L
LadyLazarus
Guest
I thought this was dead.
There is something wrong with it if those concepts or information are something the person needs in order to navigate some real life situation. Willful ignorance in such a case is definitely harmful. Of course belittling someone in such a case is unlikely to be productive. Better to help them get a clue so they can move on.I understand logic just fine. I just don't like to belittle people for not knowing the things I know. Some people either can't grasp certain concepts or they're just not interested in knowing them. There is nothing wrong with that.
There are basically two dimensions to "people-focus". I/E and something that very loosely and in part corresponds to T/F. I/E is about your approach to others. We're either understimulated or overstimulated, so we therefore turn outward or inward to correct the level of stimulation.Also about T being about things and F being about people. Bull. For starters ANY extrovert is extremely interested in people. Like extroverts are very lonely without people and need them, therefore value them in general. It is logical actually. There might be extrovert that is not at all interested in others, but that wouldn't last, rarely anyone would be with someone who steps on them like they're just a furniture.
There are basically two dimensions to "people-focus". I/E and something that very loosely and in part corresponds to T/F. I/E is about your approach to others. We're either understimulated or overstimulated, so we therefore turn outward or inward to correct the level of stimulation.
But that's separate from our rational focus. So you can be overstimulated by the external world (and thus people), and turn inward, being very reserved, but can still have more of a rational focus toward people.
Your decisions will focus on personal or interpersonal considerations. Likewise, an extravert can turn outward for stimulation from people, yet still think more in terms of impersonal objects; even treating the people themselves as objects!
That's an example of what I mean by "impersonal" rather than "personal". Not caring about them for themselves, but rather "scientifically" (a definite T "impersonal" field), and because it's "fun"; meaning "logically it gives me more pleasure".But I am not interested in things more than people or maybe I'm getting wrong definiton of things? Are things maybe issues? My career is about finances and I do enjoy putting things in order but that's my J. But I'm not extremely interested in finances. I'm interested in the relationships and situations with people more cause it's just more fun, logically it gives me more pleasure, so I value it more. But I guess I am not caring towards people deeply, more superficially. I consider it to be nice if we're nice to each other and I feel sometimes forced to please someone cause I am good at reading others. And I feel uncomfortable if I see someone's need and ignore it. I might only do that if my need for opposite is higher than uncomfort. I also really dislike some boring theoretisation, I prefer fun and enthusiastic stuff. If you'd meet me in real life you'd see very warm enthusiastic person with lots of energy that is very opend and nice, but also don't have a problem to stand up for herself if necessary. And being really fun, but responsable. I'm also kind of crazy but that just might be cause I'm a girl.
I guess after all this conversations on forum (mostly me with myself) I think I'm T. I guess I can be T and more interested in people but maybe not in caring about them, but more scientifically.
Those would be more "T" reasons to engage people, and depending on your age, the inferior will come up and give it a genuine F awareness (niceness, not ignoring needs, etc), but the T will be running the show.
(from the classic temperament angle, ENTJ is the "pure Choleric", and they will seem "bright and friendly, like a Sanguine"; i.e. ESF/ENP, but be focused more on their goals than the people themselves)
Being female will also tend to make you seem more "personal" (gener roles), regardless of type. Female T's often have difficulty with the T/F dimension.
This seems contradictory. If female T's seem more "personal" (presumably than male T's), this suggests they have less difficulty with the T/F dimension.Being female will also tend to make you seem more "personal" (gener roles), regardless of type. Female T's often have difficulty with the T/F dimension.
This seems contradictory. If female T's seem more "personal" (presumably than male T's), this suggests they have less difficulty with the T/F dimension.
I disagree in any case, and find that type trumps gender nearly every time.
I think an F would be more comfortable expressing emotion, in front of any group. The NTJs I have known have little regard for social convention, except inasmuch as they decide following it will help them get what they want. They don't internalize it as some inherent good. My good female friend who is ENTJ is like this. She simply is much more vocal about what she thinks is right, or stupid, while I put less effort into setting others straight and just go about my own business as I see fit.If I got correctly what are u saying, I understand why you think that way and that may be the case with some girls.
But there is other problem with gender roles in which I can relate. I may be T but by being E I mostly interacted with girls and girls express their emotions and if you sort of don't you won't fit in. This may be too raw of explanation, but consider that men between themshelves don't express emotions. You may say it is not ENTJ's style want to fit in, but a part of E will want that and even if you're stubborn and do it your way, tell me would you if you're F express emotion in front of male group? By my adjustment therefore I might develop my F far more. My sister is I and T and her F is relay bad, so what you said might apply to her, but she is I.
I think an F would be more comfortable expressing emotion, in front of any group. The NTJs I have known have little regard for social convention, except inasmuch as they decide following it will help them get what they want. They don't internalize it as some inherent good. My good female friend who is ENTJ is like this. She simply is much more vocal about what she thinks is right, or stupid, while I put less effort into setting others straight and just go about my own business as I see fit.
Really not true. My mom that I am very close with is an F and sometimes exactly cause she is an F she wouldn't express her emotions, e.g. at work cause it is not socially acceptable she will contain her emotionsI think an F would be more comfortable expressing emotion, in front of any group.
The NTJs I have known have little regard for social convention, except inasmuch as they decide following it will help them get what they want.
My good female friend who is ENTJ is like this. She simply is much more vocal about what she thinks is right, or stupid, while I put less effort into setting others straight and just go about my own business as I see fit.
Consider it this way: in any given situation, look around and see which individuals are expressing the most emotion. Are these people more likely to be T-types or F; or is it more complicated than that (e.g. Fe vs. Fi)?Really not true. My mom that I am very close with is an F and sometimes exactly cause she is an F she wouldn't express her emotions, e.g. at work cause it is not socially acceptable she will contain her emotions
If I kill someone who is making things difficult and as a result land in jail for an extended period, will this help me get what I want? Yes, even in this extreme example, my reasoning works out. In more pedestrian cases, it means doing things like indulging in smalltalk with the bureaucrat or store manager who is in a position to grant or deny my request, to put them at ease and get them to view me favorably, so they are more disposed to help me out. On a personal, social, or even moral level, I really don't care what they think of me. I would never be rude, but generally don't attempt to be overly personable either.Bolded is true. But other part is an unhealthy approach. I am nice and kind to people not usually cause I want something from them. I consider we should be kind to each other cause I think we learned from history that anarchy and being a savage will not get you far. I mean if I go and kill a person I'm annoyed with I am putting my own life at risk. You don't kill another person and you respect that law cause you don't wanna get murdered too. You wanna freely walk the planet and enjoy life. Therefore it is logical to bi kind, you don't want someone to be rude to you so you are not to them. It is different when you have an argument, sometimes being rude is maybe necessary, but that is more of exception.
Look, I agree on the fact that by that you will mostly distinguish if someone is F or T. But I am talking about exceptions in which you see that that is not an ultimate rule. I consider myself more of exception by really expressing my emotions (because of my E, energetic and enthusiastic nature and high F) and still being T.Consider it this way: in any given situation, look around and see which individuals are expressing the most emotion. Are these people more likely to be T-types or F; or is it more complicated than that (e.g. Fe vs. Fi)?
This is an example of exception. As general rule you respect law against murder cause you don't wanna get murdered too. Imagine if there would be no law against murder, how safe would you feel?If I kill someone who is making things difficult and as a result land in jail for an extended period, will this help me get what I want? Yes, even in this extreme example, my reasoning works out.
On a personal, social, or even moral level, I really don't care what they think of me. I would never be rude, but generally don't attempt to be overly personable either.