User Tag List

First 14222324252634 Last

Results 231 to 240 of 499

  1. #231
    Iron Maiden fidelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sx
    Posts
    11,075

    Default

    Yes, this! I totally identify with what Tilty is saying here. Do feelings work differently for Fi users? I know your reaction to them tends to be different, so I'm wondering if your control over them may also be different than it is for me.

  2. #232
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Just like Te and Ti seek to make the non-human world predictable through imposition of predetermined rationalization, or through rule-creation by analytical rationalization, Fe and Fi seek to make human relations predictable and communities safe and unified. Fe does this through the imposition of norms and rules of human behavior that satisfies the person's need for regularity in others' reactions to certain situations. Fi does this through "emotive analysis" of certain behaviors and situations, so as to understand how a person will feel in this circumstance, or how they would in another circumstance.

    Fe gets into trouble when it imposes regularity for regularity's sake, instead of first developing the emotional rationale behind the norms further, then implementing those rules. It also gets into trouble when it interprets anothers' chafing at the norms, or disregard thereof, as antisocial behavior, rather than exploring why that person reacts to the rule in that particular way. As Fe develops, the rules become fewer and fewer, until they converge with Fi's focus on how the other person will react in the situation, rather than what the established rule is. Eventually, the rule becomes the simple rule of reciprocity - treat others as you yourself would be treated. At this point, Fe begins its process of transcendence, sung so eloquently by The Beatles: "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."

    Fi gets into trouble when it fails to recognize the immense complexity of emotional reactions, sacrificing an empathy of understanding for an empathy of response. What this means is that Fi can only work properly when a person has enough experience and emotional resilience to understand that others' reactions are fundamentally influenced by the impact of events and emotions outside the person's immediate knowledge, and what's more, acting upon an inaccurate reading of a person can significantly harm the relationship. As Fi develops, it comes to understand that some rules arose for very good reasons, and what's more, a person cannot ignore the comfort that many people take in having rules of social interaction. At its pinnacle, it converges with Fe, and begins the spiritual experience of knowing the transcendent meaning of being human - that no matter how much pain and suffering there is in the world, one may always triumph over it through following one simple rule: love thy neighbor as thyself.

  3. #233
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    She said wasnt I hiding myself away in doing so and it seemed unhealthy to do so. Well yes, but how else can I be around someone who commits actions that so deeply violate my values-except by establishing a distance which protects my emotions?
    Speak up. Share your values.

  4. #234
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    As far as the actual scenario: how much of your MIL's earlier life are you familiar with, O? Her reaction may seem incredibly harsh, but do you know what experience she is speaking from? You don't get that sort of thing from a happy background.

    Second thing - perhaps there is an additional way to interpret the pain and outrage that you felt upon her words. Along with it being about her insensitivity, maybe you were mirroring her own anguish arising from a similar situation. The tricky thing is, you can't know for sure unless you ask, and when you ask, you have to be prepared for her to say no.

    You never engage a person on an instantaneous basis. You're always interacting with a timeline, some apparent, some deeply hidden, and some repressed by that person. This is where the act of loving comes in: you harbor that indignation with patience, temper that harshness with kindness, assuage that outrage with humility, subdue the desire for an outburst with grace, and comfort the hurt you feel with unselfishness. The transcendent love referred to earlier? That's what the Greeks called agape. That could very well be what you're looking for.

  5. #235
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    I guess I'm just confused about what you're trying to do here. Are you trying to critique the logic of her statements alone? And if so, what do you think her lack of logic says about the truth of her claims? About her behavior?

    I am misunderstanding you because I cannot fathom what the purpose of critiquing her logic is at this point. We know simply from reading the OP that the ISTP was certainly not saying these things in the spirit of objectivity. Pointing out how the specific things she said were not logical, or that she did not adduce enough evidence in favor of her conclusions, is therefore an exercise in redundancy. It's obvious that the things she were saying were vague and laden with emotional judgment. All this tells us is that her judgment, as indicated by her words in that conversation, is not to be trusted as an accurate indicator of the reality of the situation.
    This is my point exactly. And I assume the ISFP innocent until proven otherwise. This is not a concrete position, though. This merely means her guilt is unproven, not that she is completely off the hook. If more people raised concerns or more negative information came to light I would definitely begin to question that innocence.

    It does NOT, however, tell us that what she's saying is not true. And it does NOT tell us whether her behavior in this instance is "cruel" or "mean." To determine the former, the facts of the situation would have to be ascertained. If neglect DID happen, she would be off of the hook; she would not have defamed the mother by saying that she neglected her kids (and whatever else.) To determine the latter, we would have to know two things: (1) in what spirit she made those statements (i.e., whether she was ranting or venting, and to whom she was speaking), and (2) the extent to which her factual claims are true. Because if she said those things during a rant, or while she was venting, then how could she be held accountable for her tone? But if she had said those things TO the ISFP mother, then certainly she would be at fault for some form of insensitivity (whether cruelty or not would be up for debate.) And if most or all of the things she said turned out to be false, then we would know that she was being mean-spirited towards the ISFP.
    I do see your point and it is fair. Nonetheless, I think her behaviour judgmental (and therefore unkind) because almost all the evidence she provided of neglect was based on her annoyance with the ISFP. In other words she assumed the ISFP was a bad person because she doesn't like her, and this is remarkably unfair. If she truly wishes her concerns to be taken seriously, she needs to provide better grounds for them. Based on her present reasoning (as far as we have seen), if ISTP was indeed correct about the ISFP being neglectful, it would prove her rant as more good luck, than a demonstration of her powers of discernment.
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

  6. #236
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    This is my point exactly. And I assume the ISFP innocent until proven otherwise. This is not a concrete position, though. This merely means her guilt is unproven, not that she is completely off the hook. If more people raised concerns or more negative information came to light I would definitely begin to question that innocence.
    I see. That is fair, though I think it unlikely that the ISTP's reactions were entirely unprovoked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    I do see your point and it is fair. Nonetheless, I think her behaviour judgmental (and therefore unkind) because almost all the evidence she provided of neglect was based on her annoyance with the ISFP.
    I think it's certainly fair to say that her words were not kind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    In other words she assumed the ISFP was a bad person because she doesn't like her, and this is remarkably unfair.
    I don't know if this is necessarily indicated by the things she said. As was mentioned by several members earlier in the thread, it seemed more like she was talking about what the ISFP did/didn't do, and how those things were dumb/ridiculous/awful. There was never any statement made directly about the ISFP herself (e.g., "she is such a bad/ignorant/irredeemable person, and I hate her.")

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    If she truly wishes her concerns to be taken seriously, she needs to provide better grounds for them. Based on her present reasoning (as far as we have seen), if ISTP was indeed correct about the ISFP being neglectful, it would prove her rant as more good luck, than a demonstration of her powers of discernment.
    I agree that her "evidence" was quite insufficient on its own to convince anybody of the truth of her claims.

    I disagree with the bolded, though, because I still believe context should be taken into account when evaluating her words. It's clear, at least to me, that she said the things she did to Orobas because she thought she was in the company of someone who would agree. Therefore, she was not trying to persuade anyone. She was not putting her best foot forth because, if she believed her audience to already be in agreement with her, then she wouldn't feel the need to expend the energy to make convincing arguments. Further, as I have stated before, I do think that she was probably ranting/venting. And if she was venting/ranting, I don't think it's appropriate to evaluate her words the same way one would evaluate them if they came from a clear-headed person. Stated differently, I think that her words here are not a good indication of her powers of discernment, and I would want to hold off judgment on that until I had spoken to her in a different context. That is, I wouldn't think that a judgment about her behavior/powers of discernment could reasonably be made "based on her present reasoning (as far as we have seen)."

    That's my opinion, though, and I can see how someone might not want to give her the benefit of the doubt.

    Doesn't it strike you as "incongruous," though, that you would give the ISFP lady the benefit of the doubt and not the ISTP lady? I mean, it's sort of the same as mediating between two kids fighting; you take them aside one at a time, starting with little Billy, and you ask him why he's fighting with little Bob. Little Billy replies angrily, "because Bob is so stupid. He has a stupid face." Without finding out anything else about the situation, and without talking to the other kid, would you assume that little Billy was just being a bully to little Bob, simply because (1) he's your first and only source of information, and (2) his "evidence" for little Bob's stupidity is not convincing?
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  7. #237
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    orangey, i think perhaps why some Fi users have seemed to side more with the ISFP is because it looks like the ISTP is more the one who has launched the "attack".

    coming from a neutral standpoint, to our knowledge, the ISFP has not done anything with the intention of negativity towards the ISTP, whereas the ISTP has made statements specifically assigning negativity towards the actions of the ISFP and her family.

    the way i see it, is a bit like a balance. right now the ISTP has the upper hand because she is attacking, so it makes sense to see if she has messed up as well, and to consider how valid her claims are, before looking at the interaction of both parties - especially because we are really going off the information the ISTP has provided us. we don't treat them both equally because the ISTP is the one who has made the first claims - perhaps it is somewhat a Te thing, but we need to check her claims first. are they reasonable? are they internally consistent? (in this case, they do not seem to be, which is what personally made me respond as i did.)

    so that is not to say the ISFP has not made poor decisions or been negative herself - i mean, if the ISTP is right, she may well have a whole lot of issues that need addressing - and nor is it to say the ISTP is not a good person or has not done good things - she sounds like she is a generally charitable person, even if she is not always gung ho for it (though really, who ever is) - but assessing the ISTP herself is simply a first step in a rebalancing to get to a point of equality where we can assess how both parties are responsible for their contributions to the issue.

  8. #238
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    orangey, i think perhaps why some Fi users have seemed to side more with the ISFP is because it looks like the ISTP is more the one who has launched the "attack".

    coming from a neutral standpoint, to our knowledge, the ISFP has not done anything with the intention of negativity towards the ISTP, whereas the ISTP has made statements specifically assigning negativity towards the actions of the ISFP and her family.

    the way i see it, is a bit like a balance. right now the ISTP has the upper hand because she is attacking, so it makes sense to see if she has messed up as well, and to consider how valid her claims are, before looking at the interaction of both parties - especially because we are really going off the information the ISTP has provided us. we don't treat them both equally because the ISTP is the one who has made the first claims - perhaps it is somewhat a Te thing, but we need to check her claims first. are they reasonable? are they internally consistent? (in this case, they do not seem to be, which is what personally made me respond as i did.)

    so that is not to say the ISFP has not made poor decisions or been negative herself - i mean, if the ISTP is right, she may well have a whole lot of issues that need addressing - and nor is it to say the ISTP is not a good person - she sounds like she is a generally charitable person, even if her heart is not always in it - or has not done good things, but reviewing the ISTP's claims is simply a first step in a rebalancing to get to a point of equality where we can assess how both parties are responsible for their contributions to the issue.
    That's looking at it backwards. You feel the pain and anguish in her words. That's the important part, because that's how you're going to explain why she's saying the things she did. It may seem otherwise often, but people are rarely mean for the sake of being mean - there's usually some sort of positive intention, warped as it may be.

    In this case, and this is pure speculation, it would not surprise me if the M-I-L's own mother were similar to the woman being criticized, and that you're hearing the M-I-L's anger, resentment, pain and sadness at the way she was neglected growing up manifesting in her charged concern for the children.

  9. #239
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    hello all! I am trying to de-forum but I really wanted to thank the TPs and FJs for the insights shared in this thread. I actually felt really bad after staring this thread as it seemed to create so much frustration and discord. But I suspect the results and understandings that were exposed were very important to discuss.
    MIL and I spoke and she apologized for venting. I explained it was perfectly okay to vent and that she had been under a great deal of emotional stress, so not to worry about it and we spoke of ways to help the family as they complete their move this weekend.

    Quote Originally Posted by fidelia View Post
    Have you ever explained this to your MIL?
    Is she causing you more pain than benefit from interacting?
    Does she generally vent this kind of stuff to you? How have you reacted in the past?
    MIL is a TP-part of accepting MIL is giving her the freedom to be authentic to who she really is. I desire to be authentic to who I am, thus I also desire for others to be allowed to be authentic to who they are-even if I don’t like it. So in general, with all of my TP friends and relatives, I tolerate behavior which I would not do myself as I realize they are just “different”. Even before MBTI-they were just different and I always have felt they deserve the freedom to be so.

    Historically-I Lived with MIL and DIL after their son left me with a 1 week old baby. I lived there for four years during my undergrad. I worked the whole time and never accepted money. Their kindness allowed me to finish my undergrad degree. I love them both very much. However MIL has always been a little Fe-ish and always sort of nagged me about little weird things raising my children. Understanding Fe has been a huge help in learning that her Fe nudges were signs of love.

    This situation was different-because it was aimed at a potential innocent, not me. The harsh language used during Ti/Fe venting translates VERY badly to be honest. Exceptionally so. I know and hear you guys saying it is not meant to be condemnatory-but that IS how it translates. It is VERY valuable to hear your internal perspective and viewpoint here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    I don't know if this is necessarily indicated by the things she said. As was mentioned by several members earlier in the thread, it seemed more like she was talking about what the ISFP did/didn't do, and how those things were dumb/ridiculous/awful. There was never any statement made directly about the ISFP herself (e.g., "she is such a bad/ignorant/irredeemable person, and I hate her.")
    But almost all of the Fi users see what was said-and they are “reading” it as condemnatory….As I mentioned earlier in the thread, likely it is not a case of “what” is being said but instead “how” it is being said-linguistically perhaps?

  10. #240
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Doesn't it strike you as "incongruous," though, that you would give the ISFP lady the benefit of the doubt and not the ISTP lady? I mean, it's sort of the same as mediating between two kids fighting; you take them aside one at a time, starting with little Billy, and you ask him why he's fighting with little Bob. Little Billy replies angrily, "because Bob is so stupid. He has a stupid face." Without finding out anything else about the situation, and without talking to the other kid, would you assume that little Billy was just being a bully to little Bob, simply because (1) he's your first and only source of information, and (2) his "evidence" for little Bob's stupidity is not convincing?
    “Billy it isn’t nice to say ugly things about another person. To say mean things hurts others and is not nice. Now lets talk about what actually happened-why are you mad at Bob? What happened?”

    The two events are treated as separate and the actual issue between the two is treated in as objective a manner as possible-I would not pass judgment without speaking to Bob-I remain almost totally neutral…but it still isn’t okay for Billy to say mean things.

    I hear you saying that the words were not spoken to Bob-thus why do they matter that they were mean? Because 1) I will feel the pain Bob will feel upon hearing the words, 2) an Fi user will often be able to see past a surface façade of civility to the underlying feelings of disgust (?) thus it doesn’t matter what you say-but rather what you mean, what you really feel about them. This seems unfair, I am sorry, it isn’t meant to be judgmental. It just seems to be how we may be, although perhaps other Fiusers can add commentary.

    Randominity raised a very good point-when will an Fi user actually condemn another and speak harshly about another? For me, It is truly condemnation. Note how we gravitate towards the term “cruel”.

    I will critique another-“You are acting like an asshole. You are being obnoxious. You are hurting another person. Why would you think that is okay to do that?” Notice 1) all of these are directed at behavioral actions, not the individual’s essence and 2) all of these are delivered to the actual person. When younger I talked trash now and then, but always felt REALLY shitty, guilty, and mean later on.

    I will comment about the skills/competence/efficiency of another behind their back. “Bob is really nice and has good intents, BUT is totally incompetent at the tasks he has been assigned. Sally is totally not able to do her job, because she cant understand logistical planning. ” Ideally though someone would confront Bob and give him direct feedback so he knows what to improve upon. If it was my place I would willingly do so.

    To speak harshly about another, using the terms the MIL used? They must be beyond redemption and beyond forgiveness. ” You are an evil, broken, twisted, mean person. There is something very wrong and broken with in you. There is nothing that can be done to fix you. I hate you. You are trash” It is to be put in a place that is outside of my empathy. I no longer feel your pain and would gladly remove you as your have hurt other s enough that you are a threat to everyone around you. If I used the words, tone and terms my MIL did-I would be seeking to have the ISFP imprisoned for child abuse and would have long ago called CPS. I do speak this way about an aunt and uncle I had who shot up meth and left their children to starve. “you are dead to me”. It sounds silly-but that is when I would say such harsh things about another. They have become nothing and are cut out of my world.

    I can recognize a split here-personal hatred-which needs to be set aside as....nonprofessional? hehe, I dunno, personal hatred for a personal hurt is a Te fail, although it is nice to rail on these motherfuckers in the moment.. Then there is a hatred/coldness for someone who is dangerous to everyone around them-their removal becomes a planned event with little emotion. I have met very, very few people who fall into this category.

    NOTE: The above is all me...I dont understand how much of this translates to other Fi users, as I can be an exceptionally harsh Te judge, but am very forgiving when i use Fi...Everyone seems able to be saved or forgiven? Yeah, I dunno....

Similar Threads

  1. [Fi] The One Where an Inferior Fi User Groundlessly Speculates about FPs...
    By Wind Up Rex in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 08-07-2013, 10:06 AM
  2. [Fe] When an Fe user verbally rants....
    By sculpting in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-28-2009, 11:01 AM
  3. [NF] theory about Fe & Fi
    By lorkan in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 02-23-2009, 06:37 PM
  4. auxilary Fe/Fi detectives
    By entropie in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-06-2008, 09:37 PM
  5. Fe/Fi interactions with Te/Ti
    By proteanmix in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-20-2007, 10:20 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