• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What is the point of Feeling?

R

Riva

Guest
Empathy and sympathy - is it not related to feeling?

Emotional expressions and motivations which make the world a bit more beautiful and hopeful - is that not related to feeling?
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Choosing to let yourself die by not taking actions neccesarry to stay alive is not the same as "dyin of heard break".

And again you don't need connection or relationships to live.
http://psychology.about.com/od/loveandattraction/a/attachment01.htm
A basic bonding with parents in infancy is generally agreed to be necessary for healthy functioning. Also, infants who were neglected in the first year of life and not touched enough show severe health impacts. There is no human who doesn't need other humans, because we need our parents to survive infancy. We all start with this basic relationship, and it gives us the basic sense of relationship.


They are good but not neccesarry

People with Asperger's syndrome are less inclined to and adept at connection and interpersonal relationships. Does that mean there health is in jeapordy?

Why are you using a "royal we" ?
People with Aspergers are less inclined, but that doesn't mean they are not inclined at all, or that they can't learn to function within a social context. And they still need parents.

To restate what I said earlier: Everyone is connected to other living things, because we eat them and they eat us, and we interact with them every day. We get our oxygen from trees. We exist in interconnection. It's a fact of life. The feeling function makes us (unconsciously for you I guess) aware of this; you don't go setting fire to the forest, presumably because you think it's not smart and/or you'll get in trouble. You don't step on kittens. You dislike it when people hit you, because you value your relationship with yourself.

People, quit nitpicking my words, please.
 

Pseudo

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,051
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
http://psychology.about.com/od/loveandattraction/a/attachment01.htm
A basic bonding with parents in infancy is generally agreed to be necessary for healthy functioning. Also, infants who were neglected in the first year of life and not touched enough show severe health impacts. There is no human who doesn't need other humans, because we need our parents to survive infancy. We all start with this basic relationship, and it gives us the basic sense of relationship.



People with Aspergers are less inclined, but that doesn't mean they are not inclined at all, or that they can't learn to function within a social context. And they still need parents.

To restate what I said earlier: Everyone is connected to other living things, because we eat them and they eat us, and we interact with them every day. We get our oxygen from trees. We exist in interconnection. It's a fact of life. The feeling function makes us (unconsciously for you I guess) aware of this; you don't go setting fire to the forest, presumably because you think it's not smart and/or you'll get in trouble. You don't step on kittens. You dislike it when people hit you, because you value your relationship with yourself.

People, quit nitpicking my words, please.


The first bit leaves out the point that those people, though I'll adjusted are not dead. People can survive isolation.

The second bit I agree with and said something to the same affect earlier in the thread.


I was nitpicking about the royal we because I was wondering if it was your interpretation or a shared interpretation.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The first bit leaves out the point that those people, though I'll adjusted are not dead. People can survive isolation.

The second bit I agree with and said something to the same affect earlier in the thread.


I was nitpicking about the royal we because I was wondering if it was your interpretation or a shared interpretation.

As for the dying bit, I was only referring to myself. And I meant it in a nonliteral way, at least at first, due to psychological suffering. (I would feel like dying.)

I thought it was obvious what I meant, but I'll clarify again:
Feeling function gives sense of relationship and interconnection.
Embracing this is healthy.
Some people, including myself, feel the connection more acutely than others.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The first bit leaves out the point that those people, though I'll adjusted are not dead. People can survive isolation.

And this part is true after infancy; during that time it's really impossible to survive without some sort of care. True, it could come about from robots feeding you e.g. The Matrix, but people's bodies still sort of retain that feeling of being nourished as a sense of connection. If someone had no sense of connection whatsoever, they would not have it for themselves either, since that's when we learn it; they would probably avoid pain, but just because it doesn't feel good. People whose only experience of relationships have been abusive associate abusive behavior with love.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,226
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I generalize it to all people in that each person has an instinct to form bonds with other living things, and we exist in a global ecosystem. Humans who do not bond securely early in life become sociopaths. Since we live in a global ecosystem, we are interdependent on other living things to survive; we eat living things, they eat us, we have territory and they have territory, if we provoke them they often attack us. We exist in a relationship with other beings whether we know and like it or not, and being aware of this fact and embracing it tends to be most conducive to health and happiness.

The Feeling function makes us aware of these relationships and our interconnections, and allows us to make rational decisions with regard to them.
Yes, some people use the feeling function to maintain this awareness, but other functions can be used for the same purpose.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I'm talking about socialization in a very basic and fundamental sense; what do you mean?
I agree with the outstanding explanation Uumlau already provided. To add my own thoughts: you view being cut off from all connections as unhealthy. I view it as unhealthy to be forced into connections that do more harm than good. Not all human connections have the obvious benefits you list, like nursing an infant, or a group/tribe working together to get food and defend against danger, and the ones that do are easily understood using a thinking process. The vast majority of connections, however, serve no such utilitarian purpose and are generally superfluous in our view. Involving ourselves wastes our resources to no productive end, and requires we try to be something we are not. Succumbing to this to any significant degree can easily undermine our identity, except that we are usually able to resist.

The physiological factors you mention are real, but are less related to feeling as a function than to the generation of emotional input, just as they generate (other) physical sensory input. Emotions, then, are inevitable but how we handle them using the feeling function (or other functions) is much more individual.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Yes, some people use the feeling function to maintain this awareness, but other functions can be used for the same purpose.
All feeling in all senses of the word has to do with the relationship of the self to something. If we had no concept of self or other, we would have no need for emotion, since it informs us of our well-being. A negative emotion informs us of some sort of threat to us, or frustration from progress towards something we perceive as beneficial. A positive emotion tells us we perceive that we are well.

I agree with the outstanding explanation Uumlau already provided. To add my own thoughts: you view being cut off from all connections as unhealthy. I view it as unhealthy to be forced into connections that do more harm than good. Not all human connections have the obvious benefits you list, like nursing an infant, or a group/tribe working together to get food and defend against danger, and the ones that do are easily understood using a thinking process. The vast majority of connections, however, serve no such utilitarian purpose and are generally superfluous in our view. Involving ourselves wastes our resources to no productive end, and requires we try to be something we are not. Succumbing to this to any significant degree can easily undermine our identity, except that we are usually able to resist.

The physiological factors you mention are real, but are less related to feeling as a function than to the generation of emotional input, just as they generate (other) physical sensory input. Emotions, then, are inevitable but how we handle them using the feeling function (or other functions) is much more individual.
As I have pointed out several times and will continue to do so: I am not talking about forced assimilation into social groups or society. I don't know why people keep making this assumption. I never said anything about all connections being beneficial. I said some connections are, and our interconnection in the global ecosystem is.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
To restate what I said earlier: Everyone is connected to other living things, because we eat them and they eat us, and we interact with them every day. We get our oxygen from trees. We exist in interconnection. It's a fact of life. The feeling function makes us (unconsciously for you I guess) aware of this; you don't go setting fire to the forest, presumably because you think it's not smart and/or you'll get in trouble. You don't step on kittens. You dislike it when people hit you, because you value your relationship with yourself.
You appear to be confusing the OP's meaning of "Feeling" with your own view of "feeling", which is why
People, quit nitpicking my words, please.
^^ this happens. ;)

All feeling in all senses of the word has to do with the relationship of the self to something. If we had no concept of self or other, we would have no need for emotion, since it informs us of our well-being. A negative emotion informs us of some sort of threat to us, or frustration from progress towards something we perceive as beneficial. A positive emotion tells us we perceive that we are well.
We're talking "Feeling" in the context of MBTI and Jung, and not in the much more generic context of "human beings connected together by a global ecosystem". Sentience, not "feeling" per se, and certainly not "Feeling", is what makes us aware of those connections.

Your reasoning has some serious flaws. Drug/alcohol use can cause a positive feeling in spite of negative connections, and various kinds of neuroses can convince us that things are wrong when they're perfectly OK. And most of this has little to do with Jung's concept of Feeling.

As I have pointed out several times and will continue to do so: I am not talking about forced assimilation into social groups or society. I don't know why people keep making this assumption.
It was brought up because you told Coriolis that you didn't agree with her point about forced socialization. It's a parallel topic. You implied that "forced socialization" is OK by your response. That might not be what you meant, of course.

I suspect you mean "we're interconnected no matter what" which isn't what Coriolis or I meant by "forced socialization."
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
You appear to be confusing the OP's meaning of "Feeling" with your own view of "feeling", which is why
I'm pretty sure we are both talking about the Feeling function as it relates to typology. My own opinion is that it deals with what I've described, as well as what Jung says. I realize I'm adding to traditional thought, and this is my intention.

We're talking "Feeling" in the context of MBTI and Jung, and not in the much more generic context of "human beings connected together by a global ecosystem". Sentience, not "feeling" per se, and certainly not "Feeling", is what makes us aware of those connections.
^ What I said above applies to this too. I argue that the Feeling function does apply to these things.
Your reasoning has some serious flaws. Drug/alcohol use can cause a positive feeling in spite of negative connections, and various kinds of neuroses can convince us that things are wrong when they're perfectly OK.
Perhaps according to some interpretations; this produces the standard debate of the difference between pleasure and happiness, and how they relate to the body and the soul. I meant psychological feeling, not a physical high. And this false sense of well being still fools our bodies into thinking the drug is good for us; since natural and healthy activities produce feel-good chemicals, this is why we get addicted to drugs. It's a perversion of a natural process. Unhealthy people still have this process; it just doesn't work correctly. Like when people stay in abusive relationships because they associate the behavior with love. They know that love is good for them, and it makes them happy; they just don't know how to correctly distinguish love from abuse.

It was brought up because you told Coriolis that you didn't agree with her point about forced socialization. It's a parallel topic. You implied that "forced socialization" is OK by your response. That might not be what you meant, of course.

I suspect you mean "we're interconnected no matter what" which isn't what Coriolis or I meant by "forced socialization."
Right, that is what I meant.

I didn't say I was in favor of forced socialization. I said that proper socialization is beneficial. Proper socialization is not forced, nor does it involve conformity. It involves learning how to have healthy and functional interactions with other humans, and learning how to form healthy and functional bonds.

I understand why some people, particularly INTJ's due to their introversion and Te-Fi would recoil from forced socialization and might read that assumption into it. I myself don't like conformity much either. You just have to understand that it is an assumption and it's annoying to have to repeat yourself.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
It's been quite interesting to read through this thread, which I, (ironically), created in a funk of my own miserable state at the time.

But how amusing and revealing that I should make up a thread with an OP full of a clarity I don't normally display nor possess. This is why it is endlessly frustrating that my normal state is one of a pleasant lie. One which is all the more dampening on my perception and analysis of the world around me because it is already so ingrained and supported in the society around me.

I compare it to learning to ride a bike. In most western cultures, this is a rather cliche past time, which is taught to us by our parents or appropriate alternative at a young age. And like riding a bike, I started off slow with Feeling, learning my way, which values were which and what was deemed what.

Eventually it becomes second nature; the reactions and the impulses are so catered for by society and so well trained that they become an instinctive collection of automated responses. However therein lies the danger, for I am rewarded for adhereing to the code of ethics that Feeling, (especially extraverted feeling), subscribes to. And these rewards are rich in friends and group affirmation.

But because of these rewards I find myself even more blind. Stuck in a whirlwind of do's and dont's, pleases and thankyou's. Before I know it a cog has come loose in this automated machine and I finally see with clarity. Unfortunately this clarity is still somewhat marred by the presence of a negative emotion, but it is getting easier to train.

When I am out of this state however people seem to want to pull me back in, with obligations and statements along the lines of: "you do not seem yourself" because apparently those around me know what my self is better than I do. I wonder if this is how many thinking types, especially intuitive thinking types, are pressured all the time?

However soon I will be back in the fluff. And I am scared that one day I may never come out of it again. It seems a cruel fate of mind to be trapped within the social obligations of the groups around you, knowing that the only truth in such a state is the one that they set for you.

Why do I feel inclined towards caring and niceities? Surely it would improve mine and others lives more if I could stop a moment and try to change the strings that pull at us? Or at the very least...point them out. Truely that would display more caring to those around me than blind pleasantries.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Eventually it becomes second nature; the reactions and the impulses are so catered for by society and so well trained that they become an instinctive collection of automated responses. However therein lies the danger, for I am rewarded for adhereing to the code of ethics that Feeling, (especially extraverted feeling), subscribes to. And these rewards are rich in friends and group affirmation.

But because of these rewards I find myself even more blind. Stuck in a whirlwind of do's and dont's, pleases and thankyou's. Before I know it a cog has come loose in this automated machine and I finally see with clarity. Unfortunately this clarity is still somewhat marred by the presence of a negative emotion, but it is getting easier to train.

When I am out of this state however people seem to want to pull me back in, with obligations and statements along the lines of: "you do not seem yourself" because apparently those around me know what my self is better than I do. I wonder if this is how many thinking types, especially intuitive thinking types, are pressured all the time?
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes!

This is why INTJs end up being very individualistic, as a rule.

Oh, and here's how I can tell that an "INTJ" is really an INFJ: they try to explain ME to MYSELF, as if they know more about me than I do. An INTJ would just tell me I'm an idiot and leave it at that.

However soon I will be back in the fluff. And I am scared that one day I may never come out of it again. It seems a cruel fate of mind to be trapped within the social obligations of the groups around you, knowing that the only truth in such a state is the one that they set for you.

Why do I feel inclined towards caring and niceities? Surely it would improve mine and others lives more if I could stop a moment and try to change the strings that pull at us? Or at the very least...point them out. Truely that would display more caring to those around me than blind pleasantries.

The "strings" as you put it are there or not there. They aren't amenable to change, but you can navigate them more readily if you're in a "feeling" mode.

The trick to dealing with it all is to be aware of the obligations, and simultaneously be aware that all such obligations are artificial. Think in terms of cause and effect, and then choose whether to honor any particular "obligation", being aware of the costs and consequences of complying or refusing.

The main thing I resent from that sort of Fe-obligation mentality is that it's kind of like "giving" me a car, and then telling me that I "owe" them $35,000 for the favor of the gift. That sort of thinking is so alien to me that it simply doesn't work on me. What usually happens, of course, is that I just get the Fe-ish "doorslam" because I either am unaware of such "obligations" or explicitly deny them. Interestingly, the "doorslam" suits most INTJs just fine. ;)
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
The main thing I resent from that sort of Fe-obligation mentality is that it's kind of like "giving" me a car, and then telling me that I "owe" them $35,000 for the favor of the gift. That sort of thinking is so alien to me that it simply doesn't work on me. What usually happens, of course, is that I just get the Fe-ish "doorslam" because I either am unaware of such "obligations" or explicitly deny them. Interestingly, the "doorslam" suits most INTJs just fine. ;)


Actually I dislike that as well. If it is a gift it was given willingly; an obligation to owe something back is just....sly.

It becomes even more sly when someone claims they dont want anything in return...but actually they do and they expect you to pick up on this hidden agenda.

The trick to dealing with it all is to be aware of the obligations, and simultaneously be aware that all such obligations are artificial. Think in terms of cause and effect, and then choose whether to honor any particular "obligation", being aware of the costs and consequences of complying or refusing.

I agree, this is basically what I invested a lot of my time in learning to do. A Fe-ism that does amuse me greatly is when someone asks if I "want to do something?" when they really mean they want me to do it, as in they are telling me to do it.

My reply is usually: "No thanks, I dont want to". Usually to an angry and indignant reaction. But...if they wanted me to do something why not just say: Do this!

I can still refuse of course, but at least now it is clear what the intention is.
 

airjaw

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
4
MBTI Type
INTP
Greatest feelers ever:
Jesus, Gandhi, Buddha..

Greatest thinkers ever:
Einstein, Socrates, Newton ..

There's no way Einstein could have been Jesus and no way Jesus could have been Einstein. Which one was more valuable? Neither. Both have had incalculable impact on the world.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,226
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Eventually it becomes second nature; the reactions and the impulses are so catered for by society and so well trained that they become an instinctive collection of automated responses. However therein lies the danger, for I am rewarded for adhereing to the code of ethics that Feeling, (especially extraverted feeling), subscribes to. And these rewards are rich in friends and group affirmation.

But because of these rewards I find myself even more blind. Stuck in a whirlwind of do's and dont's, pleases and thankyou's. Before I know it a cog has come loose in this automated machine and I finally see with clarity. Unfortunately this clarity is still somewhat marred by the presence of a negative emotion, but it is getting easier to train.

When I am out of this state however people seem to want to pull me back in, with obligations and statements along the lines of: "you do not seem yourself" because apparently those around me know what my self is better than I do. I wonder if this is how many thinking types, especially intuitive thinking types, are pressured all the time?

However soon I will be back in the fluff. And I am scared that one day I may never come out of it again. It seems a cruel fate of mind to be trapped within the social obligations of the groups around you, knowing that the only truth in such a state is the one that they set for you.

Why do I feel inclined towards caring and niceities? Surely it would improve mine and others lives more if I could stop a moment and try to change the strings that pull at us? Or at the very least...point them out. Truely that would display more caring to those around me than blind pleasantries.
I do recognize the highlighted, though I find it relatively easy to avoid getting pulled in, perhaps due to a combination of type and habit, which are certainly related. What you describe is one of my definitions of hell, to be honest, especially the idea of never being able to break free of it. What caused you to be able to step outside and "see with clarity", and what do you find is pulling you back? What would happen if you just said "no", if you told those people that what they were finally seeing was in fact part of the "real you"?
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Good questions.

What caused you to be able to step outside and "see with clarity", and what do you find is pulling you back?

Essentially what caused it was years of isolated thought and consideration, over time I was able to assemble ideas and observe both myself and others when I was outside of a social situation. It suddenly made me realise the automated responses I and others often gave in to. Like a scab that has been picked, once you have seen what is underneath it is hard to forget it and frankly I wouldn't want to as I see it as something of great importance.

What pulls me back is a sense that it is better to be in than out. That notion comes from experience, more than anything else, I spent most of my younger years excluded and when I finally found a group that accepted me I did enjoy the feeling of being included. This is more of an Fe issue because I AM an extraverted feeler though perhaps not dominant as perception seems to come first in my observations.

However a group is only fine if the members also understand their individual perks as well and so long as they do not just go along with each others opinions and ideas, because then you end up with a series of prejudices against certain members or people.


What would happen if you just said "no", if you told those people that what they were finally seeing was in fact part of the "real you"?

I have in fact done this before and it generates a surprising amount of anger and frustration.

I wonder if that anger comes from an expectation that you will do anything they ask as they are used to that being the case anyhow. For example if a Te user was critical often, (not because of cruelty but because of observations on how something could be more effective), then people would become used to the person being that way, they would not question it nor would they expect that individual to go along with their 'requests'.

However someone such as myself who doesn't mind helping out, as mentioned above, they are used to this now; they expect me to drop what i'm doing and come help them, however ive learnt not to have too much trouble saying no, despite the outrage this can cause.

In the conceptual sense, the pleases and thankyou's are perhaps more difficult to shake, because part of me understands their value and usefulness when it comes to interacting with others. There are many people who see such mannerisms as almost a literal existence and to deviate from them would be tantamount to a murder of politeness. I find that quite funny really.

But the only real way to stave this off is awareness. I have to almost be on guard constantly to maintain some autonomy from such obligations and trappings.

They aren't real in any sense of the word, but it is hard to tell an anxious Fe mind that. Deep down the concern with appearance and how people perceive me is an unfortunate byproduct that i'm trying hard to shake off.

There is good news however, as I do this more and more it seems easier to maintain and I am able to both respect a group when it has been examined and it's motives are something I do agree with and at the same time keep myself separate and individual, to an extent.

It does help that the hobby group I belong to is full of the same kind of misfits as myself and they welcome people without obligations to social norms or do's and don't's.

How long this will last i'm not sure as everything has it's sell-by-date, but for now it will do.

ps: I will also mention as a final note that it also helped talking to people who, now, I would say were thinking types, especially those with a bit of Fi. These people were able to observe things I had missed and they helped me to understand the fragile and superficial nature of these feeling pressures.

But I had to be mature enough to accept the advice in the first place, instead of just dismissing it off-hand. In a way that was the hardest goal of all. To respect and understand another's position, not out of feeling empathy, but out of a real consideration and analysis of what was actually said.
 

Derpravity

New member
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
111
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I consider the role of feeling to be the very basic assessment of "this is bad/unpleasant/unsatisfying" and "this is good/pleasant/satisfying". Emotions relate to those qualities in some way or another, and being aware of and understanding them is a necessary part of life, so being good at feeling has its benefits.

I don't think people could appreciate whatever it is they do or have or are if they didn't have some kind of emotional response. You couldn't get satisfaction or fulfillment out of knowledge acquisition or exploring relationships or anything that you live for if you didn't have the double-edged sword of knowing when you have something you want versus when you don't, which boils down to feeling good or bad.

That's how I see the necessity of feeling. I'll admit I have a hard time appreciating its use as a function or tool, and I have a hard time relating to people who are largely defined by their emotions; I just think feeling is a necessary side-effect of the process of navigating life. But being emotionally attuned the right way makes it easier to achieve one's goals, find and nurture the good feelings, and avoid getting emotionally debilitated.

I speculate that you could have an AI which appreciates as much information as humans do, without having so many emotional hangups as humans do, because a lot of strong emotions seem to come from the weaknesses of the way humans are wired. But I also think that if it were to have any sense of satisfaction, or any will to achieve goals at a level we'd call "conscious", it would have its own corresponding negative feelings, and therefore some form of hangups of its own; and then its "feeling" function, the awareness of these emotions and its ability to deal with them, would be useful to it, too.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,226
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
What pulls me back is a sense that it is better to be in than out. That notion comes from experience, more than anything else, I spent most of my younger years excluded and when I finally found a group that accepted me I did enjoy the feeling of being included. This is more of an Fe issue because I AM an extraverted feeler though perhaps not dominant as perception seems to come first in my observations.
Do you find being "in" is preferable as an absolute, or only when what you are "in" is a worthwhile group? In other words, do you find yourself belonging to groups just for the sake of belonging, because not being in any group is too uncomfortable? I suppose lack of this driver has been a big factor in my resisting these demands. I enjoy belonging, too, but what I learned in my younger years was that being on my own was infinitely preferable to belonging to the "wrong" group, "wrong" being one where I felt I had to pretend to be something other than myself to fit in. Groups where I really do fit in have been very hard to come by, but I really value them once found.

But the only real way to stave this off is awareness. I have to almost be on guard constantly to maintain some autonomy from such obligations and trappings.

They aren't real in any sense of the word, but it is hard to tell an anxious Fe mind that. Deep down the concern with appearance and how people perceive me is an unfortunate byproduct that i'm trying hard to shake off.
I focus on what I really mean in any given situation, and then try to convey it without giving too much offense. For example, if I really can't help out, I might suggest some alternate solutions or sources of help to the other person, or at least provide a reasonable explanation of why I can't.

I wish more people would take the time to analyze this kind of behavior, as you have. It's not so much that one way of responding or another is good or bad; just that an unconsidered response, poorly understood, is likely not to be good.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Do you find being "in" is preferable as an absolute, or only when what you are "in" is a worthwhile group? In other words, do you find yourself belonging to groups just for the sake of belonging, because not being in any group is too uncomfortable? I suppose lack of this driver has been a big factor in my resisting these demands. I enjoy belonging, too, but what I learned in my younger years was that being on my own was infinitely preferable to belonging to the "wrong" group, "wrong" being one where I felt I had to pretend to be something other than myself to fit in. Groups where I really do fit in have been very hard to come by, but I really value them once found.

To be honest it has always been the case where I did desire to fit in, a need I only realised I had once I had passed my teenage years. However even then I wished to resist those who, as you said yourself, were of a group I did not find affinity with. It was difficult, but even when I appeared to be going along with an objectionable group, I was all the time examining my position to it's values and where I stood.

On one occasion a group a 'friend' of mine introduced me to, appeared on the surface to be quite welcoming, but over time turned out be much more sinister and the moment they offered me, (or rather tried to bully me), some drugs, or violence, I refused completely. I knew where I stood and I wasn't going to back down even if intimidated, because in the end to go along with it would have been the easy way, but the easy soon turns into the hard way further down the line and you end up reaping no rewards and instead you are paying every day.

In fact I often resisted the peer pressures and insistent notions of others even to my detriment in a group, which is why I spent a lot of time without any friends of a close nature. Or friends at all for that matter.

I have to agree with the conclusion that being on my own was indeed infinitely preferable to being in a group I did not agree with. I'm glad I did as well, because for all the stress that I felt in those years and some of the more sensory experiences I missed out on, it was worth it just for the way it helped shape my own individual views and opinions on the world around me.

I focus on what I really mean in any given situation, and then try to convey it without giving too much offense. For example, if I really can't help out, I might suggest some alternate solutions or sources of help to the other person, or at least provide a reasonable explanation of why I can't.

That's a good approach and one I do consider sometimes, but anxieties can blindside me at times.

I wish more people would take the time to analyze this kind of behavior, as you have. It's not so much that one way of responding or another is good or bad; just that an unconsidered response, poorly understood, is likely not to be good.

This, definitely this, I agree completely. In fact it has been my view for a while that no matter what might be influencing me in the heat of a moment, I should always try to step back a bit and consider.

I also wondered about a way of communicating this to others in a helpful manner without sounding self-righteous or preachy, after all I would say people have to understand it themselves and perceive it. You can tell them of it but you can't make them understand.

An analogy ive used before is that it is like explaining the concept of the sea being wet, without knowing what wet means.

Truthfully ive made my peace somewhat with feeling now, because ive understood it's place in the human makeup. I'm still wary though of the trappings ive spoken of.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,226
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Truthfully ive made my peace somewhat with feeling now, because ive understood it's place in the human makeup. I'm still wary though of the trappings ive spoken of.
It sounds like you have developed a very constructive approach to feeling, and to have balanced the sometimes competing values of maintaining your individuality and personal integrity, and relating witningroups. Those of us who more systematically dismiss group belonging and interaction probably never gain as sound a perspective.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
It sounds like you have developed a very constructive approach to feeling, and to have balanced the sometimes competing values of maintaining your individuality and personal integrity, and relating witningroups. Those of us who more systematically dismiss group belonging and interaction probably never gain as sound a perspective.

Thanks, although I will say it is easier to maintain a sense of wisdom when i'm typing alone with no one around. In truth I can still be quite mercurial with my moods and emotions.

But that is the most important step; to be able to understand my learned reflexes and emotion-influenced reactions and guard against them somewhat.
 
Top