User Tag List

First 3373818283848593 Last

Results 821 to 830 of 941

  1. #821
    Glycerine
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post

    [Please note that I'm using your word choice. Replace "why" with "the Ni question" and "how" with "the Ne question" to get closer to the truth.]
    hmmm interesting. I admit it wasn't the best word choice. What is the "Ni question" vs. "Ne question"? Or is more of a theoretical representation so as not to dilute the essence?

  2. #822
    Iron Maiden fidelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sx
    Posts
    11,071

    Default

    What I mean, is that unless I've become very personally invested over a period of years, I probably am more likely to disengage from interaction than try to relate to someone with whom I know I have such fundamental differences that friction is inevitable. The only exception would be in a case where I do not have a choice - family member or someone I have to teach or work with - in which case, it helps me to understand how they tick, so that I can make appropriate adjustments.

    I don't want to make people feel bad. I wouldn't purposefully do so, and if there is no way I can figure out how to stop inevitably stepping on the person's toes without altering my basic identity, then it is kinder to them to disengage.

    In the case of @PeaceBaby for example, she I think initially hoped that her and I could have a different sort of relationship where she took some turns "driving" in my inner world. I'm pretty fussy about who I even allow to ride as a passenger in my internal world (let alone driving the car!), and I don't invite just anyone to do that, except for my closest, nearest, dearest people. That's something that takes absolutely years to build and not something I'm likely to do with a casual friends. So, the fact that I don't want that kind of relationship feels like a rebuff or that I want things only on my terms. However, I don't see it that way. There's already an inherent assumption of the other person's value and worth and the validity of their point of view, so that's not what's up for grabs if I decline someone's offer to "guide" me.

    Whoever has the most "restrictions" is going to in some way define the perameters of the relationship. I believe the problem is that my "restrictions" are the first step in the process (I filter first and then allow more and more freedom), while NFP "restrictions" come later on in the relationship (they are open at first and then filter more as time goes on). Therefore, it looks like I'll only play in their sandbox if I get to make the rules and that appears unfair. It's not really that though, because if I met someone with greater "restrictions" than my own, then I would have to evaluate whether it is worth it to me to accommodate and whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks to relating in that way. In many cases, I am quite comfortable adapting to meet the other person where they're at. In other cases, it is more hassle than it is worth, so I am cordial, but don't attempt to become any closer.

    I feel like the NFP outlook is that you have to accept the other person's rules if they impose them and so it is hurtful when the other person seems to do more imposing than you. What I'm saying is that you have the option of deciding whether the benefits outweigh the restrictions and you will meet the person on their terms to some extent, or else you can seek out someone who is more like-minded and be a more compatible interactive match.

    I can kind of understand the feeling a bit, as I tend to accommodate like crazy for some thinking types (especially te doms), and they seem oblivious to just how much accommodating I am doing. When it comes up, they react similarly to the way I have to this - don't give any more than you feel comfortable with. No one has asked you to. And to my ears that seems cold and inflexible, especially when by nature I am compelled to do so! I can't help it, and so it still doesn't feel fair to me that my sacrifices are not only unrecognized, but they are also not valued. I'm not sure what to say to that, as I haven't figured a way around it myself yet...

  3. #823
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    I'm going to print ummlau's post out and frame it.

  4. #824
    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 PeaceBaby View Post
    A quick question: Does it strike you that some people aren't looking to 'get' anything out of the conversation? Can you sense when there is no goal? How does that affect your interaction?
    I do not believe there is such a thing as a conversation without a goal. It may be a miniscule goal -- maybe it is to make each other laugh, maybe it is just to hear each other's voices -- but there is always a goal -- otherwise, why talk?

    I can't even conceive what you might mean by it.

    I'm finally starting to see all this as funny.

    Regarding the proprietary aspect, whose sandbox it is, whose rules they are -- would it be fair/accurate to say that INFJ assumes that You = Not Me, and INFP assumes that You = Me? If I proceed from the point of view that You = Not Me, then I think it's natural that if you approach me, you come into my yard, or want into my house, I will extend you appropriate courtesies, but I don't expect to see you rifling through my drawers. INFP seems not to even have a door to knock on sometimes. If you live in a culture where there's not even a door to knock on, and we all live in one big room, I can see how having a door, expecting you to come only when invited or at least only drop by at reasonable hours, etc., would seem like a lot of rules.

  5. #825
    Undisciplined Starry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,619

    Default

    @Mane
    I read your psychoanalysis of me and my motivations(?) and I honestly could not tell if you were being serious or not which may be due to the fact I recently came down with pretty bad cold.

    If you were serious then we should probably discuss it outside of the thread. I haven't been talked to or warned (yet) by mod staff but from all the 'in-thread' messages posted yesterday...and how many times I've seen honest questions & comments get turned into something they are not... I could totally see an innocent question taken as something that might insult your intellegence or something.

    But if you were just fooling around... I'd just say 'No' to what you put forth. I am truly, truly embarrassed by what I am seeing here in this thread.

  6. #826
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glycerine View Post
    hmmm interesting. I admit it wasn't the best word choice. What is the "Ni question" vs. "Ne question"? Or is more of a theoretical representation so as not to dilute the essence?
    Ni question = "What is it for?"
    Ne question = "Where does it fit in?"

    More specifically, Ni has a dynamic model (concrete instantiations of the model change over time), while Ne has a more "static" model. As a dynamic model, Ni thinks in terms of how things start, how they develop and how they complete. The Ne model isn't static in the sense that there is no concept of time, but rather that the key ideas are necessarily timeless: it isn't really true if it isn't always true.

    Dario Nardi refers to Ne as being good at cross-contextual thinking, while Ni excels within a particular context. In order to handle cross-context thinking, the truths that link all these different contexts must be independent of context, which tends to result in effectively universal truths.

    Ni types don't regard such universal truths as unimportant, but prefer to manifest truths within context. When searching for new truths, Ni starts within a single context and gradually builds an understanding of how the truth "changes" as one expands to a larger and larger context (that takes more cases into account).

    Take the branches of science as an example of different (but overlapping contexts). The Ne inclination is to regard it all as "science", and that the purpose of science is to find the truth. The various branches are merely "special cases" of an overall generality. The Ni inclination is to specialize in a branch (or two, or usually a sub-sub-sub-set of a branch) and build knowledge from there outward. Ni fully recognizes that all these branches of science are related, some more, some less, but the connections that Ni sees tend to multiply too fast to keep in the mind. For example, it's theoretically possible to use quantum electrodynamics to explain every phenomenon known to man aside from gravity and nuclear reactions, but it would be absurdly difficult to use quantum electrodynamics in everyday chemistry or biology or thermodynamics. There are "macro" laws that describe these other sciences far more succinctly. It's nice to know that it's all interrelated, but the interrelations aren't useful to Ni.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  7. #827
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    At a more abstract level, using a concrete example, this is Fi:



    This is Fe:



    Fi - You like me, in spite of knowing my darker side. Fe - All the things that I might have had with you. Fi is about the subject, so it's always messed up by the darker aspects of the subject. And thus Fi feels most appreciated when accepted in the entirety. Fe is about the object, thus can be placed upon a pedestal (or in the garbage bin, though not in this song). There is a (not necessarily bad) distance between the subject and the object.
    I have an INFJ friend who is always sending me videos like that one (of Bocelli.) Evidently, she loves it and can't understand why I don't. I suppose that's why she keeps sending those videos maybe hoping eventually I'll understand or something. I've told her I'm much more oriented toward blues and blues rock. Her response to that is that she can't stand the blues and doesn't even understand that kind of music at all. I'm sure there are INFJs out there who do love the blues and INFPs who don't, etc. But for the purposes of illustration, this is what a musical collaboration between an INFJ and INFP might sound like--

    INFP--B.B. King
    INFJ--Pavarotti

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE_NEO2UfBQ

  8. #828
    Glycerine
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Ni question = "What is it for?"
    Ne question = "Where does it fit in?"

    More specifically, Ni has a dynamic model (concrete instantiations of the model change over time), while Ne has a more "static" model. As a dynamic model, Ni thinks in terms of how things start, how they develop and how they complete. The Ne model isn't static in the sense that there is no concept of time, but rather that the key ideas are necessarily timeless: it isn't really true if it isn't always true.

    Dario Nardi refers to Ne as being good at cross-contextual thinking, while Ni excels within a particular context. In order to handle cross-context thinking, the truths that link all these different contexts must be independent of context, which tends to result in effectively universal truths.

    Ni types don't regard such universal truths as unimportant, but prefer to manifest truths within context. When searching for new truths, Ni starts within a single context and gradually builds an understanding of how the truth "changes" as one expands to a larger and larger context (that takes more cases into account).

    Take the branches of science as an example of different (but overlapping contexts). The Ne inclination is to regard it all as "science", and that the purpose of science is to find the truth. The various branches are merely "special cases" of an overall generality. The Ni inclination is to specialize in a branch (or two, or usually a sub-sub-sub-set of a branch) and build knowledge from there outward. Ni fully recognizes that all these branches of science are related, some more, some less, but the connections that Ni sees tend to multiply too fast to keep in the mind. For example, it's theoretically possible to use quantum electrodynamics to explain every phenomenon known to man aside from gravity and nuclear reactions, but it would be absurdly difficult to use quantum electrodynamics in everyday chemistry or biology or thermodynamics. There are "macro" laws that describe these other sciences far more succinctly. It's nice to know that it's all interrelated, but the interrelations aren't useful to Ni.
    It definitely makes sense why those differences would be hard to reconcile without A LOT of patience and listening (even moreso online). I am the only Ni/Se user in my immediate family (3 NFPs, 1 STJ, 1 ESFJ along with me an ENFJ) and it's still sometimes difficult for me to comprehend Ne/Si.

  9. #829
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    If you can't respond with your soul to BB King's "The Thrill Is Gone", you're not human.

  10. #830
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiltyred View Post
    I do not believe there is such a thing as a conversation without a goal. It may be a miniscule goal -- maybe it is to make each other laugh, maybe it is just to hear each other's voices -- but there is always a goal -- otherwise, why talk?

    I can't even conceive what you might mean by it.

    I'm finally starting to see all this as funny.
    Ji "goals" tend to be much more broad and general than Je goals, and this is especially so for a Ji dom. Just the same way that "Ni" is simply what you automatically do without thinking about it, so Fi is for PB. Having a goal, a purpose, for everything is just how Ni is wired. Fi is more about a state of being, and if you try to turn it into a singular Ni-style cause, you either end up being totally wrong, or you learn (fairly truthfully) that it's a never-ending fractal pattern of multiple causes and effects. Fi takes an overall reading of what things are, which enables handling the vast multiplicity efficiently, but it renders the question of "goal" almost meaningless. This is how Fi "building blocks" work.

    Ni building blocks are made out of the threads of cause and effect, and so long as the threads of cause and effect are manageable, Ni is well within its area of mastery.

    Regarding the proprietary aspect, whose sandbox it is, whose rules they are -- would it be fair/accurate to say that INFJ assumes that You = Not Me, and INFP assumes that You = Me? If I proceed from the point of view that You = Not Me, then I think it's natural that if you approach me, you come into my yard, or want into my house, I will extend you appropriate courtesies, but I don't expect to see you rifling through my drawers. INFP seems not to even have a door to knock on sometimes. If you live in a culture where there's not even a door to knock on, and we all live in one big room, I can see how having a door, expecting you to come only when invited or at least only drop by at reasonable hours, etc., would seem like a lot of rules.
    Note how this is parallel to SK's comment about INFJs' walls. INFPs don't have walls like that, and find the INFJ walls to be awkward and puzzling, not realizing that there is a door. (Remember, as mentioned in my prior post, the door is invisible to the INFP.)

    A more abstract way of looking at it is to think in terms of the different realms of mastery. When you get two real experts together, there are two different kinds of reactions that the experts can have. The more positive one is collaborative: the knowledge is shared and becomes greater for both than it was before. The more typical negative one is blindness. Let's say the experts have about 10% of their knowledge in common, but instead of acknowledging that the other expert knows things that oneself does not, one assumes that the 10% in common is ALL the knowledge of the other person. Thus to this kind of blind expert, all other experts look stupid, because they only know 10% of what he knows.

    The analogy applies to the INFJ/INFP interaction, in that there is only a small area of understanding in common, and huge areas of mastery where the other type cannot (easily) see. If the INFP only sees the INFJ being an arrogant ass who needs to be right all the time, and the INFJ only sees the INFP as being whiny and emotionally manipulative, then that's being like the blind experts, certain of their own mastery, while denying the mastery of others.

    Perhaps it might help to read masters in Fi, Fe? Here are a couple, in my opinion (I think I've mentioned these to you before, Tilty, but this is more for the forum in general).

    Fi: Don Miguel Ruiz's The Four Agreements (and associated books)

    Fe: Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving

    Ruiz works from the inside, showing how one can subjectively achieve a high level of emotional maturity (though he wouldn't call it that). Fromm works externally, explaining love and love's role in society, and deducing from that what mature, true love looks like.

    And their writings are completely compatible, arriving at very similar conclusions. Fromm provocatively states that true love is an act of will ("provocative" to those who believe that one just "falls in love", that love is just a feeling). Ruiz provides a subjective guide as to how one actually arrives at the state where love is an act of will.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENFP] ENFPs, what do ENFPs do that drives you nuts?
    By Esoteric Wench in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-05-2013, 10:25 AM
  2. Am I a INTP or a INFP?What do you think?
    By Tish211 in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-04-2011, 09:33 PM
  3. [MBTItm] INFPs: What do you admire about ISFJs?
    By Afkan in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-13-2010, 07:40 PM
  4. [INFP] INFPs: What do you look for in friends?
    By DigitalMethod in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 10-08-2008, 11:48 AM
  5. Josh Groban: INFJ? INFP?? What do you think?
    By BookLady in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-03-2008, 09:11 AM

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