User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 73

  1. #11
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    Toonia, the guy I knew was open with me, as much as I think he ever was with anyone in his life up to that point from what he said but I thought he was still hiding a secret self from me. It wasn't that he was being evasive, but that I didn't understand his way. That's all I was saying.

    I am well aware that many people are sick of too much idealism, you aren't exactly relating an earth shattering news break to me there.
    I know. I guess my main hesitation when there is talk (not just your post, but a generalized assumption around here) that S's are kind of empty or blank inside, not having a rich inner world or deep self, etc. can suggest a kind of elitism. Even if an Sensor doesn't value fostering an inner imaginative world, being confronted with a feeling of exclusion is not typically pleasant.

    Here is my position: Yes i value imaginative people being one myself. They are also my basic point of reference. However, i do think that an imagined, constructed 'inner self' is not the only way to be a rich, varied, deep, and interesting human being. Here's one approach to take off the shackles of negative human experiences. To strong Ns: have you ever connected deeply with an animal? One who lives 'in the moment', is enthralled by their senses and never theorizes on meaning? One who does not have an 'inner self'? I have. These connections are very often the most meaningful to me. THey often teach me things and show me how little i really know for all my imagination and analysis. Since animals have a profoundly lessened capacity for abstract thought, we can extend this extreme example to people who may approach life without this 'inner world'. Why couldn't the connection with a hard-core Sensor not be a profound, rich experience as equals if connecting with an animal who never thinks abstractly can be so profound and enlightening? Maybe abstraction is not the only path to meaning and intelligence.

    Actually, i may start a thread about this, but put briefly here: Human beings have evolved to create separate realities and to act arbitrarily in conflict with nature. It has enabled us to survive and is an important source of our intelligence. It is also a major source of our stupidity. This is the balance of thought i'm trying to get at here.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  2. #12
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    Since animals have a profoundly lessened capacity for abstract thought, we can extend this extreme example to people who may approach life without this 'inner world'. Why couldn't the connection with a hard-core Sensor not be a profound, rich experience as equals if connecting with an animal who never thinks abstractly can be so profound and enlightening? Maybe abstraction is not the only path to meaning and intelligence.
    Mmm hmmm. My encounters with my ESFP son are the moments that have opened my mind to this and helped me not just imagine but experience the truth that my "rich inner world" is not the end-all, be-all of being human. Inner life has its riches, but it also has its flaws... and there is an outer world that Ns need to engage and experience.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #13
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    I know. I guess my main hesitation when there is talk (not just your post, but a generalized assumption around here) that S's are kind of empty or blank inside, not having a rich inner world or deep self, etc. can suggest a kind of elitism.
    I know they have an inner world. I never said that they didn't. I said I was looking for something in HIM that wasn't there.

    He was showing me his inner self and I didn't at the time believe it was his true inner self. We didn't suit well. It wasn't about elitism. He was often very contemptuous about my N qualities but he didn't sweat over it, he saw it as something he could "fix" given enough time because he liked the overall package the N came in.

    Even if an Sensor doesn't value fostering an inner imaginative world, being confronted with a feeling of exclusion is not typically pleasant.
    Probably about the same as N's feel about SJ exclusion. The biggest problem I have with strong sensors in my private life is their need to be constantly picking at the N traits as flaws and trying to fix them. That's one of the reasons I did not enjoy a romantic relationship with an SJ (nor with an SP for that matter, he also wanted to "fix" me). I have other, more complex issues with S types and their effects in general society but that is another more general topic.

    Of course I have been told here that it is not acceptable to complain about S types who complain about N tratis because it might hurt the feelings of an S type who may be reading this board. Apparently they have such fragile feelings that they cannot bear to read that some S types complain about N traits.

    Here is my position: Yes i value imaginative people being one myself. They are also my basic point of reference. However, i do think that an imagined, constructed 'inner self' is not the only way to be a rich, varied, deep, and interesting human being. Here's one approach to take off the shackles of negative human experiences. To strong Ns: have you ever connected deeply with an animal? One who lives 'in the moment', is enthralled by their senses and never theorizes on meaning? One who does not have an 'inner self'? I have. These connections are very often the most meaningful to me. THey often teach me things and show me how little i really know for all my imagination and analysis. Since animals have a profoundly lessened capacity for abstract thought, we can extend this extreme example to people who may approach life without this 'inner world'. Why couldn't the connection with a hard-core Sensor not be a profound, rich experience as equals if connecting with an animal who never thinks abstractly can be so profound and enlightening? Maybe abstraction is not the only path to meaning and intelligence.
    If I were a sensor human being I might have a big problem with being compared to a wild animal.... I don't see the connection because we as humans tend to connect to animals through a sort of paternalistic, caretaker type of bond. We don't typically relate to an animal as an "equal" or have deep romantic relationships with them. We also relate to animals through our pure emotions. This is not true about other human beings.


    Again, I didn't say they didn't have a deeper self, just that with the one particular SJ, it was not the type of inner self I was expecting to find and therefore, being as young as I was and inexperienced, I thought he still had something he had not shown me. I am sure he found someone more suited to him.

  4. #14
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    If I were a sensor human being I might have a big problem with being compared to a wild animal.... I don't see the connection because we as humans tend to connect to animals through a sort of paternalistic, caretaker type of bond. We don't typically relate to an animal as an "equal" or have deep romantic relationships with them. We also relate to animals through our pure emotions. This is not true about other human beings.
    I'm glad you mention that because it is likely true for some. Coming from me it is a decent compliment. My connection with animals tends to be purer than with people, and i do consider them my equals, but that's beside the point. The style of presentation was that if a quality connection could be made with what many consider a 'lower life form' whose "guilty" of all the same things Sensors get accused of, then a connection to something similar, but greater as our equal would be that much richer. Very often introverted iNtuitives feel a bond to animals and have built up resentment towards people. It seemed a logical place to start to make the point. Start with common ground and then draw the accepted dynamic into a more potent and relevant context.

    I also understand the drive to 'balance our emotional equations' so to speak. If Sensors put down the iNtuitives then they are entitled to return the favor to create symmetry. There is a case for that, but it can also perpetuate the problem by justifying rejection and prejudice from both corners. There is also the option of outright refusing to function on the terms presented. In stead of responding in defense, a person can create their own framework of relating. If you don't play the game, you weaken it. You can either win the game or reject the game?
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  5. #15
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    I'm glad you mention that because it is likely true for some. Coming from me it is a decent compliment. My connection with animals tends to be purer than with people, and i do consider them my equals, but that's beside the point.
    I have to admit, we didn't consult with the cat about whether or not my husband should change careers at this point, so I really can't say she is an "equal" member of the household. We are commited to care for her health and well being for as long as her life lasts but I do not see her as a cognitive equal in the house. She is totally dependent on me to make decisions for her. It would be patronizing of me to say she is an equal in my opinion.


    The style of presentation was that if a quality connection could be made with what many consider a 'lower life form' whose "guilty" of all the same things Sensors get accused of, then a connection to something similar, but greater as our equal would be that much richer. Very often introverted iNtuitives feel a bond to animals and have built up resentment towards people. It seemed a logical place to start to make the point. Start with common ground and then draw the accepted dynamic into a more potent and relevant context.
    Animals are pure emotions, humans aren't. That is why it is so easy to bond with them, our minds don't get in the way and we don't ask for their cognitive input in to our daily lives.

    I also understand the drive to 'balance our emotional equations' so to speak. If Sensors put down the iNtuitives then they are entitled to return the favor to create symmetry.
    How is it putting a sensor down to say that I don't particularly like having to defend and justify N traits to some of them? This is the part of the equation I never get in these conversations. I didn't enjoy it. It doesn't make me an elitist to admit this.

    It is a very important part of compatibility, whether or not a person wants to spend their life being picked at and having attempts made to "fix" something that isn't really broken.


    You can either win the game or reject the game?
    If it is a game. Is it a game or is it a real issue between the two types? Is there something in one or both of the types (type as whole and pure not degrees of it as in people) that refuses to see the other's POV or maybe even cannot imagine the other's point of view clear enough to understand it?

  6. #16
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Basically, "animals" live purely. They don't sit around and think about living -- they live. They engage. They take action. They are fully immersed in their lives.

    Human beings, at least physically, are animals. This sense of "self" and the ego is attached to a creature that has very physical needs, as any animal does, and we cannot detach ourselves from that. So to live like an "animal" might sound negative from a moral standpoint, but it is the highest compliment from a thinking/analytical standpoint -- it shows someone who is fully engaged and alive.

    And one of the strengths of buddhism is "living in the moment" -- like an animal. The self is "extinguished" in a sense. Every time you are aware of yourself, you are no longer living but thinking of living. So the buddhist aims to extinguish self in only the sense that one is living rather than thinking about living.

    Does that make sense? My son does this. Yes, he has some problems because he is NOT self-aware like others in some ways, or as much as he needs to be, but what he teaches me to do is live fully in the moment and engage and drink deeply of life. (Meanwhile, I teach him to consider consequences.)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #17
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Basically, "animals" live purely. They don't sit around and think about living -- they live. They engage. They take action. They are fully immersed in their lives.

    Human beings, at least physically, are animals. This sense of "self" and the ego is attached to a creature that has very physical needs, as any animal does, and we cannot detach ourselves from that. So to live like an "animal" might sound negative from a moral standpoint, but it is the highest compliment from a thinking/analytical standpoint -- it shows someone who is fully engaged and alive.

    And one of the strengths of buddhism is "living in the moment" -- like an animal. The self is "extinguished" in a sense. Every time you are aware of yourself, you are no longer living but thinking of living. So the buddhist aims to extinguish self in only the sense that one is living rather than thinking about living.

    Does that make sense? My son does this. Yes, he has some problems because he is NOT self-aware like others in some ways, or as much as he needs to be, but what he teaches me to do is live fully in the moment and engage and drink deeply of life. (Meanwhile, I teach him to consider consequences.)
    He is still a minor though, isn't he? He isn't the same as an animal, he is a growing human being who is developing his higher thought and sense of self while you take care of life's responsibities for him, so sure he is very free to live in the moment and his senses for now. He is still capable of higher thought and seperate from animals.

    Animals will not want to pass laws to protect you from yourself. Animals wil not want to impress their traditions and religious beliefs on you. They aren't going to disagree with you on politics. Animals are not humans with human movitives.

  8. #18
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    I have to admit, we didn't consult with the cat about whether or not my husband should change careers at this point, so I really can't say she is an "equal" member of the household. We are commited to care for her health and well being for as long as her life lasts but I do not see her as a cognitive equal in the house. She is totally dependent on me to make decisions for her. It would be patronizing of me to say she is an equal in my opinion.
    ha
    Let me attempt to clarify. No, i would not consult my cat on my strategy for retirement savings. This would be outside her skill set. I would also not expect my grandmother to run a marathan for a similar reason. If we value others based on their skillset only then their intrinsic value is lost. (not saying you are doing this, but am only clarifying my statement which could be easily misconstrued). If the worth of the individual is based on their unique, aware presence in the universe apart from their ability to perform, then that worth is instrinsic.

    When discussing different groups of human beings we are on easy ground to assume equality despite differences. For anyone who feels friction with a different type, aren't there some examples you could connect with successfully, while there are examples of your own type that would produce just as much criticism and misunderstanding? Even if there are general tendencies in place, aren't the exceptions especially important in defining our humanity and uniqueness?
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  9. #19
    No me digas, che! Recoleta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ISXJ
    Posts
    600

    Default

    *sniff* Anyone else smell bacon? Hmmm must be time to have a profound yet primitive bonding experience with some N who hopes to build upon their rich inner being while I continue to live in the present and attend to my compulsive desires. (sorry, I really couldn't resist...lol).

    Ok, so yes, us S's are typically more literal and not as much into abstractions are you N's are. However, ISTJ's can/do have a rich, imaginative world...it's just that we focus more on what can be made into actual possibilities as opposed to sitting around and theorizing all day. Don't get me wrong, I love N's and the alternate view points that they offer because they are great innovaters. However, while theory and specualtion is all good, with ISTJ's there needs to be a practical application. Also, ISTJ's are really master planners who yes, focus on the present, but are almost always thinking ahead to the future and forseeing the next step that should be taken.

    Finally, when it comes to getting down to the "inner self" of an ISTJ, I'm not sure I know how to explain this well. All I can say is that sometimes you just meet someone who naturally clicks with you. I do have to say though, ISTJ's are often "what you see is what you get types" we are generally honest and straitforward. If you're looking for something really specific, deep, and hidden, it might not be there (as someone said earlier). It doesn't mean that we don't have a rich inner-imagination or life, it is just a matter of simply finding someone who appreciates the kind of imagination that we DO have.

  10. #20
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7

    Default

    I'm an ISTJ and I never let extroverts in on a personal or intimate level. If you are an introvert, then patient persistance with an ISTJ usually pays off. Small doses of togetherness on a regular frequency work well to chip away at an ISTJ. Out of sight is out of mind, so long distance relationships are no good for an ISTJ. Also, if I'm in the middle of a major problem, I'm not likely to confide in you about the problem. However, if you are around when the problem first arises, then I might include you in my thought process as I solve it. But never do I let someone in for an intimate look mid-stream at a problem which I am solving. Wait patiently; don't pry and don't "fill in the gaps" with your own details or assumptions; and maybe, just maybe, I'll tell you what it was all about after I've solved it. NTs seem to have this need to fill in the gaps when an ISTJ does not confide in them. NTs trust that their intuition can give them the correct information which has gone unspoken by the ISTJ - big mistake!

Similar Threads

  1. [ISTJ] Why do ISTJs act like robots?
    By RaptorWizard in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-17-2013, 08:50 AM
  2. Why are you here?
    By rhinosaur in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-19-2011, 06:08 AM
  3. Why are introverts...
    By Mycroft in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 08-27-2007, 08:46 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