[INTP] Please help INTP understand female behavior

[Owl]

It needn't be a long courtship. If both persons were well established, a long courtship would be unusual. The last couple to get married in my congregation courted for three months, and the father said it went on for too long.

As for the marriages that occured in the bible, I'd not take many biblical figures as paradigms of righteousness--most of them were just the opposite.

Good catch on the violation of the first commandment.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm pretty sure you'll find that most marriages in the bible took place between two people who barely knew each other. I don't see how a quick courtship would weaken your ability to follow the first commandment. Long courtships during which compatibility is (imperfectly) assessed are a pretty modern phenomena. Which don't seem to be working too well.

Very true.

It's so interesting sometimes to observe the Western mindset, which often aligns itself in its mind with "Biblical thought" but fails to grasp the cultural differences.

I think approaching marriage more as a contractual agreement (partly business, but transcending it) rather than as some emotional feel-good measure or attempt to find wholeness might not seem as "romantic" and has its own share of issues, but also tends to create stable partnerships that outlast the emotional rollercoasters.

All you really need are two people who (1) understand the commitment, (2) are willing to abide by it, and (3) will invest in the relationship to improve it when possible, if there are times of dissent.

 

[INTJMom]

It needn't be a long courtship. If both persons were well established, a long courtship would be unusual. The last couple to get married in my congregation courted for three months, and the father said it went on for too long.

As for the marriages that occurred in the bible, I'd not take many biblical figures as paradigms of righteousness--most of them were just the opposite.

Good catch on the violation of the first commandment.

I am a proponent of long courtships... at least until "the honeymoon is over",
and you get to see each other as you really are.
It can take up to a year or two sometimes.
'Til death do us part' is a long time.

Dr. Dobson says,
"Don't marry the one you think you can live with;
marry the one you know you can't live without."

 

[Nighthawk]

INTJMom gave a good explanation above. Courtship is for the protection of marriage, and it's for the protection of those desiring to get married. The father is supposed to know what it takes to be a good husband, and he's supposed to weed out the losers. If the boy passes muster--and the girl accepts his request--then the elders pass on everything they've learned about how to make a marriage work to the courting couple.

Neither the boy nor the girl need expose all of their thoughts and feelings, but each will be tested to see if he or she understands what is essential for a good marriage. And it shouldn't be a stranger. Ideally, the father is to test the young man, and the father and mother together are to determine if their daughter is ready to be married.

When I was younger, I rejected this type of approach when I first married. I resented the Catholic priest "meddling" in my affairs and failed to see how he could cousel us about marriage ... something he had never personally experienced. We were both headstrong and rushed into marriage anyway, despite the warnings. There was also a child on the way, which added additional impetus. Guess what? The marriage was a complete and utter failure ... just as the priest had advised and our families had suspected. Hmmm ... perhaps there is something to the religious courtship methods.

Having said that, I still don't know if I could do it. I'm not your traditional INTP atheist, or even agnostic ... I'm Unitarian. I still "enjoy" freedom from religious "entanglements" however. Having said all this, I admire your conviction and faith, Owl. Through the years, I have realized that faith can step in and carry you through when logic fails ... and it has failed me on occasion ... death in the family comes to mind. I often wish I could cultivate more faith, but it seems difficult for me, as a non-F, to do it.

 

[Nighthawk]

It needn't be a long courtship. If both persons were well established, a long courtship would be unusual. The last couple to get married in my congregation courted for three months, and the father said it went on for too long.

Agreed. I knew my first wife for almost 8 years before we married. We both ignored some fundamental differences in our characters, personalities, and values. "Courting" that long did not overcome the naivete of youth on both our parts. I basically married her because I thought she was hot, and I believe she married me because she wanted out of her parents' house and I was the best meal ticket she had available at the time.

I dated my present wife for 3 years before we got married ... but that was mostly because I was gun shy about ever getting married again. We were both able to recognize the common values and character that we have ... and we're very fortunate to have been together now for 17 years. It seems to be more about wanting to travel the same (or similar) path in life than an extensive courtship. I have to caveat however, the my wife (ISFJ) has incredible loyalty ... and that has carried us through some difficult times in the past. I admire that greatly in her.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Before I converted at 20, I hated God, and I wanted to nail him to a cross; however, it was my ability to think for myself, to subject my emotions and my will to my capacity to reason, that lead me to accept the gospel: the study of philosophy lead to theology, and theology lead to Christianity. My feelings, my hatred and disgust for God, told me the gospel couldn't be true, but I was forced to convert in order to maintain my intellectual integrity. I'd drop my faith in an instant if I thought it reasonable to do so, but thus far, despite being under the tutelage of a cadre of some of the most highly trained skeptical philosophers, I've yet to find a reason to doubt my faith.

As a friend, not as a philosopher, I highly recommend you reconsider the faith. The "faith" you're familiar with is no faith at all. In the bible, faith is contrasted with sight, never with understanding; indeed, faith is the evidence of things not seen, and it's only through the understanding, through the use of reason, that we obtain evidence for that which is unseen.



For the typical person, (F or T), I'd agree. But this girl is atypical. All persons have the capacity to reason, and any person--even an F--can think logically and conform her actions to rational authority. I know many F's who respect the authority of insight based on reason, integrate this insight into their understanding, and then act in accordance with it. These persons are beautiful and vital to my spiritual life. Thinking by itself is sterile. It's our values that spur us to action. While a T might be able to tell you what love is, it's an F who's going to put love into practice and teach you what love means through her actions. Theory without practice is dead, and practice without theory is chaos. T's and F's need each other because they complete each other.

You really, really need to find yourself a sweet F gal who adores you and has the patience to cultivate your F. You've no idea what you're missing..

I want what's best for her. I want her to become established while letting her know that I'm not rejecting her.

It's a fine line indeed. Alas, a large part of me just wants to be in love, consequences be damned. To navigate this line without being dragged along by my passions is going to take at least some disciplined thought.



Thank you for both your honesty and your respect. The Te/Fe stuff can be rough, but there are good reasons for it. Marriage isn't easy. Even if this system isn't the best system to protect marriage, it's better than no protection at all, and I certainly haven't thought of a better way to go about it.



Thanks for doing the research! We've (kind of) already done this. I guess the next one will have to be more explicit.

If you'd just converted to Christianity, or a form of it with which you weren't very familiar, how long would you want a guy you were interested in to wait before he tried to sweep you off your feet?



Is that too much to ask?

I don't want that, but it would make this easier.



Wow. Good to know. But how do I put my balls on the table without violating my religious ethics? She needs to get established and we need to get to know each other before we can get start courting, but, until then, I'm only allowed to "woo" her... whatever that means.

I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to Usehername above.



More solid advice. Why wouldn't an xNFJ struggle with that so much? Do you think if I brought it up with her again, say in the next week or so, that my bringing it up again wouldn't bother her?

Same question to you, as above. Heck, if any woman in the room (thread?) wants to respond to the question, please do.



I'm going to steal that last line from you. Just don't know when I'll use it.



INTJMom gave a good explanation above. Courtship is for the protection of marriage, and it's for the protection of those desiring to get married. The father is supposed to know what it takes to be a good husband, and he's supposed to weed out the losers. If the boy passes muster--and the girl accepts his request--then the elders pass on everything they've learned about how to make a marriage work to the courting couple.

Neither the boy nor the girl need expose all of their thoughts and feelings, but each will be tested to see if he or she understands what is essential for a good marriage. And it shouldn't be a stranger. Ideally, the father is to test the young man, and the father and mother together are to determine if their daughter is ready to be married.

Several questions.

1)You mention that accepting 'faith' still do not know exactly what that is, was in line with maintaining your intellectual integrity. The only sensible way to interpret this that I see is, it conduced to a better life. How has faith conduced to a better life for you? So before we even go into this, I am going to ask you to define faith.

2)If as you mention, faith is the use of reason to 'discover' the unseen, than why follow the archaic rituals concerning courtship? What exactly is tha rationale behind that? Is it the case that following instructions in the 'Bible' is the key to discovering the unseen? In that case, it is not the 'use of reason' in the regard that I mentioned.

You really, really need to find yourself a sweet F gal who adores you and has the patience to cultivate your F. You've no idea what you're missing..

Thank you very much. I have had many such experiences. I will pass. Whilst I agree it is certainly an enjoyable experience, but that is outweighed significantly by the anxiety they create in the mind of a Thinker with their erratic behavior. I know what I am missing alright.

T's and F's need each other because they complete each other...

1)We need to give affirmation to our passions as without that we simply become listless.

This however, does not require that we interact with people. As for instance, athletic activity leads to the same affect as emotional interaction with others. Other activities which give affirmation to our passions, yet do not involve interaction with people include poetry reading, sight-seeing, daydreaming etc. However, it cannot be denied that people are the greatest source of passion, therefore you are unlikely to find as much affirmation for your emotions than through interaction with others. Yet, there is no doubt that it is best to condition yourself to get by with as little affirmation for passion as possible. You will be low on energy, but shall have enough to get by. That is satisfactory. It is very easy to over-indulge in passion and man is indeed a creature prone to addiction. It would be prudent to take the necessary precautions to avoid it and rely on people for affirmation of our emotions as little as possible.

It is also inevitable that we will interact with people and use them for affirmation of emotion inevitably, however, it is not necessary that we have intimate relationships with them. As we can derive small portions of affirmation from the many we interact with on a superficial level. No doubt again, an intimate relationship will be a greater source of affirmation than many superficial ones, but by virtue of the earlier principle concerning the desirability of avoidance of overindulgence in passion.

However, even if we do end up in a romantic relationship, a T is to be decidedlyt preferred for 2 reasons. Number one, there will be less passion involved in the relationship, thus the chances of your over-indulgence diminish. Secondly, even if you do succumb to your primitive instincts and over-indulge after all, this is likely to be less stressful because a T will be much less erratic than the F. It will be an easier time maintaining an intimate relationship with a T rather than an F because in the former case your situation will be clear and predictable. Clarity and stability are fundamental to maintaining inner peace. As the definition of stress itself is negative emotion evoked as a result of our attempt to adjust to changes.

So in summary.

1) If faith is an abstract vision for you to follow which you discover strictly on your own thinking, why subjugate yourself to arbitrary dictates of religious convention? I am an observer of this kind of faith indeed and this is why I have renounced my Christian 'faith'. I did so because reliance strictly on my own thinking is the salient aspect of the definition of the first use of the term faith.

Thus,

Faith 1: Pursuit of higher ideals which purport to make man's life better.
Faith 2: Acceptance of dictates with regard to what one must think and do with regard to ethics, eschatology and metaphysics.

2)Thinking faculty needs the Feeling faculty, as the former is hebetudinous without the latter, yet the latter without the former is torrential. However, it is not the case that Thinkers need Feelers and Feelers need Thinkers. We can cultivate faculties of both Thinking and Feeling without heavy reliance on others. Thus, interaction with others is only a pleasure not a need.

If we are to embrace this pleasure, a Thinking person is to be preferred. They will have enough Feeling to cultivate your F, yet will lack the erratic behavior which characterizes a typical F. Much Feeling is not necessary to cultivate our F, and actually the Thinking type will do better at cultivating Feeling because their endeavor to do so will be more structured. They will make more of the resources they have (despite having less than Fs) because they'd know how to utilize them properly. Again it should be noted however, that it is not relevant that Fs have more resources because only a small portion of what they have is necessary.

 

[Lucifer]

Bluewing you need to learn to condense your material.

Faith is easily described as an acceptance of another set of beliefs in the place of your own and as a defense mechanism against what you don't understand or cant take.

As for the actual topic;

woman = eratic

 

[INTJMom]

...
1)We need to give affirmation to our passions as without that we simply become listless.

This however, does not require that we interact with people. ... Yet, there is no doubt that it is best to condition yourself to get by with as little affirmation for passion as possible. You will be low on energy, but shall have enough to get by. That is satisfactory.
...

This is not the way life was meant to be lived. I hope you realize that while this might be what works for you, this is not what works for everyone else, nor was it meant to. We are not like animals in the animal shelter meant to live out our lives in cages. I just hope you're not prescribing this way of life for everyone. It has been shown in many studies done with babies that humans need contact with each other in order to thrive.



I agree that T women are superior to F women.

 

[Totenkindly]

Bluewing you need to learn to condense your material.

Very true.
And you should learn to expand yours.

Both of you run the risk of being dismissed on stylistic/tone technicalities.

This is not the way life was meant to be lived. I hope you realize that while this might be what works for you, this is not what works for everyone else, nor was it meant to. We are not like animals in the animal shelter meant to live out our lives in cages. I just hope you're not prescribing this way of life for everyone.

Not much more to say than that.

But it's getting clear here that the only proof of what works will be borne out by experience ("rubber meets road"). Give it time, and we'll see which general processes produce healthy people and which do not.

 

[Owl]

Thought I'd just update the thread with the new development. Spoke to her yesterday, (more explicit DTR), and found out that she'd spoken to the pastor! Total relief. We're both on (more) solid ground, and oversight's involved.

Thanks y'all for taking the time to help.

BW, I'll respond to your last post soon(ish).

Cheers.

 

[Totenkindly]

Thought I'd just update the thread with the new development. Spoke to her yesterday, (more explicit DTR), and found out that she'd spoken to the pastor! Total relief. We're both on (more) solid ground, and oversight's involved. Thanks y'all for taking the time to help.

Cool beans, glad the situation is changing positively for you.

BW, I'll respond to your last post soon(ish).

Oh, so the fun continues!

 

[SolitaryWalker]

This is not the way life was meant to be lived. I hope you realize that while this might be what works for you, this is not what works for everyone else, nor was it meant to. We are not like animals in the animal shelter meant to live out our lives in cages. I just hope you're not prescribing this way of life for everyone. It has been shown in many studies done with babies that humans need contact with each other in order to thrive.



I agree that T women are superior to F women.

My method is the path to true freedom. This way, you can decide how you want to live your life because you remain in control. Otherwise, you are a slave to your passions. If you want to be free, tame the passions as much as possible.

 

[Jack Flak]

I don't wanna be a slave to a worthless existence though.

"You die at the end. Didn't anyone tell you?" --Doug Stanhope

 

[Simplexity]

As for the actual topic;

woman = erotic

I agree.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I don't wanna be a slave to a worthless existence though.

"You die at the end. Didn't anyone tell you?" --Doug Stanhope

You seem to be implying that a life without passion is more or less 'worthless' as that would be drab. Not so, if you are in control of your passions, you will have less of them than otherwise, but still more than enough to have some color to your life.

 

[Jack Flak]

I've seen things you wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

 

[Owl]

Time to die.

 

[Uytuun]

romantic idealist in me

The secret is out, INTPs.

 

[mortabunt]

Ask an NF.

 

[ThinkingAboutIt]

I met a girl nearly a month ago, and I'm quite taken with her. We get along superbly, getting lost in conversations that last for hours. We've similar interests, (intellectual and otherwise), backgrounds, and we're of the same faith. (very rare). I know she's interested in me, but we're not at a point where we can progress past friendship. (At the moment, this is strictly verboten). We've been open to one another about how we feel about the relationship, and we've agreed to 'put the breaks on;' e.g., we'll only meet in groups.

Recently, we went to the symphony with a group of friends. She distributed the tickets, and, to my delight, she put us together. (I don't know if this was intentional or not, but I did notice her scrutinizing the tickets before she handed them out. Also, the rest of the group went ahead of me at the theatre as I spoke to an usher, and I found her sitting in my seat when I finally caught up.) Near the end of the symphony, she adjusted her position, crossed her legs, and her foot ended up just barely resting against my calf--making it impossible for me to pay attention to the music. I certainly didn't want to recoil at her touch, and she let her foot dally there long enough to let me know that she certainly wasn't scared of me. I had to leave before the symphony was over to go to work, and I've neither seen nor spoken to her since.

What am I supposed to do? Were her actions at the symphony intentional? We're supposed to be taking it slow. I'm not sure if her actions are merely friendly, or if she's signaling that she's interested in being more than just friends. What's she thinking?

I'm going insane. Any insight would be appreciated.

Go for it...before she gets bored.