User Tag List

First 2868767778798088 Last

Results 771 to 780 of 938

  1. #771
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    I deleted as soon as I realised.
    Last edited by Kasper; 10-08-2010 at 12:00 AM. Reason: aside removed
    Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
    Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  2. #772
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Or you know, you could just ask the question.

  3. #773
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    Sorry, That was unnecessary too. I'll come back when I'm not in grips of raging tonsilitis. Short temper.
    Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
    Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  4. #774
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Since you're sick, I felt sorry for you and went back to hunt for the obscure question in a wall 'o text.

    To answer your question: nah, I don't think it's healthy to have to go into your ESTJ shadow and freak out on people before you communicate about what's bothering you. I do, however, think it's normal for INFPs to do this.

    I usually don't keep things in when they bother me. When I go STJ it generally involves confronting people and telling them what to do. It often feels necessary when I do it. I think it's something to be drawn upon in times of stress or when nothing else really will work.

    But the mature thing to do is to communicate with people if it's possible to do so before it gets to that point. Talking things out is a very efficient way to avoid huge misunderstandings and unnecessary hurt feelings.

    I'm a big fan of getting things out in the open. But I do have a serious weakness: I tend to hold things back, myself, usually when my pride is at stake...let's say, for example, with a guy I like...I want to be cool about it and not look like a total emo freak. Well, if I let this go on for too long, I act even worse than I initially would have had I just communicated my thoughts or feelings calmly and rationally.

    I don't know what it's like for an INFP to just hold things inside til they explode, but I do know what it feels like as an ENFP to limit my natural preference for expression due to embarrassment or wanting someone to think better of me. In the end, it's a mistake. Just talking about things makes everything so much easier to handle than holding it in and freaking out.

    For example, next time just re-state the question you want answered - or link to it if it's too long to re-state -instead of whining that everyone is ignoring you or that you're sick. That isn't INFP informing vs. directing, it's just being irrational. Te is your friend.

  5. #775
    Member stormyapril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Esoteric wench, peace baby, fidelia and Z Buck-

    This thread is amazingly inspiring-a rosetta stone of sorts. I admire each of you so much for trying to understand and work through this area of miscommunication. There seemed to be a great deal of tension at times, but each of you seemed so open to trying to understand and explain each others perspectives. It takes a great deal of maturity and good will for others to explore and self evaluate as you each did.

    Xello's concern resonated with me. Even if individuals can move past this wall here, via extensive interactions, and much forgiveness, how much of that can we ever translate to the real world?

    In the real world we perceive the world through our internal windows-perceptual blind spots are filled in with our internal map or what we perceive to be reality-not the other person's reality. Thus much of our daily interactions are based upon mutual, unrecognized misunderstandings and projections. We just think we understand each other.

    On a last note, at the end of the thread it seemed several Fe users exhibited discomfort at using Jungian functional theory and almost were dismissive of it. Yet the Te users, even INFPs, seemed to embrace it while recognizing the simplistic, reductive nature of it.

    To me, the natural question arises-Does being an Fe user somehow inhibit the ability to break down behavior into discrete, objective, analyzable quanta the way a Te user would naturally be able to do? Thus it isnt that Jungian functions are incorrect, just that an Fe user may never be able to fully employ a Te approach on themselves or others as they already are using Fe. So perhaps Jungian functions may not be the best tool for an Fe user in self understanding.

  6. #776
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireyPheonix View Post
    It will start out as some one pointing some thing out, and over a serious of months, if I start to see a pattern forming, I may be tempted to run past some one, to see if they recognise the pattern. If it continues to gain form and I can start pin pointing specific issues that affect other people as well as myself, I may start running it past people who are in a position to sort it out. If I see no action, and/or the issue becomes worse, the balance is dangerously close to tipping. It then only takes one action that seriously affects every one, for me to step up and speak out, like a switch, or match lighting up. Quite often when you see an Fi-dom go into fighting mode, what appears to be like a momentary outburst, has actually been bothering them for weeks, months, even years.
    I hear what you are saying here firey - and I can relate to this pattern. Want you to know I am following you so far.

    The unfortunate thing is when we are in this mode, it isn't actually our most articulate, for me I'm like the sergant major who been spurred into action, to take control. And that's the thing, I'm doing, no longer thinking, I've selected my action for better or worse.
    But you are thinking, or at least you have been, all along the way ... you have selected your action, indeed it may be for better or worse, but as you said above, it may have taken you weeks, months or even years to get to this point. The decision to speak out is your empowerment, it's the energy necessary to create change. If people had been paying attention or given a hoot at some point, you wouldn't be in this position, no?

    Sometimes it works....when people haven't been prepared to take responsibility, but it takes a heck of alot to get me there. By that point, I've put my feelers out, checked how the land lies, done my research, I've already spoken with the people that need to spoken with, I don't always think that it's a surprise, (it always appears to be).
    @bold: At this point in my personal experience, I don't buy it when people think that a known issue has come "out of the blue". If you are anything like myself, you've taken the belabored, tactful diplomacy route and found those efforts fruitless. In fact, I believe any knee-jerk reactions to an issue to be both a method of trying to enact a form of face-saving damage control and a way of trying to control you. To basically "shut you up" and shut you down.

    What's more of a surprise to people is that you're not a milquetoast after all (like they may have imagined or hoped) - that you have a backbone, have chutzpah and will get up and get energized about the things that matter ...

    I've been told this many a time, I should do my talking before I go into battle, but as far as I'm aware I have done. Is the form of communication that isn't quite right, or does this boil down to informative vrs directive styles of communication?
    And here's the key to know if you are engaging appropriately - are you truly making a clear-cut case for change all along the way? Are you paying attention to the little alarm bells as they ring for you, or do you tend to push them out of your mind until that big moment where you feel you MUST speak? Are you noting the strong Fe users in your midst and appealing to their sense of propriety? Are you verbally or in writing, engaging strong Te users to be advocates as well? If that's not happening, this is the area where you could potentially improve your approach.

    Hope that's helpful - ask me more about it and we can drill down.
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  7. #777
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Affably Evil View Post
    Uumlau, your posts are, as always, very interesting to me. Do you have further thoughts on subjective versus objective thoughts, especially how they might act through the Feeling judgment as a preference? If I'm understanding this correctly, do the conscious and subconscious thought processes then directly correlate to the function being extroverted or introverted — then the successive function preferences as to how we navigate between introverted functions and extroverted functions...?

    It does make sense to me to consider that a person is only introverted or extroverted through preferring an extroverted or introverted function, rather than a person being inherently introverted or extroverted and then utilizing, say, Thinking. Might the preference for subconscious thoughts then account for an introvert's need for downtime? Or would Jung attribute that as having more to do more with requiring objective thinking?
    Here's what Jung has to say about objective vs. subjective:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jung, C.G. - Psychological Types
    ... Thus, just as it seems incomprehensible to the introvert that the object should always be the decisive factor, it remains an enigma to the extravert how a subjective standpoint can be superior to the objective situation. He inevitably comes to the conclusion that the introvert is either a conceited egoist or crack-brained bigot. Today he would be suspected of harbouring an unconscious power complex. The introvert certainly lays himself open to these suspicions, for his positive, highly generalizing manner of expression, which appears to rule out every other opinion from the start, lends countenance to all the extravert's prejudices. Moreover the inflexibility of his subjective judgment, setting itself above all objective data, is sufficient in itself to create the impression of marked egocentricity. Faced with this prejudice the introvert is usually at a loss for the right argument, for he is quite unaware of the unconscious but generally quite valid assumptions on which his subjective judgment and his subjective perceptions are based. In the fashion of the times he looks outside for an answer, instead of seeking it behind his own consciousness. ...
    This applies to Fe vs Fi and Te vs Ti (and to a degree Ne vs Ni and Se vs Si, but Jung appears to be speaking more in terms of judgment, here). Fe and Te deal with the objective. Fe applies its reasoning to that which is visible, shared, known to all observers, and it uses, a priori, known and shared assumptions, premises, a shared means of analysis. Fi, while it nominally deals with similar material, being a "feeling function", is dealing with a personal, subjective perspective that is not shared, neither by virtue of its observations nor by virtue of its analytical premises.

    Fe speaks as if things are obvious, shared, known, objective. To contradict these obvious things is bizarre, if not antisocial or worse, to Fe. Fi, however, has to contradict several of these things, because Fi observes different things, and judges by an internal subjective standard that is idiosyncratic to the individual. Fi tries to speak, is stuck with the "Fe language" of "obvious things," and often becomes tongue-tied, believing that it can communicate and reason by virtue of objective concepts. It largely fails, except for where Fe and Fi naturally overlap on basic fundamentals. The nuances are lost.

    Fi becomes its most articulate when it speaks in its own terms, ditching the "objective" concepts. When Fi users share, part of the sharing is the personal frame. The frame isn't judged. Rather, the frame is the basis of communication, providing a "frame"-work for sharing judgments. Thus one might describe an event or happenstance or personal experience, all from the personal, subjective viewpoint. Then another might describe a similar, but probably not exactly the same, experience, and share thoughts about how one dealt with it.

    The conflict between Fe and Fi becomes obvious, then: Fe has its shared frame, and that shared frame imposes itself upon the Fi subjective frame. Fe talks in terms of "we" and "you," Fi talks in terms of "I." Each instinctively rejects the other's frame.

    Both frames have truth and validity: a priori rejection of either on the basis of the frame is not merited. The Fe side evolves a wisdom that understands how human beings interact with one another. The Fi side possesses a different wisdom that is based on self-understanding, perhaps self-mastery: an understanding of what each individual human being is truly like, and how we differ. Each side stands to benefit by listening to the other.

  8. #778
    Senior Member Adasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    The conflict between Fe and Fi becomes obvious, then: Fe has its shared frame, and that shared frame imposes itself upon the Fi subjective frame. Fe talks in terms of "we" and "you," Fi talks in terms of "I." Each instinctively rejects the other's frame.

    Both frames have truth and validity: a priori rejection of either on the basis of the frame is not merited. The Fe side evolves a wisdom that understands how human beings interact with one another. The Fi side possesses a different wisdom that is based on self-understanding, perhaps self-mastery: an understanding of what each individual human being is truly like, and how we differ. Each side stands to benefit by listening to the other.
    I think this is accurate, and also explains accurately the basis from which Fi/Fe is expressed to its most "altrustic" end. I'm going to say straight away that I'm quite new to all this Fe/Fi stuff in an academic sense, so apologies if you feel I've got it all wrong - corrections are welcome.

    Nevertheless, from experience, Fe seems to enjoy making the majority feel good and will deny/ignore/reject whomever in a group it sees as disrusptive or as not desiring to integrate. This is to ensure that the maximum amount of people are feeling good. The joy is in the successful interaction of several individuals, in which Fe plays the role of "deal-maker" e.g. look at all the guests at my party, having a great time together. Fe seems skilled at convincing people that they are feeling good/having fun etc. and forgetting their own worries/concerns, but has difficulty in bringing that out when a minority of people act otherwise, seemingly labelling them "difficult" and as not worth the time/effort when everyone else seems to be getting along well.

    Now the one dissenting voice in this scenario is all too often Fi. Continuing with the theme of a party, Fi feels that, if the party does not serve him/herself ("I don't feel like a party today"), then the party is worthless and, unforgivably, without meaning. This disrupts Fe's carefully laid plans and wonderfully-implemented harmony and appears to be nothing more than obstinate and destructive behaviour which, to an extent, it is. Fe seems to consider Fi's alternatve view in this scenario as selfishly destructive: why are you acting this way to the detriment of all the guests and undermining all my efforts? Fi, however, sees the party itself as undesirable and participation in it, therefore, artifical and dishonest: why do I have to "perform" for these people if my heart's not really in it?

    I think both types are operating at their best when Fe can revel in the role of "host" and Fi can talk to a small group in the role of "animated" speaker. It's difficult for one to operate in the role of the other: as Fi, attending to all is tricky because the number of people coupled with time constraints means one cannot engage with each person in a satifactory way. Conversely, Fe would probably hate being stuck in a small group for an extended period, because there's only a finite amount of time to display and impress their exuberance onto that group.
    That girls are raped, that two boys knife a third,
    Were axioms to him, who'd never heard
    Of any world where promises were kept,
    Or one could weep because another wept.

  9. #779
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    270

    Default

    Wow. This is a loooong thread. I have no freaking idea if this was addressed or not but I'll bring it up again.

    Quote Originally Posted by freeeekyyy View Post
    I think Fi has a tendency to cause trouble with Fe because more often than not, Fi users make "intent" very important in a situation. Fi says "I didn't mean to cause any harm" and Fe says it's irrelevant. What matters is results, not method.
    Not me...I care much more about intentions than results.

  10. #780
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    270

    Default

    I agree with everything you said, Adasta. As for the group thing, large groups can be good for me because people interact with each other so I don't have to constantly be babysitting and pleasing somebody. Large groups can also be bad for me if people aren't all participating and I have to babysit and please multiple people/groups at once.

Similar Threads

  1. When Fe meets Fi......
    By RedAmazoneFriendZone in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 05-15-2016, 08:09 AM
  2. Fe vs. Fi, Disloyalty, Allegiance, Or the Lack Thereof…
    By Esoteric Wench in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 01-13-2011, 07:55 PM
  3. [NT] Fe and Fi, the NT version
    By BlahBlahNounBlah in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 04-20-2010, 09:55 AM
  4. Let's end the Fe/Ti - Fi/Te wars once and for all...
    By onemoretime in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 03-16-2010, 12:00 PM
  5. Why does Ti always go with Fe and Fi with Te?
    By sofmarhof in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 02-23-2010, 03:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO