[NT] Rational females - do you struggle with this?

[Rambling]

Would I get in trouble asking where the corresponding post is, addressed to *irrational* women? :

Does this remark demonstrate that you yourself are irrational?

 

[Rambling]

Why? Do you have a constructive approach to handling irrational women? If you do, I would be eager to read it.

Generally such irrationals both female and male seem to me to respond well to genuine warmth, honesty and enthusiasm...ymmv

 

[grey_beard]

View attachment 12919

ROFLMAO!!

"Run away, run away!"

- - - Updated - - -

Does this remark demonstrate that you yourself are irrational?

Only if I went ahead and *created* such a post...

 

[Coriolis]

Generally such irrationals both female and male seem to me to respond well to genuine warmth, honesty and enthusiasm...ymmv

Not if I honestly and enthusiastically tell them they are being irrational.

I wouldn't lie about something like that - or about anything else, as a rule.

Part of the expectation of nurturing is due to the biological process of gestation and lactation *causing* oohing and aahing over babies; and for many, the remembrance or anticipation of such, together with the tendency of women to seek "commonality" with one another (see below). Hence the appellation of "unnatural." (Or as the crowd would say, "Just conform already, d@mmit!")

I wonder how many women would behave this way were the expectation not so strong that they do so. Bell curve, indeed. Gender is usually toward the bottom of the list of factors that lead me to feel commonality with someone.

(But don't think everything is well over in the INTJ armoured regiment, either. The legendary death stare wins one no friends, even when one is trying to be nice.
As another INTJ said once on another thread, they have discovered that it is impossible for an INTJ to be *too* warm and touchy-feely, no matter how hard they try...)

By whose standards? I have wondered about this myself, in much the same way as the writer of that observation. I'm also beginning to wonder whether the famous death stare is really just a myth. At least, I've never noticed it in others or (from what I can tell) myself. If all of this is true, however, it still should just make an effective filter, no?

 

[grey_beard]

Not if I honestly and enthusiastically tell them they are being irrational.

I wouldn't lie about something like that - or about anything else, as a rule.

INTJs are known not merely for honesty, but for *blunt* honesty -- not couching the delivery in face-saving terms, for instance; nor steering the conversation to the general subject of whatever it is the INTJ wants to be honest about, giving some degree of foreshadowing or emotional warning to the recipient of our honesty.

I wonder how many women would behave this way were the expectation not so strong that they do so. Bell curve, indeed. Gender is usually toward the bottom of the list of factors that lead me to feel commonality with someone.

Two points. No, make it three.
1) Imma not taking the bait on this one. You are not near the center of the bell curve.
2) Women are somewhat "consensus-oriented" and it feeds back on itself to the individual woman: kind of a psycho-social Hartree-Fock self-consistent field.
(And, just to yank your chain, the role of the nucleus is played by an alpha male using the Red Pill. )
3) I work in an office of mostly women: whenever a friend, relative, or co-worker brings in an infant, I can always tell by the knot of co-workers in the immediate vicinity of the child...
I see no peer pressure, just rapt attention towards a common object.

By whose standards? I have wondered about this myself, in much the same way as the writer of that observation. I'm also beginning to wonder whether the famous death stare is really just a myth. At least, I've never noticed it in others or (from what I can tell) myself. If all of this is true, however, it still should just make an effective filter, no?

By the standards of "the great unwashed" (the mass of ESxx MBTI-types in society. I've tried to "lay it on thick" before and only after awhile was it noted: ("What happened, [MENTION=20856]grey_beard[/MENTION], you just cheered up or something.") I have never been told (even when exerting my hardest) that my compliments were saccharine, cloying, or over-done.
As far as the filter -- it has the side effect ("opportunity cost") of filtering out a myriad of incipient *positive* soclai reactions.

 

[Rambling]

Not if I honestly and enthusiastically tell them they are being irrational.

I wouldn't lie about something like that - or about anything else, as a rule.


I wonder how many women would behave this way were the expectation not so strong that they do so. Bell curve, indeed. Gender is usually toward the bottom of the list of factors that lead me to feel commonality with someone.


By whose standards? I have wondered about this myself, in much the same way as the writer of that observation. I'm also beginning to wonder whether the famous death stare is really just a myth. At least, I've never noticed it in others or (from what I can tell) myself. If all of this is true, however, it still should just make an effective filter, no?

I thought you said you were an excellent communicator in real life? If I point out someone's illogicality with good humour they generally admit it and laugh...

But the verb of irrationality declines like this:

I am right; or I am rational
You are my friend; I give you the benefit of the doubt when we differ
He / she differed enough from me to cause me hurt; he / she was wrong; he / she is irrational



I generally know the expected value of the bell curve, I find it a useful method to distinguish myself from others or to accord with them, depending on mood. In my view anyone with a newborn needs any encouragement they can get.

 

[Rambling]

I am a female INTJ. It's been my personal experience that almost every man I've ever known has been more emotional than me. Or maybe I should say, they've all been more demonstrative in their emotions. It's not that I don't have emotions; they just don't show on the surface. I try not to make decisions based on emotion, and when trying to help others, I always appeal to their logical faculties and their common sense. (If they have any.)

It baffles and frustrates me, because society on a whole tends to believe the stereotype that men are rational creatures, and women are emotional. But to me, it's always seemed the opposite. Do any other rational females have this problem? How do you cope in a world that expects women to be emotional?

After much reflection I have come to the conclusion that this is a straw man...most people choose to show their vulnerable and emotional side to people they trust. So after an introductory period of time, everyone I know seems to have emotions, both male and female. I'm not sure that gender comes into it so much as personality type and current life experiences. Eg the ENFP guy I know on the receiving end of a bitter divorce is more emotional than the stable single ISTP lady in her seventies...is that gender, personality type or life experiences? I incline to the view that it's more personality type and life experiences.

As for whether they are more emotional than I am...I probably have a much smaller circle of depth than extroverts do, but I know I can get emotional with people I trust, especially during difficult life experiences of my own.

As for rating whether I am more or less emotional than someone else, I think I'd detail it by each emotion ratehr than overall...eg I am less bitter than she is but I can see that she is more easygoing during a crisis than I am...

 

[Avocado]

Ive found this as well in my life. And I used to sort of think in these parameters and terms as well. I wasn't very emotional, I didn't cry much, and I was with... erm.. i dunno.. wussier guys. I guess.

But I also found a few things influenced that heavily.

The first being: people are attracted to those that can teach them things. Opposites attract. Rarely do people meet and do well on the exact same emotional levels. There needs to be a balance.. and if you're a very balanced person (and I suspect if you're constantly frustrated with emotional displays you're not.. don't worry, like, 90% of the world isn't..) then maybe another very balanced person is cool, but for most people.. you'll either meet someone who is more emotional than you, or less emotional than you. and that leads to the second thing...

Which is the delusion that it's better to be one more than the other. Words can highly invalidating to emotions.. because the reality is not so many things require logic in our day to day lives as we might expect. And emotions need to be balanced with logic, and emphasizing one more than the other hurts both. And sometimes, that logic plays right into emotions. There's such thing as being emotionally logical. There is such a thing as to find someone with even LESS emotions than you.. and when you do, you'll also potentially find someone with even less tolerance of emotions than you as well. It's not easy on either side of the coin. An emotional person constantly has to deal with the invalidation of something that is actually a very normal part of the human process. Someone less emotional is never going to 100% fulfill the emotional needs of someone more emotional than them... and they have to deal with that. And they have to be expected to deal with the times you are emotional because, hey, that's their game. And they have to somehow promote their less-emotional-more-mechanical side in order to not be burden on you. Couple that with the idea that men typically place ALL of their emotional well-being into a single person (i.e. usually their wives and girlfriends), and what you get is frustrating, illogical, and overwhelming. Just as overwhelming as emotional outbursts and illogical things can be for someone who has to deal with those. Frequently non-emotional people try to 'fix' things, or immediately jump to pointing out the issues... There's very little *support* for the issue, and empathy being shown and presented (even though you might feel it, no one can read your mind) and just because you appreciate a particular way of communicating doesn't mean it's superior, or what the other person needs.

When it's seen as an all or nothing instead of a fluid process ebbing back and forth, you start resenting and looking for examples to prove yourself right.. versus realizing there's an imbalance and nurturing that balance back to health.

I find a LOT more success in validation, and support, and listening to the issue and discussing it in terms of just simply supporting them... and when they're calm again, and you've shown you clearly side with them as a person and as a lover (which is different than disagreeing with their position or actions), then you can discuss things and maybe show them what could have been changed, or done better, or a more positive/neutral way to think about it. The WAY you talk can move mountains, or tear down bridges.

Right now I'm in a situation where I'm dating someone less emotional than me. It doesn't happen often. Or.. well... ever really for me. This is a first. So now I'm seeing it from the opposite side of the coin. I used to complain about the very stuff *i'm now guilty of doing* .. and I didn't change. Not really. Who is more emotional than the other did. And now I'm having to validate myself. And say.. "Okay, kyu, you know he cares about you.. he'd never say you're stupid.. Why are you thinking he's calling you stupid.." and logically work out the issues that stemmed from... really just his inability to be sensitive to a situation sometimes and show support and understanding FIRST before going right for the throat of the problem.. which usually isn't even him.

All those eggshells you walk on? Emotional people are stepping on cold iron nails. And nails hurt the feet more than eggshells tend to.. Having been on both sides of the coin now, I can say I was definitely living a cushier life being the less emotional one.

Yes.

 

[Coriolis]

INTJs are known not merely for honesty, but for *blunt* honesty -- not couching the delivery in face-saving terms, for instance; nor steering the conversation to the general subject of whatever it is the INTJ wants to be honest about, giving some degree of foreshadowing or emotional warning to the recipient of our honesty.

Exactly.

3) I work in an office of mostly women: whenever a friend, relative, or co-worker brings in an infant, I can always tell by the knot of co-workers in the immediate vicinity of the child...
I see no peer pressure, just rapt attention towards a common object.

No peer pressure? How do you know some of these women aren't cooing over the infant just because all the rest of them are? How many of them would be comfortable to the the only one who remained at her desk, working? The bell curve for fawning over babies might not exactly overlap the one for susceptibility to peer pressure.

I thought you said you were an excellent communicator in real life? If I point out someone's illogicality with good humour they generally admit it and laugh...

But the verb of irrationality declines like this:

I am right; or I am rational
You are my friend; I give you the benefit of the doubt when we differ
He / she differed enough from me to cause me hurt; he / she was wrong; he / she is irrational.

I claim to excel only at professional communication. Plus one person's good humor can be another's ridicule. In any case, my personal feelings are not the yardstick I use to assess the rationality of other people (or of myself).

 

[grey_beard]

But the verb of irrationality declines like this:

I am right; or I am rational
You are my friend; I give you the benefit of the doubt when we differ
He / she differed enough from me to cause me hurt; he / she was wrong; he / she is irrational

Careful...you just offended every INFP within a three-mile radius. (And annoyed the INFJs out to nearly six.)

 

[grey_beard]

No peer pressure? How do you know some of these women aren't cooing over the infant just because all the rest of them are? How many of them would be comfortable to the the only one who remained at her desk, working? The bell curve for fawning over babies might not exactly overlap the one for susceptibility to peer pressure.

The applicability of the overlap- or non-overlap of the bell curves is noted, appreciated ("jolly good show!"), and admitted as logically valid.
However on the basis of the number of years I have spent at this job, observing the fawning behaviour, (i.e., craning of necks across three rows of cubicles, women sprinting from the other half of the floor, dreamy sad wistfulness on the part of the *single* women as they return to their cubes...) it isn't primarily peer pressure.

 

[Coriolis]

The applicability of the overlap- or non-overlap of the bell curves is noted, appreciated ("jolly good show!"), and admitted as logically valid.
However on the basis of the number of years I have spent at this job, observing the fawning behaviour, (i.e., craning of necks across three rows of cubicles, women sprinting from the other half of the floor, dreamy sad wistfulness on the part of the *single* women as they return to their cubes...) it isn't primarily peer pressure.

Sadly I suspect you are right. My point was simply that all the women exhibiting this behavior may not be doing so out of a genuine interest in babies, any more than any observable social behavior can be be ascribed unfailingly to a genuine desire to be doing it.

Equally sadly, at my workplace parents who bring a baby in don't wait for others to flock to it; they bring it around to everyone's office. It is hard to remain polite in such circumstances.

 

[grey_beard]

Sadly I suspect you are right. My point was simply that all the women exhibiting this behavior may not be doing so out of a genuine interest in babies, any more than any observable social behavior can be be ascribed unfailingly to a genuine desire to be doing it.

Equally sadly, at my workplace parents who bring a baby in don't wait for others to flock to it; they bring it around to everyone's office. It is hard to remain polite in such circumstances.

That's the office equivalent of the neighborhood cliche "Would you like to watch [sixteen hours' straight worth of] our vacation pictures?"

 

[OrangeAppled]

My response would lead to a thread hijack and flamewar. I think it relates to other things. PM me for anecdotal instances, it being a "center of the bell curve" and "social norming" phenomenon.

I call it "one size fits all", as far as Fe social systems go. But it's quite a force-fit for so many.

Part of the expectation of nurturing is due to the biological process of gestation and lactation *causing* oohing and aahing over babies; and for many, the remembrance or anticipation of such, together with the tendency of women to seek "commonality" with one another (see below). Hence the appellation of "unnatural." (Or as the crowd would say, "Just conform already, d@mmit!")

The difference is, I'm not criticizing their desire to breed or display mothering instincts. If that's where they choose to explore their human potential - then hey, pursue it. <--- I swear I'm being cheeky there.

I would argue that having such a demeanor is NOT an indicator of actual capability to be a good mother. That's where I take issue with the "unnatural" tag or with assumption that capability to care for others is not there if one is not gushy on the outside. I don't think an SFJ is naturally a better mother than, say, a NTP woman, as far as raising healthy, functioning adults.

I don’t see why men are not required to form their entire personality around ideas of what makes a good father, that their social identity is not tied to that one area of life, and that if they do not demonstrate this, how they are not shamed for it. This is pretty much what is being asked of women - for their whole identity to revolve around "motherhood". Nowadays, it's far less expected as a literal role, but the general expectation for a "female" personality is still heavily tied to this.

You may be conflating "emotion" with "physical activity" -- I've talked to others with experience with children in this age group, as well as reading the work of social psychologists and the like; and they have noted several differences between the sexes (again, center of the bell curve and all that). Young boys tend to do better in environments where a lot of physical activity is interspersed with enforced inactivity, whereas girls do better at "sitting still"; boys, even at young ages, socialize with one another by assigning a static hierarchy, whereas women reach out even in minor social encounters, to *identify with* and establish commonality with one another; boys are much better at learning through doing, or hands-on learning.

Well, what do you think about these examples?
- Boys writing hate notes to each other, calling each other "fat" and "faggots"
- Boys writing in their journals about how much they hate another boy (the words "fat" and "fag" pop up a lot)
- Boys being "frienemies", insisting on sitting next to each other, playing together, but relentlessly verbally attacking each other. Now, if this did NOT upset them, fine; but they cry over it, they tattle, and they write hate notes/journal entries.
- Tattling constantly, often because someone hurt their feelings (and far more than girls tattle)
- Crying because some other kid didn't sit by them on the carpet, or whatever
- Crying over all kinds of things (far more than girls cry)

I have not experienced even a fraction of this nor to the same degree with girls. I was shocked, because I did not expect it. It flew in the face of so-called common sense about girls and boys. But by the time they hit high school, the male emotional energy is channeled into much more aggressive forms (which is more socially acceptable for them than the vulnerable forms) and the female emotional energy is channeled into social manipulations (because transparent expression that is about their own needs/desires/preferences doesn't fit the social model for girls).

You are probably right that this is about ”hierarchies” for boys, but I cannot see how power struggles are not emotional.

The point about physical activity - sure.
But this supports what I was saying. When a boy's need is not fulfilled (in this case, a preference for physical activity is a FEELING, as it is a personal value & one that is not even rationally determined at that age), then he feels free to be disruptive about it. In other words, he can assert his needs in a way that is demanding. He is not expected to put aside his feelings, contain them, and be "appropriate". Of course, the boys have to follow classroom standards also, but it's more expected of them to be disruptive, and kids tend to live up to expectations.

From a young age, girls are harped on much more for being active. I saw double standards with my male cousins growing up. If they were rambunctious - then they were just "being boys". If I was rambunctious, then I was scolded. By the time they hit school these "norms" are already set for them. They also pick up on expectations, even if not directly or consciously, and they will align with them.

Conversely, boys get shamed when they are not very physical and don’t aggressively assert their emotions. My INTJ cousin was a very cerebral, contained child who was scared of sports, and his parents put him in karate as they thought it would suit his temperament better. The poor kid was still viewed as strange by people, because he’d rather sit quietly and play with his rock-collecting, geology for kids kit than run around causing a fuss.

The girls seeking consensus thing was a problem for me though…I never have understood the offense others take in you having your own preferences and not cloning yourself off of them. What’s even worse is when the pretend like the thing they have in common is weird and they just found another weirdo, when it’s usually the most banal thing imaginable. I realize it’s natural for SFJs to do this, but they don’t comprise all of womankind, even if they do have a monopoly on the stereotypes.

Still though, this again backs up what I am saying - women are taught, nay shamed, into this consensus, which is essentially accommodating the preferences of others rather than asserting true feelings. At the very least, you stay quiet, because that Fe social shaming you noted before is very real.

Hence the "space cadet / head in the clouds / dreamer" sobriquet for NFPs. Oh, what the hey, I'll yank your chain an go ahead and say it. "Fluffy bunny."

I wish people thought I was that soft and cutesy - less social PTSD. And are dreamers really “fluffy”?

“having little or no intellectual weight; superficial or frivolous”

I know INFPs too well to believe it, however; there is mithril underneath.

I must have an exoskeleton or some porcupine-like coat on the outside….I’m softer on the inside.

As for "triggering your social PTSD" ...? Holy crap. Do you mean I stepped on a values land-mine and didn't get set upon in rabid-cat mode?!!!! ("Prepare to disengage, Mr. Sulu, and reverse course at warp factor six.")

Hyperbole....me, not you. Or, er...both

This isn't mere *gold* ; it's what happened when King Midas used the Charmin (think it over...). (Or, if you prefer, it's co-mingled sapphire-and-diamond dust.)

There is an analogy here which recalls to mind a passage from G.K. Chesterton's The Secret of Father Brown; and makes me realize with a start that old G.K.C. may have been an INFP...!

Thank you

 

[OrangeAppled]

Careful...you just offended every INFP within a three-mile radius. (And annoyed the INFJs out to nearly six.)

Not sure how an NF would find that offensive. I took it to mean most people think they are logical and use their own reasoning and beliefs as the gauge. So when they overlook the supposed irrationality of others, it's because they deem the person a friend and are not seeking to be offended or to offend over anything petty (and giving benefit of the doubt is a nice way of saying, "maybe they Do agree with me and this is just a misunderstanding!"). However, when they are offended, they paint the other person as "irrational" as a defense of their hurt feeling, to justify it.

In which case, NTs within arm's reach of a laptop should be offended.

People do this with morality also....they feel they are moral, and others are either tolerated if not too different or threatening, but otherwise they are condemned.

 

[grey_beard]

(Deleted for brevity.)

No reply for the moment (sound of intellectual 14-foot rattler sounding a warning...)

You just *had* to go ahead and post that when I have to go to bed because I have a four-day online training class for work starting tomorrow, and need my sleep
so I don't get keyboard face.

 

[Coriolis]

I don’t see why men are not required to form their entire personality around ideas of what makes a good father, that their social identity is not tied to that one area of life, and that if they do not demonstrate this, how they are not shamed for it. This is pretty much what is being asked of women - for their whole identity to revolve around "motherhood". Nowadays, it's far less expected as a literal role, but the general expectation for a "female" personality is still heavily tied to this.

I have observed the same double standard. We see this when people speak of being a stay-at-home or "full-time" mom as a career option. Does this make women who have jobs "part-time moms"? Most dads have jobs, yet no one characterizes them as "part-time dads".

The girls seeking consensus thing was a problem for me though…I never have understood the offense others take in you having your own preferences and not cloning yourself off of them. What’s even worse is when the pretend like the thing they have in common is weird and they just found another weirdo, when it’s usually the most banal thing imaginable. I realize it’s natural for SFJs to do this, but they don’t comprise all of womankind, even if they do have a monopoly on the stereotypes.

Still though, this again backs up what I am saying - women are taught, nay shamed, into this consensus, which is essentially accommodating the preferences of others rather than asserting true feelings. At the very least, you stay quiet, because that Fe social shaming you noted before is very real.

I was much more like your INTJ cousin, so could often fall under the radar with many of these gender-based expectations. I did see plenty of the consensus-seeking among girls in school, though. I couldn't imagine how they could tolerate so much conformity, and conformity to dumb and shallow standards. I realized quickly that even if I did try to conform, what I would gain wasn't worth having. It was easy after that just to ignore them and go my own way, and it didn't take long for my approach to be validated.

Not sure how an NF would find that offensive. I took it to mean most people think they are logical and use their own reasoning and beliefs as the gauge. So when they overlook the supposed irrationality of others, it's because they deem the person a friend and are not seeking to be offended or to offend over anything petty (and giving benefit of the doubt is a nice way of saying, "maybe they Do agree with me and this is just a misunderstanding!"). However, when they are offended, they paint the other person as "irrational" as a defense of their hurt feeling, to justify it.

In which case, NTs within arm's reach of a laptop should be offended.

Why? I don't disagree that many people do have such a double standard where rationality is concerned.

 

[Rambling]

Not sure how an NF would find that offensive. I took it to mean most people think they are logical and use their own reasoning and beliefs as the gauge. So when they overlook the supposed irrationality of others, it's because they deem the person a friend and are not seeking to be offended or to offend over anything petty (and giving benefit of the doubt is a nice way of saying, "maybe they Do agree with me and this is just a misunderstanding!"). However, when they are offended, they paint the other person as "irrational" as a defense of their hurt feeling, to justify it.

In which case, NTs within arm's reach of a laptop should be offended.

People do this with morality also....they feel they are moral, and others are either tolerated if not too different or threatening, but otherwise they are condemned.

Thank you for understanding my point. I didn't know how to explain it better, but I meant something about realising that everyone is biased including oneself.

If someone thinks that they are always right, that can simply become an unhealthy Fi value which drives every kind of logic before it.

 

[grey_beard]

Thank you for understanding my point. I didn't know how to explain it better, but I meant something about realising that everyone is biased including oneself.

If someone thinks that they are always right, that can simply become an unhealthy Fi value which drives every kind of logic before it.

Hey! I resemble that remark!

(...if truth be known, I was probably the original casting for the its molding.)


Click the pic.

 

[Rambling]

Hey! I resemble that remark!

(...if truth be known, I was probably the original casting for the its molding.)

View attachment 12963
Click the pic.

No... I didn't learn *everything* I know from you!