[NT] NT in an F-dominated network.

[Robopop]

Nearly all of my friends and family rely on their feelings over logic.

I'm one of the only voices in my group of people I'm around a lot that will serve cold reasoning, and I've found it's only appreciated a small percentage of the time, usually when I use it against somebody or something a feeling type dislikes. I end up offending people when I give my analysis on anything that they have a positive emotional attachment to (which seems like everything).

I may be around people that aren't developed well enough to tell the difference between insults and plain old observation. I've begun to really become fond of an ENTJ I know because of how straightforward he is in saying what he thinks about something. It's refreshing.

Has anyone else been in this position before? If so what did you do? Did you succumb to F demands and begin recurrently considering their feelings or simply not care and stayed yourself? Do you change your process of thinking for the sake of people or harness your T into doing what you do best?

God have mercy on your soul .

 

[suttree]

I realize this is the wrong subforum, but what about the converse? What sorts of complaints do feelers voice about being in T-dominated environments?

 

[Mr. Sherlock Holmes]

Perhaps this: Don't argue and don't criticize.

Think of it as an opportunity. It's good practice.

Why are we the ones who must submit even if their behaviour makes no sense?

 

[fill]

I realize this is the wrong subforum, but what about the converse? What sorts of complaints do feelers voice about being in T-dominated environments?

That's a good question. Probably a lot like someone who lives in a post-apocalyptic world ruled by Skynet.

I learned to purposely present my argument based on emotion, and I got what I wanted every time. Whereas before, I stubbornly presented my case with step-by-step logic and plans and got nowhere.

Ha! I fear stepping over ethical boundaries doing this with my close friends, but I may do it then dismiss the emotional argument for the logical one, and see what happens.

Do you have a concrete example of one of those situations?

Sure.
INXP = Jack
ENFJ = Darin

Darin I made really good friends with Jack last year who transferred to another university. He paid a visit to us this year; he smokes cigarettes. Darin basically harassed Jack every time he went outside to have a one, saying he shouldn't be smoking because it's bad for his health, and it got to the point where Darin told Jack he couldn't have a cigarette. I told Darin that it was Jack's choice whether or not to smoke, and that it wasn't his business to tell him what to do. Here's the argument I got from Darin: "My family member smoked for years and got lung cancer, causing my family stress for years. I can't see another person I care for go through that pain, etc." Here was my argument: "You're causing more harm than help by harassing him. He'll stop when he wants to, not when you tell him." I have an aunt that smokes cigarettes, and a grandfather that nearly died from them; I know the risks, but when it comes to something like that, the motivation to smoke comes from the inside, and only can be solved there, unless extreme external influence is applied (ie. an intervention). Darin didn't go this route in his reasoning, and acted on his emotion instead of deducing why Jack smokes of how to properly address the issue effectively to where it convinces him to stop. Suffice to say, Darin became very, very angry with me and didn't listen to my argument. (sigh)

Why are we the ones who must submit even if their behaviour makes no sense?

I'm asking the same question.

 

[Coriolis]

Why are we the ones who must submit even if their behaviour makes no sense?

I'm asking the same question.

And I as well. How did nonsense come to be the default?

 

[Totenkindly]

Why are we the ones who must submit even if their behaviour makes no sense?

Why do you consider yourself to be the only one submitting so far?

(F typically changes its behavior to accommodate others already. T's are more likely to be bulls in glass houses.)

I'm not much for F's who are over-demanding and don't try to grasp where T's are coming from; but I think we're just talking about T's here and what stuff you can control.

... and maybe that is part of your reason. From an efficiency POV, it's worth fitting in where you can so that you have space and collateral to burn when it's worth it to challenge status quo. mrcockburn seemed to figure it out. If you want, you can view it as "speaking French to the Frenchmen rather than getting pissed because you're speaking Swedish in France and can't seem to get anything done or have anyone understand/support you."

 

[Coriolis]

... and maybe that is part of your reason. From an efficiency POV, it's worth fitting in where you can so that you have space and collateral to burn when it's worth it to challenge status quo. mrcockburn seemed to figure it out. If you want, you can view it as "speaking French to the Frenchmen rather than getting pissed because you're speaking Swedish in France and can't seem to get anything done or have anyone understand/support you."

I prefer to let the other person be themselves, and to let me be me. I am willing to try to understand F-style expression, but it is still much easier for me to respond in my own natural mode. To use your language analogy, I would learn enough French to understand the Frenchman, but I will still express myself best in English; hopefully he has learned enough English to understand me.

 

[Totenkindly]

I prefer to let the other person be themselves, and to let me be me. I am willing to try to understand F-style expression, but it is still much easier for me to respond in my own natural mode. To use your language analogy, I would learn enough French to understand the Frenchman, but I will still express myself best in English; hopefully he has learned enough English to understand me.

I don't think that is how people operate at all... nor you, most likely.

For example, there's a bunch of Spanish/Mexican immigrants in the United States right now, their numbers have been increasing for a few decades... and a huge backlash against all the Espanol being used to accommodate them. The big argument is that they came to this environment (English), so it's their job to learn English and not ours to accommodate them.

And while the French might learn English as a practical necessity because it will increase their profits by increasing tourism, I'm pretty sure without money being involved they would not learn English if they didn't have to, if you are the one going into their country.

Which brings me back to this:
The thread is called "NT in an F Environment."
If it was called "NT in a Diverse Environment," then I'd be far more likely to agree (even if we'd be going to waste much of our energy in stupid communication gaffs, which to me aren't worth my time).

Which raises the point: Should it have been called the latter?

 

[Coriolis]

I don't think that is how people operate at all... nor you, most likely.

For example, there's a bunch of Spanish/Mexican immigrants in the United States right now, their numbers have been increasing for a few decades... and a huge backlash against all the Espanol being used to accommodate them. The big argument is that they came to this environment (English), so it's their job to learn English and not ours to accommodate them.

And while the French might learn English as a practical necessity because it will increase their profits by increasing tourism, I'm pretty sure without money being involved they would not learn English if they didn't have to, if you are the one going into their country.

You are wrong about this, or at least about me. Of course, I learn enough French and other languages to conduct routine business like order food in restaurants, buy train tickets, ask directions, etc. This is just efficient. And there will always be situations in which either the other person knows no English, or we choose each to speak in the foreign language, just for practice. But when I have been in a position to actually get to know someone beyond the superficialities (and I have been in these situations), we have made most headway by each of us speaking our native language, throwing in a word here and there in the other if needed. You are right about the attitudes to Spanish-speaking immigrants, but the people on the front lines of providing services to them (doctors, teachers, legal advisors) frequently do learn some Spanish to help them do their jobs better. A couple of my cousins landed jobs in a training and employment agency, largely because of their language skills. It seems a fine way to meet in the middle.

 

[Totenkindly]

You are wrong about this, or at least about me. Of course, I learn enough French and other languages to conduct routine business like order food in restaurants, buy train tickets, ask directions, etc. This is just efficient. But when I have been in a position to actually get to know someone beyond the superficialities (and I have been in these situations), we have made most headway by each of us speaking our native language, throwing in a word here and there in the other if needed. You are right about the attitudes to Spanish-speaking immigrants, but the people on the front lines of providing services to them (doctors, teachers, legal advisors) frequently do learn some Spanish to help them do their jobs better. A couple of my cousins landed jobs in a training and employment agency, largely because of their language skills. It seems a fine way to meet in the middle.

Hey, I agree with you in terms of what is preferable, but... good luck with that if you take it to an extreme. A sizeable chunk of people see it territorially, not as a learning experience.

In the last few years, I've actually been holding my ground in terms of not over-accommodating social niceties in my personal interactions. But you will definitely take a hit because of it. Accommodation is just another form of control, as much as aggression is. It lets you avoid conflict you might not want to waste resources on.

 

[Coriolis]

In the last few years, I've actually been holding my ground in terms of not over-accommodating social niceties in my personal interactions. But you will definitely take a hit because of it. Accommodation is just another form of control, as much as aggression is. It lets you avoid conflict you might not want to waste resources on.

I haven't noticed this yet, but that may just be a function of the environments I spend time in. I did have a friend recently carry on in a rather emotional, gushy way as I listened attentively. After awhile she became embarassed and started to apologize for her monologue, thinking it had disturbed or offended me. I reassured her that that was not at all the case, that I was happy to hear whatever she wanted to share, and touched that she had confided in me. I am much more willing to let you (general) be you, if you also let me be me, at least when it comes to personal expression. When it comes to actions and decisions, I may be less accommodating, especially if they affect me.

 

[Totenkindly]

I haven't noticed this yet, but that may just be a function of the environments I spend time in.

Good point. I think a lot of my world has been blatantly xSFx until recently, and I'm finally enjoying a workplace environment with a predominance of T types of either gender... and any F's that work here still have a large T sense. The F comes out most in this environment in the sense of being a "team player" rather than someone who throws others under the bus or is difficult to work with due to lack of a human element... but I think T can be accommodating even just out of a sense of fairness if not conventional compassion.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Just my general sarcastic views on people, society, pop-culture, etc. I'll say something, completely halfhearted, and I get a quiet, negative response from them like I just put them in a bad mood. I almost want to just tell them to relax - laugh. I'm not being serious; I don't care! I just like to shoot the shit and look like I'm trying to convince someone in the process. I thought they knew this. It seems they must not have.

So you're a downer?

 

[fill]

So you're a downer?

Yes, I'm a downer, just like the numerous adored comedians who do exactly what I described above are.

SEE:
[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbS9jZOlQjc"]Dave Chappelle[/YOUTUBE]

 

[skylights]

Why are we the ones who must submit even if their behaviour makes no sense?

you're not.

i suppose i can only speak for myself but i perceive myself as submitting to T behavior and thought conventions quite often.

to be honest, logic gets really old sometimes. why does everything have to make logical sense? it seems like a rule someone pulled out of nowhere that can be very useful, but also very restricting. sometimes i just want to do something because it makes me, or someone else, feel good.

that said, i do appreciate and value logic. but it seems restraining to use it 24/7.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Yes, I'm a downer, just like the numerous adored comedians who do exactly what I described above are.

Maybe you're not as funny as you think you are?

 

[Tallulah]

Maybe you're not as funny as you think you are?

This is what I'm wondering. I've known some ENTPs and some INTJs that thought something was wrong with other people for "not getting them," when they really just weren't as funny as they thought they were. Not everything you say is going to get a laugh, and it's not because people are too sensitive or PC. Sometimes it's not funny. And sometimes it's because you're not presenting it in a joking manner--it just seems like you believe something crazy, and people don't know whether to take you seriously.

I don't know if it's the case with the OP, but it's something to consider if it's happening consistently.

 

[fill]

This is what I'm wondering. I've known some ENTPs and some INTJs that thought something was wrong with other people for "not getting them," when they really just weren't as funny as they thought they were. Not everything you say is going to get a laugh, and it's not because people are too sensitive or PC. Sometimes it's not funny. And sometimes it's because you're not presenting it in a joking manner--it just seems like you believe something crazy, and people don't know whether to take you seriously.

I don't know if it's the case with the OP, but it's something to consider if it's happening consistently.

While this is a valid point, it doesn't have anything to do with my close friends or the situations I'm referring to. What I'm trying to say is that I'm not attempting to make people laugh, I only want to engage in a conversation for the sake of analyzing it, not to prove some sort of point. I do this by contemptuously expressing the view.

My last point about comedians was meant to argue against being a "downer."

It boils down to this: people take me too seriously. I've known this for a long time. This is why I'm very witty around people I don't know because if I dig down too deeply into a serious matter with no regard to seriousness (something I'm doing in my head constantly), I get a negative response.

I expected I could open up my head's uncensored logical analysis to my closest of friends, but I suppose I was wrong because they still take what I'm saying seriously. Maybe I'm asking too much of them to drop their feelings for a second and take a step back, but I have to say I've thrown logic to the side for them in order to make them feel better.

 

[Coriolis]

that said, i do appreciate and value logic. but it seems restraining to use it 24/7.

That comes across a bit like: "I do recognize the law of gravity, but it seems restraining to obey it 24/7."

 

[Tallulah]

While this is a valid point, it doesn't have anything to do with my close friends or the situations I'm referring to. What I'm trying to say is that I'm not attempting to make people laugh, I only want to engage in a conversation for the sake of analyzing it, not to prove some sort of point. I do this by contemptuously expressing the view.

My last point about comedians was meant to argue against being a "downer."

It boils down to this: people take me too seriously. I've known this for a long time. This is why I'm very witty around people I don't know because if I dig down too deeply into a serious matter with no regard to seriousness (something I'm doing in my head constantly), I get a negative response.

I expected I could open up my head's uncensored logical analysis to my closest of friends, but I suppose I was wrong because they still take what I'm saying seriously. Maybe I'm asking too much of them to drop their feelings for a second and take a step back, but I have to say I've thrown logic to the side for them in order to make them feel better.

Okay, I see what you're saying. I ran across this same theme with an ENTP I was getting to know recently, but it was hard for me to get exactly where he was coming from. He'd say the same things you are saying--that sometimes people take him too seriously, and sometimes he just wants to put things out there, that he doesn't necessarily believe or subscribe to himself.

From my perspective in trying to meet him halfway, I was never offended at anything he said. So it wasn't a values or feelings-type reaction. It was just that sometimes he would say some pretty outlandish things, but they didn't read as though he thought they were outlandish. The presentation was often the same as the stuff that he'd given a lot of thought to. So it was very hard for me to tell the difference between him saying stuff just to get a reaction or see what I had to say about it, and him sharing a perspective that was pretty concrete in his values system. So naturally, one wants to err on the side of taking someone's ideas seriously as a sign of respect.

Occasionally he would say stuff like "I don't know if I believe any of that or not," and then I'd realize that was a not-serious time. But even at those times, I was unsure what he wanted my reaction to be. Especially because as an INTP, I usually run my wild Ne ideas through Ti before I release them into the environment. And ENFP type unrestrained Ne is pretty easily recognizable as being silly. This wasn't, so much. If I'd gotten a clear idea of the kind of discussion he wanted, maybe I could have played in that world, but I never got a picture of that. The serious stuff looked a lot like the not-serious stuff. But he did restate pretty often the idea that people misunderstand him, and only a few people "get" him naturally, and that people shouldn't take him seriously. I wanted to understand him, but didn't know how.

Can you maybe tell what an optimal reaction would look like, or maybe give an example of when the conversation went wrong and what you had hoped for?