User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 37

  1. #21
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    My first thought was no, it's not necessarily about sensitivity. However I was thinking in the more superficial/stereotypical sense and you seem to actually ask about something deeper. I see what you're getting at and I think a degree of sensitivity is necessary to be NFP. I'm not awash with feeling in general nor am I incredible fragile but there is a sensitivity that, say, NTPs don't seem to share. I don't think that this makes NTPs colder or nastier, it's just that they aren't as attuned and responsive to charged emotional experiences (especially negative ones).

    I do want to emphasise that this does not mean that we are very emotional, but only that we invest more of ourselves in things we find meaningful. I really don't see myself as a remarkably emotional person if I compare to my ISFJ mum or ESTJ sister. They're very reactive people, whereas I tend to be impassive and indifferent. I'm typically pretty neutral because I don't really care too much either way about most things. At the same time the complete opposite is true; I'm a person of great feeling and would say I feel more deeply and intensely than my mother and sister. It's strangely contradictory - I'm not even sure if I'm explaining it well.

    The sort of things you are describing here sound more NTP-like than NFP to me. I don't know that I could distance myself that much from such things - I couldn't help but feel negativity/upset because they relate to things that matter to me. If I passionately believe something, I really do believe it emotively, not merely strongly.

    But then, this is just my opinion. I imagine others would disagree and would not necessarily be wrong.

    EDIT: I feel like the definition of sensitivity could be at issue here - there are subtle differences between various definitions. It depends how broadly you mean to use the term.
    Yeah I agree. There are many definitions of sensitive, and I tried to explain what I meant; but I also think Fi makes a person more sensitive in every sense of the word (though not more emotive).

    Yeah, I don't know why I asked. It's silly for me to still entertain the possibility of being INFP. But I just can't help wanting to rule it out for good, which was the purpose of the thread I think. I thought this was clinching proof I'm not INFP. Not a type me thread per se, just a thought on sensitivity as it relates to the types with me as an example (with the typing as an ulterior motive).

  2. #22
    Earth Exalted Thursday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sp/sx
    Socionics
    LIE
    Posts
    3,965

    Default

    ah ok. Then definitely. Emotional-radar picker-upers of individuals first.
    I N V I C T U S

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    Well, there are a number of proposed definitions of Fi. Related to the one about internal value systems that we've been discussing is the notion that Fi is a way of judging things by how they jive with one's "inner essence" discernable by one's own emotional response to them. Your response to my post, for instance, is a pretty good example of an Fi assessment. You disputed my claim about Fi because how I defined sensitivity didn't mesh with your subjective experience of the concept.

    Anyways, whether one has conscious control over one's emotions/sensitivity/whatever is really besides the point of how Fi influences behavior. What's important is how much priority one gives those reactions. A person with a stronger preference for Fi is by definition gonna be more likely to pay attention to how something affects them personally, and give emphasis to those feelings in their decision making. This process is intrinsic to the nature of Fi.
    I don't think you properly understood what I was implying. Firstly, I in no way implied that Fi measure's one's emotional reaction to something. There is a subtle yet very distinct difference between what occurs and an emotional reaction. It would be similar to perhaps an IM session where information is displayed on a screen and an audience sitting around the recipient computer making a display of emotion in response (think cheers or booes.) You listen to what the Fi suggests first and foremost and any emotion responds to it accordingly. My assertion is that listening to emotion over what Fi wants (and it is tempting) derails Fi and causes more problems than it solves. For example It's like being in love with someone but your Fi wants to be a bachelor so you have the freedom to go off to Africa for instance and save the Elephants. The two completely clash as the desires can often be incompatible. But this is all a little off-topic.

    Second, I may be mistaken but I got the impression that your response to my experiences of sensitivity was: "Your rebuttal is completely subjective and thus should not be treated as a valid form of disproof of the assertion." This is fair but I must ask: does an objective way of determining the nature of sensitivity exist? How else am I to formulate a counter-argument when no objective data exists? It smells like argumentum ad ignorantiam to me and a reversal of the burden of proof. But if I'm wrong or looking too deep into it then let me know.

    Your last paragraph is completely removed from the thread's assertion that sensitivity is inherent to strong Fi-users, doing nothing to either support it or refute it. Congratulations.

  4. #24
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Standuble View Post
    I also speculate a lot when it comes to "true values" which to me echoes Plato's Theory of Forms. My current understanding (which welcomes adjustment or to be disproven at any time) at is that all values and knowledge are absorbed from the outside from which worldviews are developed.
    You think values are just floating around in the ether, ready to be seized upon?
    Needless to say, I disagree.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  5. #25
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    You think values are just floating around in the ether, ready to be seized upon?
    Needless to say, I disagree.
    Hey, Keith Richards thought he was stealing guitar riffs from the "ether". I think Dylan said a similar thing about lyrics. Why not values.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    You think values are just floating around in the ether, ready to be seized upon?
    Needless to say, I disagree.
    That wasn't what I was implying whatsoever. Completely missed the point I was feeling a little brain dead (or more brain dead than usual to be precise) when I wrote that so it didn't quite articulate the way I would have liked. What I was trying to say that the young mind is an impressionable one and in that state it is more open to new ideas (e.g. what a parent believes etc.) as there isn't much experience or stored data to internally reference. These aren't "floating around in the ether" as you put it but ideas held by those around them which are then adopted by the child and perhaps modified and scrutinised to become more personal if the child sees the need. Over time a framework develops. In a nutshell I was making an assertion that "true values" do not exist and the sense of self is the product of one's environment, a gradual development in one's formative years which as the person matures are expressed in turn.

    That's the gist of it, I don't think I've articulated this much better (in part because I can't really be bothered.) But feel free to nitpick or disagree.

  7. #27
    Senior Member pinkgraffiti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    748 sx/so
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    The other day I was having an interesting conversation with a friend about the concept that the ability to feel empathy towards someone is connected to the ability of seeing ourselves in the person's shoes.....and this is obvious, right? But what was interesting was what he said to me right after: that nowadays we tend to empathize with the "underdog", but it was not always so. So, for example in Roman times, when you had the Colosseum and etc, there was maybe a bigger class separation and people watching did not feel empathy towards the men that were dying, towards the "underdog", because they just couldn't see themselves in their shoes, they saw themselves in the shoes of the winner.
    So the ability to emphasize does not come from an authentic feeling of solidarity, but is related to our own fear of one day becoming the underdog and having no one to help us. So then it is quite an egoistic, utilitarian feeling. And I guess that ability to emphasize is directly related to having Fi, which is quite a relative function (i dont know where i'm going with this..).

  8. #28
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Standuble View Post
    That wasn't what I was implying whatsoever. Completely missed the point I was feeling a little brain dead (or more brain dead than usual to be precise) when I wrote that so it didn't quite articulate the way I would have liked. What I was trying to say that the young mind is an impressionable one and in that state it is more open to new ideas (e.g. what a parent believes etc.) as there isn't much experience or stored data to internally reference. These aren't "floating around in the ether" as you put it but ideas held by those around them which are then adopted by the child and perhaps modified and scrutinised to become more personal if the child sees the need. Over time a framework develops. In a nutshell I was making an assertion that "true values" do not exist and the sense of self is the product of one's environment, a gradual development in one's formative years which as the person matures are expressed in turn.

    That's the gist of it, I don't think I've articulated this much better (in part because I can't really be bothered.) But feel free to nitpick or disagree.
    FWIW, I know what you mean. I think. Thomson touched on it as where Fe reflects an immediate or community framework, Fi is expressing a more general notion of "humanity". What I had confusion with about her explanation is the differences between Se and Ne (ISFP and INFP). It didn't seem like she was differentiating them that much, other than that INFPs just take it a step further.

  9. #29
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Standuble View Post
    What I was trying to say that the young mind is an impressionable one and in that state it is more open to new ideas (e.g. what a parent believes etc.) as there isn't much experience or stored data to internally reference. These aren't "floating around in the ether" as you put it but ideas held by those around them which are then adopted by the child and perhaps modified and scrutinised to become more personal if the child sees the need. Over time a framework develops. In a nutshell I was making an assertion that "true values" do not exist and the sense of self is the product of one's environment, a gradual development in one's formative years which as the person matures are expressed in .
    Smells like Fe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Smells like Fe.
    You would be mistaken. I'm not talking about the adoption of external values but the absorption of different ideas from outside sources in the formative years without necessarily measuring their prominence in the outside environment. Basically everything they are exposed to goes in. The only difference would be later on in said development whether the mind begins to refine these into a personal set of values (reshaping what has been learnt into either something to keep or something to throw away) or picks and chooses what to favour based on the popular views of the community. In regards to myself, what I personally value now is different from what I valued as a child, I have a solid inner core but it is abstract in its make-up and allows a degree of flexibility. It is removed from what the society values. I could search my inner world for years in search for a value which remains completely constant; its parameters remaining totally the same. To this date through introspection I have found nothing matching that description. But this is just a subjective monologue, take it as you see fit.

Similar Threads

  1. Why can't there be a portable version of Ventrilo?
    By /DG/ in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-17-2014, 06:55 PM
  2. Can one be an athiest and an INFP?
    By Sahara in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-25-2009, 10:17 PM
  3. I can't be the only one watching Dexter
    By Natrushka in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 03-17-2008, 02:38 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