• 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.

[MBTI General] NF Feeling different than SF Feeling

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
No, no... you see, sensors ARE supposed to BE the mob. We intuitive types are the victims of the mob. ;)

That's the way the picture has been painted.

I disagree utterly with your assessment.

Well, I noticed that when I would talk to people on here about sensing, the traits you see described on typical MBTI websites somehow got twisted into negative forms, and a bunch of emotional baggage (mostly from INPs who believe their parents were SJs) got added into the mix.

Most of the "stuff" posted on this site is a factor of maturity level, and has little to do with type.

So please refrain from lumping all of us INP's into your agenda.

So essentially, we're stuck with a flawed picture painted in a way that favors Intuitives, because that's what ended up being the most comforting and useful for the majority of the systems users. Sometimes truth has nothing to do with what people see, or even what they need to see.

You're making broad, over-arching generalizations here. Most NF's, once they type accurately, realize they're not ALONE. Do you grasp that? MBTI, in my opinion, has nothing to do with appealing to a mass market of NF's (or NT's) for that matter. How do you see the "picture painted" in favor of intuitives? Read the descriptions again and you'll realize very quickly that there's much to recommend against intuitives.

Okay, I don't think MBTI works as well as people think it does. I think it's meant to be a self-development tool only, and doesn't work well when applied to other people, or otherwise used in an objective way. It especially shouldn't be used to describe groups, because it's not designed for that at all. It doesn't hold up to that kind of pressure.

Of course MBTI is not meant to "cookie-cutter define" each person in the world! Anyone who sees it as such is abusing the intention of the entire system of categorization. MBTI is broad brush-strokes, not fine detailing. But is does have application to help people at least appreciate that we are all unique and all the same in some ways. It can help to foster appreciation and understanding in many different settings. You're missing the whole point if you think that MBTI cannot describe groups of preferences, that it can't "hold up to that kind of pressure". That's EXACTLY what it does do.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I disagree utterly with your assessment.

You have that right.

Most of the "stuff" posted on this site is a factor of maturity level, and has little to do with type.

So please refrain from lumping all of us INP's into your agenda.

That's not what I meant. I said mostly, because the majority of people on the site (and who use MBTI) are INPs. Not because INPs are more biased in this direction than other types. :doh:
You're making broad, over-arching generalizations here. Most NF's, once they type accurately, realize they're not ALONE. Do you grasp that? MBTI, in my opinion, has nothing to do with appealing to a mass market of NF's (or NT's) for that matter. How do you see the "picture painted" in favor of intuitives? Read the descriptions again and you'll realize very quickly that there's much to recommend against intuitives.

I'm not talking about the descriptions, I'm talking about the way the descriptions are often construed by most people who use MBTI, and how these extrapolations are spread through the community.


Of course MBTI is not meant to "cookie-cutter define" each person in the world! Anyone who sees it as such is abusing the intention of the entire system of categorization. MBTI is broad brush-strokes, not fine detailing.

But is does have application to help people at least appreciate that we are all unique and all the same in some ways. It can help to foster appreciation and understanding in many different settings.

I agree with you here. :yes:
You're missing the whole point if you think that MBTI cannot describe groups of preferences, that it can't "hold up to that kind of pressure". That's EXACTLY what it does do.

It is used that way, but not wisely. People can make it hold up to that kind of pressure, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

I'm sorry I said anything, I wish I had kept my mouth shut. This is why I never tell people what I really think. It's not worth it. :doh:
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
I don't really find ISFP to be judgemental.

One of the two ESFP that I know well is pretty stiffly judgemental of other people and pretty libertine with herself, but she's got some kind of personality disorder going on or something.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I don't really find ISFP to be judgemental.

One of the two ESFP that I know well is pretty stiffly judgemental of other people and pretty libertine with herself, but she's got some kind of personality disorder going on or something.

I would agree with that. That's always been where it broke down for me.

I knew a really interesting ISFP once, and they weren't judgmental at all. Pretended to be an xNTJ so people wouldn't underestimate their intelligence, and was really good at it. Never told anyone except the people they knew really well.

In fact, I was kind of worried about them because they were too accepting of a lot of people I wouldn't have trusted. It always got them into really bad spots, or around people who made them feel bad about themselves. I think I'm far more judgmental than the typical SFP, but I think that might be a good thing.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I think explaining a little of ESFJ vs. ENFJ is a good way to conceptualize it.

ESFJ is very aware of the immediate and personal needs of his own family unit, which is most important. SF is good at providing material comforts.

ENFJ directs this feeling toward this broad, idealistic altruism. ENFJs are often involved with volunteer work or other actively positive ways of contributing to the greater good. NFs seem to believe in Karma or similar concepts pretty frequently; they're not as attentive to things like body language and the practical needs of others, because their scope is broader.

NFs are more likely to consider themselves part of important moral causes...I think I've mentioned this before, but I like it, so: There's a scene in The Brothers Karamazov where Aloyosha (INFP) breaks down and cries because his depraved, sensualist ESTP father spits on a cross.

The SF response would be immediate disgust; that's cruel and disrespectful--and that makes people feel bad.

The NF response sees all the implications of the true depth of hatred this represents in his father, and Aloyosha breaks down and cries.


Another example: an INFP friend's brother was arrested for selling pot; she said she wished she could do something to change marijuana laws so this wouldn't happen to anyone. A more likely SF response would be to bring him some food or blankets (not to mention simple companionship, which the NF is more likely to neglect) or other practical need while he's in jail.

NF is broader in scope and can theoretically accomplish more, but is comparatively negligent. SF's comparative strength is in instinctual response to the body language, visual/physical appearance and needs of individuals in the immediate environment.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
That's not what I meant. I said mostly, because the majority of people on the site (and who use MBTI) are INPs.

How do you know the majority of people who use MBTI are INP's? Perhaps they are prevalent on this site, but IRL, please point to evidence to corroborate this claim.

And btw, head smacks are unnecessary, k? :newwink:

If you feel that you experience "post backlash" from time to time, permit me an observation: you are sometimes full of the stereotyping that you admonish with one keystroke but perpetuate with the next.

I'm sorry I said anything, I wish I had kept my mouth shut. This is why I never tell people what I really think. It's not worth it. :doh:

It's important to say what you think, you just need to bear in mind the weight of your words. And that sentence smacks of self-pity, so cheer up because we all still send you these ... :hug:
 

maliafee

Active member
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
1,127
SF feeling is not necessarily more judgmental. We just have a clearer lens with which to see/feel the physical world. NF's may be more judgmental in your N ways, but you're very nonjudgmental about S things. That's because you're not an S and don't feel comfortable judging S things?
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
I knew a really interesting ISFP once, and they weren't judgmental at all. Pretended to be an xNTJ so people wouldn't underestimate their intelligence...

Here's a good example: this could be misinterpreted to mean you knew one interesting ISFP out of ALL the ones you have ever met.

You also potentially insult other ISFP's in the next sentence by saying in order to be accepted as intelligent, they would have to pretend to be xNTJ. (As though everyone thinks an ISFP is a simpleton? NOT!) I have friends who I would guess as ISFP and they need pretend to be nothing but themselves in order for me to admire their intelligence and wisdom.

Just my thoughts; I don't want to seem like I am being hard on you but I think you are unaware of how your words frequently communicate double meanings, secondary conclusions and sweeping generalizations. :)
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Another example: an INFP friend's brother was arrested for selling pot; she said she wished she could do something to change marijuana laws so this wouldn't happen to anyone. A more likely SF response would be to bring him some food or blankets (not to mention simple companionship, which the NF is more likely to neglect) or other practical need while he's in jail.

.

This is a great example except for the part about not providing simple companionship? :shock:Eh...what? That seems like an awfully specific thing to say about all NFs. I don't think that's true.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
How do you know the majority of people who use MBTI are INP's? Perhaps they are prevalent on this site, but IRL, please point to evidence to corroborate this claim.

And btw, head smacks are unnecessary, k? :newwink:

Evidence? I have no evidence. Only theories. If you expect hard evidence, you're taking me far too seriously.

If you feel that you experience "post backlash" from time to time, permit me an observation: you are sometimes full of the stereotyping that you admonish with one keystroke but perpetuate with the next.

Okay... sorry. I don't know what to say or do about that. It could be true. I'm so confused that I don't feel comfortable talking about this anymore.
It's important to say what you think, you just need to bear in mind the weight of your words. And that sentence smacks of self-pity, so cheer up because we all still send you these ... :hug:

If my words have this much weight, I'm never going to open my mouth again. I don't want that kind of responsibility.
Here's a good example: this could be misinterpreted to mean you knew one interesting ISFP out of ALL the ones you have ever met.

It could also mean that I've only met one that I know of. In this case it did. Why assume the worst?
You also potentially insult other ISFP's in the next sentence by saying in order to be accepted as intelligent, they would have to pretend to be xNTJ. (As though everyone thinks an ISFP is a simpleton? NOT!) I have friends who I would guess as ISFP and they need pretend to be nothing but themselves in order for me to admire their intelligence and wisdom.

No, no, no... that's not it. I meant only that THEY thought they had to pretend to be an xNTJ to be perceived as intelligent, and did so effectively. I didn't meant to imply that I believed that ISFPs were stupid or had to pretend. If anything, the fact that they could successfully pretend would imply that they were very intelligent. Goodness, why are people so desperate to find the worst possible interpretation of everything I say?

Just my thoughts; I don't want to seem like I am being hard on you but I think you are unaware of how your words frequently communicate double meanings, secondary conclusions and sweeping generalizations.

Then I'll shut up. I can't monitor my expressions to the degree I would need to in order to satisfy you. I give up. You win. I'm sorry I was ever born, okay?!
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
This is a great example except for the part about not providing simple companionship? :shock:Eh...what? That seems like an awfully specific thing to say about all NFs. I don't think that's true.

I know, I don't agree with it either. Maybe the SF would bake cookies to take and the NF would stop by the bakery store on the way back from campagining at city hall against the unfair laws (or just spend the day thinking about it)? But I don't think NF would necessarily overlook visiting someone or brining them things to make their stay more easy.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I know, I don't agree with it either. Maybe the SF would bake cookies to take and the NF would stop by the bakery store on the way back from campagining at city hall against the unfair laws (or just spend the day thinking about it)? But I don't think NF would necessarily overlook visiting someone or brining them things to make their stay more easy.

I said "more likely to neglect" in comparison to the SF. That doesn't mean most NFs are emotionally negligent, just that they're more likely than an SF (all other things equal) to neglect real-world responsibilities of any kind because they tend to aim for broader scope moral causes.
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
True. Being present in this world costs me a lot of effort and drains me, and S's seem to have no prob whatsoever with this. Totally envy them for that...
 

Snow Turtle

New member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,335
.....

*Reminds himself that theoretical MBTI is being used which may have little correlation or bearing to real life*

Last thoughts on the subject:

Is there much use for model that promotes false understanding of humans?
Are people just extrapolating based on generalisations?
Are we attempting to capture reality and explaining it via the model?

There's all this theory for what people do, yet there's little explanation why. Example:
"Sensors love facts more than theory" - Oh, why is that? Is that definitely true? How many people resonate with this statement?
Fair enough if this thread wasn't to question the foundations of MBTI but still.

Another thing to take into consideration: Why does there exist a N bias in MBTI testing to the extent that people mistype themselves? You could claim that MBTI is only a matter of preference and that their interest in theories is because they are well developed intuitively, or it could be that the model is not that great at reflecting reality.

PS. If it's not clear what I'm writing. I'm not talking about specific exceptions to the model, but that the generalisations redefining to fit the majority of people. Functions can manifests itself in many various ways.
 

Litvyak

No Cigar
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
1,822
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
.There's all this theory for what people do, yet there's little explanation why. Example:
"Sensors love facts more than theory" - Oh, why is that? Is that definitely true? How many people resonate with this statement?
Fair enough if this thread wasn't to question the foundations of MBTI but still.

S-type people mostly gain information through their senses, right? It seems logical that recalling past experiences and processing information through senses are more useful in dealing with facts than abstract theoretical ideas, that's why most Sensors prefer facts over theory.

Why does there exist a N bias in MBTI testing to the extent that people mistype themselves?

I'm still inexperienced in MBTI, and I've never heard of this stuff before o_O
What is this 'N bias', care to explain?
 

Snow Turtle

New member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,335
S-type people mostly gain information through their senses, right? It seems logical that recalling past experiences and processing information through senses are more useful in dealing with facts than abstract theoretical ideas, that's why most Sensors prefer facts over theory.
Where would Ne or Ni be without sensory input?
Data by themselves serve no purpose, it requires a theory to serve a purpose. For example: Most people see gravity as a fact, but it's technically a theory. Facts derived from senses aren't exactly infalliable considering perception (5 senses) itself is falliable. Having said that I do collect alot of information from my senses, and I also extrapolate data to create hypothetical guidelines and rules. Are we claiming that intuitives don't do this? That their created data is based more on limited data?

I'm still inexperienced in MBTI, and I've never heard of this stuff before o_O
What is this 'N bias', care to explain?

Read the descriptions of sensors and make a comparison.
MBTI was created by intuitives, there will always be a slight bias towards intuition. This is also reflected by the fact that people here, INTPcentral and INFPgc believe that there are sensors that have mistyped themselves as intuitives. Why would they do that though? Because the descriptions of intuition is much more nicer. Here's an example of what I mean ->
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...infj-am-i-something-completely-different.html

I had the same reaction at the beginning but I was always certain that I'm an sensor. If you look over threads from the past, you'll quickly notice that there are constantly threads bashing sensors.http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...4-how-distinguish-isfj-infj-8.html#post528354
This isn't practiced by all intuitives however.

Another personal antedote:
I'm often labelled as clumsy or silly. I put my boots on backwards (They were pretty comfy), I'm constantly losing stuff and I'm often unaware of changes (It took me a week to realise that my INFP friend had changed her hair colour)

It doesn't fit the whole sensors being aware of their environment description very well does it? Perhaps I'm a broken ISFJ but the fact that this exists within my reality shows me that these generalisations aren't true, but are based on observations of what S do and then taken as truth. Hmm Oh dear...
I chalk down my obliviousness to introversion and focus. It's true that even though I don't notice much about appearance etc, I'm aware of the 'vibe' that's going around in my environment because that's what I'm interested in. I'm constantly in my head, however the major difference is that I'm not engaging in Ne or neccessarily Ne, but thinking about the past and dealing with problems (Which granted are grounded in the present but they needn't be. For example: Entertaining ethical questions is one of my favourite hobbies.)

Now I know that this might just end up being a...
"Oh but MBTI doesn't try to explain individuals, it's only a skeleton"
But that's what I'm going against exactly. The skeleton descriptions aren't accurate. There are some parts which are and those are usually the cognitive functions themselves, I can see in other sensors the usage of Se or Si. But those traits can manifest themselves in such a huge variety of way that attempting to chalk down activities to sensors seems to be soo off-base that it's completely useless and more importantly seemingly inaccurate. Like I said earlier: Is there much point encouraging a model that promotes false understanding of generalised human behaviour?

Things like "SF" are more likely to bake cookies or cater immediate emotional need like comfort etc. :steam: The hidden message behind this is that SFs aren't dealing with the more deeper emotions when helping another individual. It also unconsciously perpetuates the idea that somehow SFs are more inept at experiencing deeper emotional feelings because they don't help others (Yes these are some of the things posted in the past, it's almost akin to the idea that Ts are robots and don't experience emotions). I completely object at the idea that I don't understand my feelings deeply or that I have a limited understanding of other peoples emotions. You see problems?

Ah dammit. Got tricked into another forum debate >_>
It's no wonder I'm failing my exams.

duty_calls.png
 

Litvyak

No Cigar
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
1,822
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Where would Ne or Ni be without sensory input?

Why do you even ask? Nobody told you that intuitives don't use their senses or that sensors don't "create hypothetical guidelines and rules". Though I certainly lack experience in this field, I think it can be said that if it's easier for me to collect data - because of my sophisticated senses or whatever - than abstract reasoning, and I rely more on the former than on the latter, gathering facts will be more enjoyable than creating systems, which doesn't mean I don't practice them both in everyday life.

Are we claiming that intuitives don't do this?

Are you claiming anything I said before truly implies your assumption?
I don't think your statements contradict mine.
 

Snow Turtle

New member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,335
Why do you even ask? Nobody told you that intuitives don't use their senses or that sensors don't "create hypothetical guidelines and rules". Though I certainly lack experience in this field, I think it can be said that if it's easier for me to collect data - because of my sophisticated senses or whatever - than abstract reasoning, and I rely more on the former than on the latter, gathering facts will be more enjoyable than creating systems, which doesn't mean I don't practice them both in everyday life.

Are you claiming anything I said before truly implies your assumption?
I don't think your statements contradict mine.

It doesn't. That was a rhetorical question where I knew the answer was most likely to be no. In the same manner that I know that intuitives will also engage in sensory perception. I'm not sure how much I agree with this idea that sensors somehow have better sensory abilities. It's one of those things I feel fall more into the realm of interest which is not determined by MBTI.

I've noted the only difference between myself and other NJs is that I'm more interested in the theory that captures reality accurately where N types are more willing to entertain that theory and other theories that don't neccessarily capture reality so well. Si seeks the truth, Ni and Ne seem more to entertain other possabilities purely for their own sake. This is the only reason I don't really disagree with the concept that sensors are more 'pragmatical' as they are more focused on practical application and thus the best solution. But one first has to define what 'application' means.

I'm willing to listen to others experience, if we clash there will be problems. Either my assessment of reality is wrong, yours, both, we're missing extra data or there is a misunderstanding of some sort.
 

Litvyak

No Cigar
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
1,822
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
MBTI was created by intuitives, there will always be a slight bias towards intuition.

Not necessarily, that alone is far from convincing.

If you look over threads from the past, you'll quickly notice that there are constantly threads bashing sensors.

Perhaps because some intuitives feel frustrated by the fact that they are percieved as odd lunatics by sensors IRL (the majority of society)? Observing online communities only may lead to false conclusions.

It doesn't fit the whole sensors being aware of their environment description very well does it? Perhaps I'm a broken ISFJ but the fact that this exists within my reality shows me that these generalisations aren't true

*shrug* Perhaps you really aren't an ISFJ, or an ISFJ with weak sensing preference and a helluva lot of personal problems. Plus, I think you may be overestimating the importance of functions.

Be prepared that no description will cover your personality perfectly, that would require 7 billion personality types - which doesn't mean that the whole system is wrong. It only "promotes false understanding of generalised human behaviour" if you take everything word for word, which isn't exactly the wisest behavior in case of such an ambiguous field as psychology.

Si seeks the truth, Ni and Ne seem more to entertain other possabilities purely for their own sake.

That's almost as disturbing as if I'd say "SF are more likely to bake cookies" :)
 

Lauren Ashley

Revelation
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,067
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I've noted the only difference between myself and other NJs is that I'm more interested in the theory that captures reality accurately where N types are more willing to entertain that theory and other theories that don't neccessarily capture reality so well. Si seeks the truth, Ni and Ne seem more to entertain other possabilities purely for their own sake.
I've always considered myself a truth-seeker. I think one way I use Ni is in finding hidden meanings in order to arrive at the truth.

Though I agree with the point you (or was it someone else?) made earlier about differentiating Si and Se, and Ni and Ne.
 
Top