How Good Is Sim's Ni Definition?

[sculpting]

Well, I don't know if that is true. (NO value?)

It's not like people totally always understand themselves or their own ways of seeing. We can't even assume people who think in a framework totally understand it; in fact, often if they've never stepped outside of it, they are vulnerable to their own distortions of perspective even within their natural framework.

And we typically describe things or understand things in comparison with other things. The more things something is compared to, the more angles you're going to see it from; and hopefully you will have a fuller grasp of what it actually is not and, thus, what it is.

A combined approach would be ideal.....each mbti type should describe each function in the eight positions thus yielding 64 descriptions...we can then get together in about a year to haggle it out

To be serious, this communication issue is one of my bigger pet peeves. (Sorry to rant in reply to you Jen, not focused at you at all...just the topic) It is the assignment of motive and value judgments on top of a simple objective, external description that really actually devalues sim's attempt. He contaminates his own work by making presumptious statements about the intents, motives, and objectives of another type, then denies the corrective feedback he gets in return.

I have seen this a lot with respect to ENFP behaviors even out of INFPs, as well as ENTPs.

1. It is always safe to give a description of what is seen.
2. It is okay to postulate an underlying jungian mechanism.
3. It is never okay to assume you understand what the other person subjectively thinks/feels or what motivates the behavior.
4. It is never okay to tell the other person they are incorrect-as it is their head after all.
5. Pose the observation as a question. I see this behavior..does this sound correct and can you please explain how it differs/concurs with what you observe internally?Then open a dialogue...I see this which doesnt seem to match what you are saying...let them explain further...

 

[uumlau]

Exactly.

The one thing I would add just to clarify, as I believe non-dom-Ni users don't quite understand us in this regard: when uumlau says interesting discoveries lie inward, it does not mean merely inward toward ourselves, but deeper within the object itself. In a sense, we become the object, and we then try to better understand the object by better understanding "ourselves".

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nf-idyllic/33971-enfp-our-inner-simulacrums.html

I created the above thread to subjectively capture what FiSi does in ENFPs.

To Ne the idea along, I assume very similar things may happen in INFPs with FiSi and that the equivalent occurs in TiSi with respect to logical "archetypes" in both NTPs.

If You guys make the object become part of you....are you using Te inside of your head to study the potentials present once you understand the object? And the object becomes an "archetype" at this point and can represent a whole class of similar objects?

Do the INFJs somehow do this with people? Or are the objects they incorporate more Fe oriented...thus forming people archetypes?

once the object is part of you, is it there forever? Do you have emotive attachments to the object/archetype? (Oh.....Hey U-this is why INTJs fall in love with the "idea" of love....while ENFPs just fall in love with imaginary people in our heads )

If we initially start as small children using our dom or aux introverted function to mirror our world, those mirrors become part of us and are self defining....we become as adults what our introverted functions saw as children....and absorbed from our world around us...

However we get a second chance to evolve when we start growing in that second introverted function, in our 20s....as it finds very different things to imprint, mirror, and mold....

thus our internal world, our sense of self is defined by two introveretd functions......at some point I would guess the second introverted function starts to play a larger and larger role over the first....

yeah Ne babble....sorry...

I think you're becoming a bit too intrigued with something that is merely a metaphor, and seems similar to how you experience Ne.

I don't "become the object."

I just think about it, a lot. I "play with it" in my head. There's a huge amount of experimentation that goes on without even having to set up a real life lab apparatus.

The reason it becomes accurate is that I still occasionally look at the real-life object, double-checking my conclusions. If I'm wrong about something, I absorb that information and include it in my internal model. If I'm right about something, then I start digging deeper.

All those times you see an INTJ staring into space, doing nothing ... we're juggling these internal models. It could be deep philosophical or scientific thoughts, or it could be a puzzle, or a computer game, or a book, or a movie (and the movie does NOT end like it does in real life, we're making it "better").

The longer we juggle these thoughts, the more we "just know" things about our topic of interest.

The more we "just know," the more we are able to make eerily accurate predictions with respect to our topic of interest.

Where Z's metaphor has a great deal of accuracy is that we essentially absorb all there is to know about something, such that the "thing" exists within us with a very high degree of accuracy. When making a prediction, I don't try to "figure it out" because I've already spent hours or days or years thinking about it: instead, I just let the "thing" do what it normally does in my head. I don't worry about what it should or shouldn't do, it just does it, on its own. So in that abstract sense, I am the thing, but really I don't lose my ego to it. It exists within me, and I animate it, but when I watch the animation, it feels like it's the thing, it doesn't feel like me.

When you read about INTJs having multiple streams of thought in their heads, or watching movies, or entertaining themselves with thought games in their heads, this is what we're doing.

In Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land," he introduces the Martian word "grok." It has since entered into popular usage. It means to really truly and fully understand something. It brings in a bit of what Z was saying, in that it means to understand so fully that the observer becomes part of the observed. In the book, Michael (the stranger) eventually comes to his own understanding of God: that which groks is God, leading to his heretical statement of "Thou art God."

[So, in that limited context, when you run into INTJs who think they're God, they're right!]

 

[Poki]

No. They're secretive because they recognize the strategic value in withholding information. If they talk too much they give away how much they know or don't know; if they say nothing and simply let others assume from their silence that they know everything, they never have to reveal exactly how much they do or don't know, which leaves them with the upper hand. That way they know more about how much you know than you know about how much they know (phew!)

They've just very cognizant of not giving away more information than strategically necessary. They like to be one step ahead of everyone.

Amusingly, when you actually correctly call out their motivations, they do everything they can to discredit your claims because they're threatened by the idea of a loud-mouthed extrovert blabbing their secret plans to everybody.

This, I think, is one of the biggest reasons INTJs dislike sharing their deepest feelings and ideas with extroverts, especially EPs. They don't want the whole world to hear about it!

And for some reason they think everyone else does the same thing for the same reasons.

 

[cascadeco]

Haven't been online for a while, but to quickly acknowledge some good posts and comment....

It's taking a look at the various perspectives on a matter (the blindfolded men touching the elephant from uumlau's/Buddhism's analogy), synthesizing those perspectives, and creating a "meta-perspective" -- i.e., a more global, encompassing perspective -- that brings all these seemingly disparate perspectives into one (that they're all actually touching the same elephant).

Simple, no?

I wholeheartedly agree. Simply put, Ni is like a sniper that collapses all the ideas and tries to pinpoint the common threads between ideas while Ne seems to be expansive and branches off of all sorts of ideas. By no means, do I think that Ni is the Godlike function that people keep mocking it for. Tell me if this wrong, Z (please). I don't think Z is trying to insinuate that that Ni is "all knowing" and is superior because of the same reason. To me, Ni attempts to integrate all the angles KNOWN to the user into a "meta perspective". This does not mean that the Ni user KNOWS everything because if the Ni user is only consciously aware of a few perspectives (and typically does not know every single perspective on a given subject), it limits the supposed "meta perspective". On the other hand, the more perspectives that the Ni user is aware of, the more likely the "meta perspective" relates to reality and is correct. Pretty much, the "meta perspective" is as limited as the individual's ignorance.

Voila! Perfect.

------

uumlau's particle/wave analogy, and elephant one, were good illustrations of the concept.

I don't "become the object."

I just think about it, a lot. I "play with it" in my head. There's a huge amount of experimentation that goes on without even having to set up a real life lab apparatus.

The reason it becomes accurate is that I still occasionally look at the real-life object, double-checking my conclusions. If I'm wrong about something, I absorb that information and include it in my internal model. If I'm right about something, then I start digging deeper.

Re. being wrong and having to absorb the new information into your already existing framework/model, it is a reason INxJ's can seem resistant to new information/change, or slow to shift gears. Not that we don't want the new info (I mean, it's not like we WANT to be lacking key pieces and knowing we're thus possibly in the wrong), it's just that if, say, we've acquired months or years-worth of information that we've already weaved together in our mind to form our 'meta-perspective', then it might (or rather, *will*) take TIME to integrate any new information, resolve any contradictions, adjust our 'meta-perspective' as necessary, etc. It won't be an instantaneous, 'Oh yeah, totally!! Let me now whimsically shift course, nevermind the now-incomplete and botched model within my mind, woohoo!' lol.

All those times you see an INTJ staring into space, doing nothing ... we're juggling these internal models. It could be deep philosophical or scientific thoughts, or it could be a puzzle, or a computer game, or a book, or a movie (and the movie does NOT end like it does in real life, we're making it "better").

Ha, yeah, a significant chunk of my life has been spent doing absolutely nothing, staring into space.

The longer we juggle these thoughts, the more we "just know" things about our topic of interest.

The more we "just know," the more we are able to make eerily accurate predictions with respect to our topic of interest.

Yes, I suppose this is where the mystical/psychic slant comes in. But, again I feel the need to point out that while to external observers one of our 'just know' statements might very well appear to be totally out of the blue and unsubstantiated, on our end, behind the scenes, we may have months or years-worth of Ni-processing time that went into said subject matter or whatnot, so for us it isn't just pulling things out of thin air.

Now, I do agree a [significant?] portion of my internal time isn't active in the sense of following a linear line of thought that I'm consciously tracking, but rather I am just kicking back (so to speak) and letting these things sift of their own accord in our mind, pattern and impression shifting, connecting, letting a framework begin to take shape.... That might be my 'baseline' mode. But when I'm actively wanting to dissect something or really dig into a subject matter and come to a conclusion, and am wanting to move the framework from a hazier 'Idea' to a more substantiated thing with detail and substance, for me that is probably where Ti hops onboard and my internal thought process becomes more Directed, I would say. But in either case, I still maintain it's not impossible to backtrack and pinpoint why I think what I do and why I have concluded something. Like I said earlier, it may be cumbersome or difficult to do so given the nature of the multiple threads at once, but not impossible.

When making a prediction, I don't try to "figure it out" because I've already spent hours or days or years thinking about it: instead, I just let the "thing" do what it normally does in my head. I don't worry about what it should or shouldn't do, it just does it, on its own. So in that abstract sense, I am the thing, but really I don't lose my ego to it. It exists within me, and I animate it, but when I watch the animation, it feels like it's the thing, it doesn't feel like me.

This appears to be what I'm referring to above in my 'baseline' .

As always a chunk of what I wrote might have a personal/individual slant and might not pertain to all.

 

[uumlau]

No. They're secretive because they recognize the strategic value in withholding information. If they talk too much they give away how much they know or don't know; if they say nothing and simply let others assume from their silence that they know everything, they never have to reveal exactly how much they do or don't know, which leaves them with the upper hand. That way they know more about how much you know than you know about how much they know (phew!)

No, we're "secretive" because we're introverts and do all of our thinking inside our head. If something is pertinent, we speak up, but otherwise we don't say anything if we see no need to say anything.

It is others that assume the INTJ mannerisms reflect a great deal of knowledge or at least pretensions of great knowledge.

You seem fixated on the "fact" that INTJs want the "upper hand," but this is just your own assignment of motives and values on INTJs (re: Oro's post).

They've just very cognizant of not giving away more information than strategically necessary. They like to be one step ahead of everyone.

You might want to discard these thoughts from your understanding. It isn't about keeping or giving away information for strategic reasons at all. Note that your assertions contradict the INTJ's demonstrable enjoyment of pontificating on topics to the point of boring everyone else to tears.

Amusingly, when you actually correctly call out their motivations, they do everything they can to discredit your claims because they're threatened by the idea of a loud-mouthed extrovert blabbing their secret plans to everybody.

In other words, when INTJs, the only set of people who really understand INTJ thought patterns, tell you that your descriptions of INTJ thought patterns are wrong, you attribute it to their devious motives rather than the possibility that you might actually be wrong.

You see no problem with this?

This, I think, is one of the biggest reasons INTJs dislike sharing their deepest feelings and ideas with extroverts, especially EPs. They don't want the whole world to hear about it!

Actually, it has to do with Fi being very nonverbal and inexpressible. As for ideas, we're fairly extroverted about those, to the point of annoying others, including "EPs."

 

[sculpting]

I think you're becoming a bit too intrigued with something that is merely a metaphor, and seems similar to how you experience Ne.

I don't "become the object."

I just think about it, a lot. I "play with it" in my head. There's a huge amount of experimentation that goes on without even having to set up a real life lab apparatus.

The reason it becomes accurate is that I still occasionally look at the real-life object, double-checking my conclusions. If I'm wrong about something, I absorb that information and include it in my internal model. If I'm right about something, then I start digging deeper.

All those times you see an INTJ staring into space, doing nothing ... we're juggling these internal models. It could be deep philosophical or scientific thoughts, or it could be a puzzle, or a computer game, or a book, or a movie (and the movie does NOT end like it does in real life, we're making it "better").

The longer we juggle these thoughts, the more we "just know" things about our topic of interest.

The more we "just know," the more we are able to make eerily accurate predictions with respect to our topic of interest.

Where Z's metaphor has a great deal of accuracy is that we essentially absorb all there is to know about something, such that the "thing" exists within us with a very high degree of accuracy. When making a prediction, I don't try to "figure it out" because I've already spent hours or days or years thinking about it: instead, I just let the "thing" do what it normally does in my head. I don't worry about what it should or shouldn't do, it just does it, on its own. So in that abstract sense, I am the thing, but really I don't lose my ego to it. It exists within me, and I animate it, but when I watch the animation, it feels like it's the thing, it doesn't feel like me.

When you read about INTJs having multiple streams of thought in their heads, or watching movies, or entertaining themselves with thought games in their heads, this is what we're doing.

In Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land," he introduces the Martian word "grok." It has since entered into popular usage. It means to really truly and fully understand something. It brings in a bit of what Z was saying, in that it means to understand so fully that the observer becomes part of the observed. In the book, Michael (the stranger) eventually comes to his own understanding of God: that which groks is God, leading to his heretical statement of "Thou art God."

[So, in that limited context, when you run into INTJs who think they're God, they're right!]

Jung says we have the ego, the self, the shadows and complexes. The self is all of this combined...the ego is some limited conscious part of that whole self...

My goal is to try and understand where the boundary between the ego/self lies and how we evolve from a primarily dominant/aux functional description of the ego as children into something much more complex as we age...as our self learns it is not the same as our ego, but is something more...

Note that Silly called out being Fi, yet being separate from Fi. I feel the same about Fi...It is me, yet I can also watch it from a distance...

Z called out "becoming" the object in some sense....You also state the "thing that exists within us". Thus you are not Ni...but it also seems Ni is part of you...Just like what Silly and I say about Fi...

Now the "thinking of the object", "mental manipulation"-are these examples of Ni and Te being used to co-process? The crosschecking to the external object is totally Te.

 

[Poki]

Jung says we have the ego, the self, the shadows and complexes. The self is all of this combined...the ego is some limited conscious part of that whole self...

My goal is to try and understand where the boundary between the ego/self lies and how we evolve from a primarily dominant/aux functional description of the ego as children into something much more complex as we age...as our self learns it is not the same as our ego, but is something more...

Note that Silly called out being Fi, yet being separate from Fi. I feel the same about Fi...It is me, yet I can also watch it from a distance...

Z called out "becoming" the object in some sense....You also state the "thing that exists within us". Thus you are not Ni...but it also seems Ni is part of you...Just like what Silly and I say about Fi...

Now the "thinking of the object", "mental manipulation"-are these examples of Ni and Te being used to co-process? The crosschecking to the external object is totally Te.

Te would be the cross checking to the objects external logic. Se would be like a cross-check with how the object responds to things. Cross-checking is fun, especially playing with how people respond. Dont know what Ne would be.

 

[sculpting]

Te would be the cross checking to the objects external logic. Se would be like a cross-check with how the object responds to things. Cross-checking is fun, especially playing with how people respond. Dont know what Ne would be.

Te is (for me w baby Te) like cross checking against a metric-a timeline, a certain revenue target, a list of stuff to do. I suspect that it is something very different in NiTe. But for me Te decides, yes or no. Maybe the perception id actually done with Si. "What was I assigned? Did I do it?"

In the same way, for TiSe...would it be Ti that makes a guess using Se as the tool to test with? (funny this is like your convo w eric...) Se pokes, and Ti adds another piece?

Pure Ne crosschecks are simply how many things are linked together...and now do they compare to what I already know to be true-Si. But not really right or wrong...just agree or diasagree...

 

[Poki]

Te is (for me w baby Te) like cross checking against a metric-a timeline, a certain revenue target, a list of stuff to do. I suspect that it is something very different in NiTe. But for me Te decides, yes or no. Maybe the perception id actually done with Si. "What was I assigned? Did I do it?"

In the same way, for TiSe...would it be Ti that makes a guess using Se as the tool to test with? (funny this is like your convo w eric...) Se pokes, and Ti adds another piece?

Pure Ne crosschecks are simply how many things are linked together...and now do they compare to what I already know to be true-Si. But not really right or wrong...just agree or diasagree...

Ti could be termed a logical guess, its always digging deeper and analyzing so its never really concrete or set in stone. Se is whats used to poke and prod(test) with. I want to find areas that I can play with, to get people to let go of things, to joke about themselves, and to have fun. Se likes to find those spots and to push them. I will take jabs, slaps, etc. because I am generally aware of what I am doing when I do this. Its the times when I didnt mean to which starts to bleed into my inferior Fe. The difference between poking and prodding and truly trying to help. One I will playfully come out of the other I get hurt just like Te or Ne can get hurt when its trying to be helpful instead of playful. Se is pretty much immune to this hurt because of how I use it.

 

[simulatedworld]

And for some reason they think everyone else does the same thing for the same reasons.

And that anyone who doesn't is a retard.

No, we're "secretive" because we're introverts and do all of our thinking inside our head. If something is pertinent, we speak up, but otherwise we don't say anything if we see no need to say anything.

It is others that assume the INTJ mannerisms reflect a great deal of knowledge or at least pretensions of great knowledge.

But surely you appreciate the fact that remaining silent allows others to misjudge the extent of your knowledge, whether or not that is your primary goal? It's definitely a useful side effect.

You seem fixated on the "fact" that INTJs want the "upper hand," but this is just your own assignment of motives and values on INTJs (re: Oro's post).

You don't think most INTJs want the upper hand? Are you saying I'm incorrect in the belief that most NTJs enjoy feeling powerful and influential?

You might want to discard these thoughts from your understanding. It isn't about keeping or giving away information for strategic reasons at all. Note that your assertions contradict the INTJ's demonstrable enjoyment of pontificating on topics to the point of boring everyone else to tears.

I've had other INTJs, ones with whom I am close enough to trust, explain it to me that way explicitly before. I guess this varies from INTJ to INTJ.

In other words, when INTJs, the only set of people who really understand INTJ thought patterns, tell you that your descriptions of INTJ thought patterns are wrong, you attribute it to their devious motives rather than the possibility that you might actually be wrong.

You see no problem with this?

I think my mistake here has been assuming that different INTJs think too similarly to each other.

Actually, it has to do with Fi being very nonverbal and inexpressible. As for ideas, we're fairly extroverted about those, to the point of annoying others, including "EPs."

I suspect that you have far better developed and far more influential Fi than most INTJs. I think most of them are far more secretive, far more aware of the strategic value in withholding information, and far less emotionally intelligent than you are.

 

[Poki]

And that anyone who doesn't is a retard.

But how can you tell when the shoe fits

 

[simulatedworld]

But how can you tell when the shoe fits

Ready to change that x in your type to an I yet?

 

[sculpting]

And for some reason they think everyone else does the same thing for the same reasons.

poki, you are very funny.

 

[sculpting]

alas, i am afraid Sim may be right about the INTJs:

 

[SillySapienne]

^ TRUTH!

It's called Ni delusion and paranoia.

 

[SillySapienne]

I think you're becoming a bit too intrigued with something that is merely a metaphor, and seems similar to how you experience Ne.

I don't "become the object."

I just think about it, a lot. I "play with it" in my head. There's a huge amount of experimentation that goes on without even having to set up a real life lab apparatus.

The reason it becomes accurate is that I still occasionally look at the real-life object, double-checking my conclusions. If I'm wrong about something, I absorb that information and include it in my internal model. If I'm right about something, then I start digging deeper.

All those times you see an INTJ staring into space, doing nothing ... we're juggling these internal models. It could be deep philosophical or scientific thoughts, or it could be a puzzle, or a computer game, or a book, or a movie (and the movie does NOT end like it does in real life, we're making it "better").

The longer we juggle these thoughts, the more we "just know" things about our topic of interest.

The more we "just know," the more we are able to make eerily accurate predictions with respect to our topic of interest.

Where Z's metaphor has a great deal of accuracy is that we essentially absorb all there is to know about something, such that the "thing" exists within us with a very high degree of accuracy. When making a prediction, I don't try to "figure it out" because I've already spent hours or days or years thinking about it: instead, I just let the "thing" do what it normally does in my head. I don't worry about what it should or shouldn't do, it just does it, on its own. So in that abstract sense, I am the thing, but really I don't lose my ego to it. It exists within me, and I animate it, but when I watch the animation, it feels like it's the thing, it doesn't feel like me.

When you read about INTJs having multiple streams of thought in their heads, or watching movies, or entertaining themselves with thought games in their heads, this is what we're doing.

In Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land," he introduces the Martian word "grok." It has since entered into popular usage. It means to really truly and fully understand something. It brings in a bit of what Z was saying, in that it means to understand so fully that the observer becomes part of the observed. In the book, Michael (the stranger) eventually comes to his own understanding of God: that which groks is God, leading to his heretical statement of "Thou art God."

[So, in that limited context, when you run into INTJs who think they're God, they're right!]

A few things, you'e one of the few posters on this site whom when I come across a post of, I tend to read in full.

1.) Great and insightful post.

2.) A very close INTJ friend of mine recently asked me if I read "Stranger in a Strange Land", no I haven't but the title intrigues me... a lot.

3.) NOT ALL INTJS ARE THE SAME.

3a.) As in, some are more healthy than others, some are SIGNIFICANTLY smarter than others, some are more INTROVERTED than others.

4.) You don't see yourself well, you're definitely a weirdo. , and I could imagine how an average person would perceive you, lol! But you are RIDICULOUSLY INTELLIGENT, and you exhibit a BUTTLOAD of Ni Te and Fi. Most INTJs on this site just don't compare to you, I know some who do, but they are still young.

5.) I wish Zara was more like you sometimes...... oh well.

6.) I wonder how life experience, circumstance, AND GENETIC predispositions, i.e. intelligence, introvertedness, etc. affect the INTJ.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I suspect that you have far better developed and far more influential Fi than most INTJs.

uumlau has the advantage of age.

Most INTJs on this site just don't compare to you, I know some who do, but they are still young.

@bold: exactly.

I too relish uumlau's posts, but it's wise not to place him or anyone on a pedestal. I doubt he would enjoy being there.

 

[SillySapienne]

No. They're secretive because they recognize the strategic value in withholding information. If they talk too much they give away how much they know or don't know; if they say nothing and simply let others assume from their silence that they know everything, they never have to reveal exactly how much they do or don't know, which leaves them with the upper hand. That way they know more about how much you know than you know about how much they know (phew!)

They've just very cognizant of not giving away more information than strategically necessary. They like to be one step ahead of everyone.

Amusingly, when you actually correctly call out their motivations, they do everything they can to discredit your claims because they're threatened by the idea of a loud-mouthed extrovert blabbing their secret plans to everybody.

This, I think, is one of the biggest reasons INTJs dislike sharing their deepest feelings and ideas with extroverts, especially EPs. They don't want the whole world to hear about it!

BINGO!!!!!!!

Uumlau excluding, and some other INTJs, but you just hit the nail on the head muthafucka!!!!



Seriously.

I've witnessed/observed this first hand with one INTJ in particular, and I find it pathetic, lacking of integrity and loathsome!

UGH!!!

But, seriously sim, bravo, someone with da Ne-Ti skillz needed to drop this TRUTH BOMB!

So, thank you!

Man I think I get why Z is always complaining about Ne doms wandering off topic

That's what Nicoley does on her alone time, this does not affect Z in the least.

My IXTP would gladly go down intertube thought rides with me, when I'm with Z, I just go to the other room, or in my own space and do what I gotta do.

Hahah I've had MDMA interventions with I_T_ friends and hearing them finally express emotions for the first time in their lives is really a lot of fun. (I have a close INTP friend who did exactly the same thing!)

I agree it's awesome when they finally open up. I take it as a big sign of respect and trust if an introvert is willing to be very open with you.

Very true.

however, they don't really care about helping you or making you happy if they don't feel some sort of familial or cultural connection to you. Fe will do anything for you--as long as you're part of "the group." If you're not, sorry--Fe has no responsibility toward you.

How dare I forget about this glaringly ridiculous fact!!!

Absofuckinglutely!!!

Spot on, Sim, I kinda have a problem with SFJs, for this exact reason because my Fi values find this quality to be absolutely ABHORRENT!

Some Fe users (especially NFJs) consider the entirety of humanity to be part of "the group" and thus will pretty much do anything to help anybody, but this seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

Hmm, NFJs are quite different than their SFJ counterparts, I will need to mull this over, but it feels kinda true, or rather I think you're onto something with this idea/theory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sim, sorry I didn't respond to your epic post, I was/am just in a hurry/impatient and selfishly got out what I needed to get out. Sorry.

I will reread your post again later, and time and willingness permitting I will respond to the very many other thoughts you raised within your post.

 

[Zarathustra]

...this does not affect Z in the least.

 

[SillySapienne]

What a verbose rebuttal, lemme get out the thesaurus to come up with my rebut. :rolli: