifications, in the hopes of sharing and demystifying how this process works for me, or genuine questions as to why it is so hard to have this discussion, or what road block causes you to have trouble grasping something that you asked about, aka Fi. Something I've tried to explain (the way it works for me), genuinly so, and stupidly so, for the gazillionth time.

They're your words.

As for the 'gift', judgemental comments from people who have no clue as to who I am and who have demonstrated that misunderstanding, are of no use to me.

Judgmental, you mean using terms like "hypocrite"?

Does a person ever get to know who you are if they don't forthrightly agree with everything you say?

Maybe I'm at fault as I suck at debating and refining my words in a second language that I speak. This is your turf, afterall, since you won't meet me on mine.

It's usually called the English language. It's not exactly Ti speak either.

And I'm willing to try my best. But when I tell you that you misunderstand me, take my word for it.

Why should I do that, when it seems like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth?

I have no problem with people who've demonstrated a clear understanding of who I am, and why I do things, telling me that this is a part of me they do not agree with. There are such people on this forum, just as there are plenty who've appreciated my gentle emotional shoulder tapping, and I appreciate them equally as I know they took the time and effort to actually understand it without judgement, making sure they grasped it properly before coming to the conclusion that it was something they wanted to take part in or not. I am who I am, and I don't expect you to like what I do or who I am all the time. But at least, before you judge, *know* me and show me that you do. After that, your feedback is much appreciated.

Here's where we come to the impasse - what would you do in return? Why should I expose myself to this potential deep harm just so I can tell you not to do it? Why can't you in return understand that when I criticize actions that potentially arise from Fi, that in no way am I casting any judgment about you as a person? If I don't know you, like you say, isn't it absurd to think that I even could cast any sort of meaningful judgment about you as a person?

As for your comment that at least you fess up that your games can harm others, I never denied this wasn't dangerous and should be done with care. On the contrary in fact, I commented on these 'games' and Fi for that matter needing a steady hand, that it was the wielder that made it evil or good. Someone who isn't skilled at this can easily cause harm without intending to do so, as can a skilled wielder hell-bent on doing 'evil. But as most Fi-users have the 'harm none' clause in their value-set, it's ime usually inexperience that causes the pain, unintentionally. And I personally have accidentily harmed people in the past, but I also make amends for that and learn from that. As I explained to Puppy on her wall already, I learn to do this 'manipulation' consciously, so I have a better control over it, so I can prevent damage from happening as I'm aware of what I'm doing, instead of noticing it too late. It comes natural to me, so it's not likely that I can stop doing it alltogether. I might as well get a handle on it and keep from harming others.

I appreciate that. However, can you see why it comes across as a non-admission of principle? Do you see how you're invalidating my opinion through your choice of words? You're essentially telling me "yes, it might be dangerous, but no one (especially not me) really does it that way, and your advice that I use it more judiciously was completely stupid and I'm not going to listen to you, so go away and bother me no more". That's how that translates into TiFe speech.

Ti does not like having its initial principles invalidated, just as much as Fi doesn't like having its core values contradicted. If you answer in a way that invalidates those initial principles, be prepared to prove your position, or Fe's going to box you into a social category that isn't very pleasant. If you get to say "this is what's going to happen because of Fi", then I'm telling you right now, this will happen because of Ti. Both parties, and yes, that means you too, need to swallow their pride to prevent these sorts of blow-ups in the future.

I'd also advise you to look at yourself before you go pointing out the inaptitude and incompetence of others in their games, coz I have to wonder how aware you are of your own 'games' causing harm. But hey...I don't know you that well, so I'll refrain from judging for now

I knew exactly what that would have done, and the harm it would cause. I told Qr:eus a good 18 hours before that post that I already had your words boxed into a corner and was ready to make you look like a complete hypocrite, but I wasn't going to do it because it would serve no real purpose, and probably upset you. Then you went ahead and called us hypocrites.

You mess with the bull, prepare for the horns. Calling a Ti user a hypocrite is a very grave insult, because it attacks our internal logical patterns. You're saying you don't understand us, but beyond that, you don't want to understand us. You're in effect being very judgmental.

Here's the thing - that's not changing any time soon. I'm not going to be "the bigger man" in that circumstance and just walk away, because I'd think less of myself to let that sort of thing slide. So my advice to you is this - if you call any xxTP a hypocrite, prepare to get everything you said thrown back at you in as many convoluted fashions as possible (I only transposed a single thing you said, and left the context around most of the rest - that was being nice) to make sure everyone else sees you as the true hypocrite. No, I'm not going to be nice and take it easy on you, because you've already been less than nice and gone straight for the sucker punch. You know it's the sucker punch now, so you can't claim ignorance in the future, either.

I'm done with this thread and this topic.

Apologies if you were genuinely harmed by anything I said. However, I won't apologize for saying it.

 

[INTP]

What gave you that idea?

79 pages = thread WIN

*takes a bow for her part in the act*

dunno..

 

[Ivy]

Edit: onemoretime is unbanned from the thread

 

[MacGuffin]

It's over?

 

[the state i am in]

Manipulating someone to make them want you/rely on you is a way for an ENFP to make the relationship go the way they want to. It's scary to actually be in a relationship and let go of manipulation. What if you can't actually get someone without manipulation??!?!

To have healthy relationships an ENFP has to move past manipulation and let a relationship develop without it. It's difficult.

what are you, an estp? an enfj? any other negative stereotypes? i assume i'm being tongue-in-cheek, yet realizing that this is fucked up. also, i might do this too. how else would i not consistently be in the wrong, or get what i want?

Let me clarify a couple of things.

"Fe user" and "Fi user" are misnomers. If you're "strong F", you use both, though you'll tend to lean on one more than the other. If you're expressing an emotion that's arising from inside of you, that's Fi, whether or not you're an "Fi user". Even xxTJs and xxTPs cry.

damn you Fi users! you'll be the death of Ti precision! i disagree completely, and if the functions were a continuum, patterns would be meaningless and completely illusory.the development model wouldn't make sense. i just don't see this at all. i don't have Fi. i still feel shit, which means the Fe definitions used are incorrect. but nothing more. but it comes from outside of me.

the Fi response to Ti sounds like, well, it seems reasonable to my own experience to say that i don't see the function divisions clearly, so they probably aren't.

 

[uumlau]

damn you Fi users! you'll be the death of Ti precision! i disagree completely, and if the functions were a continuum, patterns would be meaningless and completely illusory.the development model wouldn't make sense. i just don't see this at all. i don't have Fi. i still feel shit, which means the Fe definitions used are incorrect. but nothing more. but it comes from outside of me.

the Fi response to Ti sounds like, well, it seems reasonable to my own experience to say that i don't see the function divisions clearly, so they probably aren't.

Hahahahah!

I understand how you feel. I suspect, however, it isn't my Fi regarding them as fuzzy, it's my Te.

Yes, personally, I see the functions as rather fuzzy ... if they were truly that precise, it would be easy to type people. Yet for some people, it takes a long while to test and soul search and eventually discover their own type, never mind figure out another's type.

I use MBTI at an empirical level (Te, see?), generally making guesses and testing those guesses. There is a lot of overlap between types, and not simply based on functions.

The reason I suggest that "strong F" often uses both Fe and Fi is my own experience, where I use both Te and Ti to evaluate things, due to my background. I need both a strong grasp of the theoretical (Ti) and the empirical/experimental (Te). I lean towards the latter, preferring utility to consistency. I would guess that one who chooses to judge both with Fe and Fi might have a similar attitude: a need to understand oneself and one's own emotions clearly, and a need to understand others and their emotions clearly. One acts based on both understandings, but with a bias towards one or the other.

I'm not saying that all people are like this. There are certainly INTJs with hardly any grasp of Ti at all, and rely more on Te/Fi, for example. And with my own understanding of Ti, I still have to do a mildly painful shift of perspective to fully grok the perspectives of certain INTP friends, and they similarly have to adjust to understand mine.

I would very much like to hear your personal perspective of what Fe feels like to you, and your perspective on the other three judging functions.

 

[Laurie]

what are you, an estp? an enfj? any other negative stereotypes? i assume i'm being tongue-in-cheek, yet realizing that this is fucked up. also, i might do this too. how else would i not consistently be in the wrong, or get what i want?

Sorry, what? I was just stating something that I think can be a problem for ENFP. Everyone has potential downfalls. What makes it a big deal to admit to potential problems with your type?

 

[Valiant]

Alright, I called the United nations and they've agreed to send a peacekeeping force.
Can't you people just get back to the subject anytime soon?