[MBTI General] NF Feeling different than SF Feeling

[Snow Turtle]

Not necessarily, that alone is far from convincing.

Alright well I don't really have anything to backup that statement so I'll just leave it.

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.

I've mentioned this before on the other thread. I personally don't believe frustrations excuse blatant stereotyping and demonising of sensors. However there were others that disagreed mentioning how MBTI should be a comfort zone where intuitives are allowed to rant considering their experience with sensors in real life. False conclusions about what exactly though? I stated that I don't believe all intuitives engage in this particular act. It's not exactly false that there are some individuals that do engage in MBTI superiority.

*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.

Functions are what sort of what create the whole MBTI system... Personally I think the reverse is more likely to be true. People are more likely to place too much importance on the four dichotomies.

Again I already mentioned that I don't believe that MBTI will explain my personality perfectly. I was never arguing that point. I was arguing that the some of skeleton ideas that attempt to map the basic generalised behaviours might not be accurate. It's the reason you get threads like "NTs are robots/don't feel emotions much etc"

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

Are you just picking up on the fact that I didn't say that Ni or Ne seeks truth as well? My bad for miscommunicating that if so, what I meant was that it seeks truth and entertains extra possabilities. Si seems more content with what's practical in that regard, once it has the truth it sort of stops.

Tell me what's wrong with it then?

 

[Snow Turtle]

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.

Sorry I clarified my post. Bah~
I actually used you as an example of my point from a thread a long time ago marking the difference between Ni and Si.

When I look towards the future, when I'm attempting to predict an outcome. I'm only interested in what is the most likely outcome.

I remember another INFJ talking about how they would also entertain alternative outcomes.

That for me was a major difference. However I can only say it's true for myself, I don't know whether it's the same for other ISFJs. It's the reason I say that sensors are more practical because they are interested in what's the most likely outcome only.

 

[Costrin]

Costrin supports what Kai is saying and stuff.

 

[Litvyak]

I personally don't believe frustrations excuse blatant stereotyping and demonising of sensors.

No, they don't. But they provide a possible explanation for the abovementioned phenomenon.

False conclusions about what exactly though? I stated that I don't believe all intuitives engage in this particular act. It's not exactly false that there are some individuals that do engage in MBTI superiority.

I was simply pointing out that the fact that you've seen a couple of threads about intuitives bashing sensors doesn't mean this is a common symptom IRL; by thinking that, you ignore the problematic nature of the sample (size, access to the Internet etc.)

Functions are what sort of what create the whole MBTI system... Personally I think the reverse is more likely to be true. People are more likely to place too much importance on the four dichotomies.

IIRC there is no 100% correlation between types (the dichotomies, the foundation of MBTI) and the functions often associated with them. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong

Are you just picking up on the fact that I didn't say that Ni or Ne seeks truth as well?

I thought you said "Si seeks turth, Ni and Ne don't", which I found a little funny after your complaint of inaccuracy. Now I understand what you're talking about.

 

[Costrin]

IIRC there is no 100% correlation between types (the dichotomies, the foundation of MBTI) and the functions often associated with them. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong

Wrong. An ISFJ will always be SiFeTiNe, INTJ NiTeFiSe, ENFP NeFiTeSi, etc. The functions describe your "mental set of tools" basically. The dichotomies explain behaviours, ie, how you use your set of tools. So an INFJ who uses his Ti more than Fe will appear INTJ (and there's quite a few examples of that on this board), but actually isn't because he's still NiFeTiSe. There's a difference between NiTi INFJ and NiTe INTJ, even if they both fall under iNtuitive and Thinking end of the spectrum with regards to the four dichotomies.

 

[Litvyak]

Ah, I see. Sorry for that, I... err, officially revoke my BS about functions. Kind of.

 

[Snow Turtle]

No, they don't. But they provide a possible explanation for the abovementioned phenomenon.

No disagreement there.

I was simply pointing out that the fact that you've seen a couple of threads about intuitives bashing sensors doesn't mean this is a common symptom IRL; by thinking that, you ignore the problematic nature of the sample (size, access to the Internet etc.)

I certainly know that my intuitive friends don't engage in this behaviour but I'm only focusing on the stereotypes being promoted on this forum. Intuitives in real life aren't exposed to MBTI and thus are unlikely to engage in this whole sensor bashing. HOWEVER to be fair I see this problem manifesting itself outside in real life, regardless of MBTI.

It's not exactly new.
People who consider other people to be shallow.
People who consider other people to be illogical.

I doubt most intuitives will identify themselves with shallowness, yet even without MBTI. There are many situations where the majority are accused of being short sighted etc.

IIRC there is no 100% correlation between types (the dichotomies, the foundation of MBTI) and the functions often associated with them. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong

The top two functions (Perceiving and Judgement) seem to be consistant within most type.
FJs - Fe
TP - Ti
TJ - Te
SJ - Si
NJ - Ni and so fourth.

I personally don't believe in strict function ordering, and am a little sketchy on function specific usage i.e. Fi as shadow functions etc or 'witch' but granted there might be something behind Lenore Thompsons ideas of functions used in specific orders etc. Ti used by a dominant user as opposed to secondary/teritary.

It's the reason that people often argue that an INFP is extremely different from an INFJ. The J/P switch changes things completely, although there exists people that are somewhat blurred within the system which is to be expected.

I thought you said "Si seeks turth, Ni and Ne don't", which I found a little funny after your complaint of inaccuracy. Now I understand what you're talking about.

My bad. Yeah.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

Sorry I clarified my post. Bah~
I actually used you as an example of my point from a thread a long time ago marking the difference between Ni and Si.

Fun. I like being the INFJ prototype without knowing I'm the INFJ prototype. But which thread? I just jumped in the middle of this discussion.

When I look towards the future, when I'm attempting to predict an outcome. I'm only interested in what is the most likely outcome.

As am I. There is a single-minded focus on that one outcome, although I'm aware of alternatives. I think the difference is in how we predict outcomes/meaning and what is focused on in coming to that conclusion. And (edit) these predicted outcomes may be likely different.

 

[Litvyak]

Intuitives in real life aren't exposed to MBTI and thus are unlikely to engage in this whole sensor bashing.

As far as I know, MBTI is being discussed and used outside forums and online communities, and many open-eyed sensors and intuitives are "exposed" to it without clashing.

It's not exactly new.
People who consider other people to be shallow.
People who consider other people to be illogical.

Yeah, well... I can't really say anything about this. It has always been like this, rightly or wrongly. It's clearly a mistake to think that 'sensor' = 'shallow and illogical' for example, and it's also a mistake to decline the system because of some misguided idiots suffering from narcistic personality disorder.

I still don't think these misconceptions prove the 'failure' of the MBTI, but I don't have anything more to add to the subject.

 

[Athenian200]

Kai:

I don't want to go back now and quote all of your posts, but...

You seem to be understanding a lot of the limitations I see in MBTI, and the way I presented a few of them better than a lot of people have so far. I'm glad you understood where I was going with my post, it seems like no one else got it and totally grilled me. It's beginning to seem ISFJs (or at least you) understand how I think better than a lot of others do.

Although, in response to that thing about Si seeking truth... I don't think any perceiving function seeks truth. Perceiving functions just find input that might or might not be truth. If there's a truth-seeking function, it would be Ti. Be very careful of falling into the belief that your dominant function is truth-seeking, that's a very dangerous kind of arrogance.

You seem to have a bit of confusion between Ni and Ne, though. Ni doesn't entertain random possibilities, it tends to focus on the most likely one. The difference is that Ni makes leaps or skips steps, doesn't always stick to the map made earlier, etc.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Fun. I like being the INFJ prototype without knowing I'm the INFJ prototype. But which thread? I just jumped in the middle of this discussion.

Sorry I'll look it up a little later and find it for you.

As am I. There is a single-minded focus on that one outcome, although I'm aware of alternatives. I think the difference is in how we predict outcomes/meaning and what is focused on in coming to that conclusion. And (edit) these predicted outcomes may be likely different.

You seem to have a bit of confusion between Ni and Ne, though. Ni doesn't entertain random possibilities, it tends to focus on the most likely one. The difference is that Ni makes leaps or skips steps, doesn't always stick to the map made earlier, etc.

My bad. You're right.

Although, in response to that thing about Si seeking truth... I don't think any perceiving function seeks truth. Perceiving functions just find input that might or might not be truth. If there's a truth-seeking function, it would be Ti. Be very careful of falling into the belief that your dominant function is truth-seeking, that's a very dangerous kind of arrogance.

Hmm. I like to think of Si as a camera, it attempts to capture reality in it's natural form. Unfortunately all the other functions start colouring in stuff by adding extra functions like lighting and all that. I suppose I use Ti to try and remove all the extra things to see the original thing.

Regarding Ni... It's such a difficult function to pin down, and it doesn't help when people go on about how it's a difficult function to pin down. x__x
I've always associated Ni with imagination or perhaps unconscious extrapolation, but perhaps it might not be.

I like to think of awareness of usage like this.
Conscious processing
Se
Si/Ne
Ni
Unconscious processing - Giving it that whole illusive and hidden feel.

Why do I use this whole idea of unconsciousness/conscious processing? That's my basic understanding of S/N.
I believe that intuitives are more focused on the process because they come to the conclusions/outline first. Where as for sensors it's more of a conscious building block, therefore they are more interested in getting to the answer. But this could all be just rubbish. I can't exactly test it.

On a completely unrelated note:
I've always wondered where my extrapolation came from and whether it was a combination of Si+Ti that was doing so. *Shrugs*
This was brought up in a previous thread when some person was attempting to explain the difference between Ni and Si, and that Ni deals with theories to predict. It was a confusing thread because I couldn't see the difference...

I still don't think these misconceptions prove the 'failure' of the MBTI, but I don't have anything more to add to the subject.

I'm not against MBTI. Otherwise I would have dropped it a long time ago, I just think it needs refining. It's not exactly a finished product and I doubt it ever will be.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I'm glad you understood where I was going with my post, it seems like no one else got it and totally grilled me.

Engaging you in debate or challenging your generalizations does not mean no one understands where you are coming from.

 

[simulatedworld]

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.

Sensors don't have better sensory abilities than iNtuitives by definition; they simply prefer to gather data through concrete sensory input more often than by connecting abstract ideas. Everyone does both; this is a question of which you prefer most often on average.

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.

It's true that N types are often more willing to entertain unrealistic possibilities. They tend to be comparatively more whimsical.

As for Si seeks truth, well...kind of. Si anchors one in the safety and comfort of what is known and understood directly through past sensory experience. Ni might argue, what exactly is truth and how do we know it?

The thing about SFs baking cookies or whatever...it doesn't mean SFs aren't emotionally supportive or incapable of depth of emotion. In fact, if you reread my posts on that, SFs are arguably better at providing depth of emotional support because they can connect more directly with others. I would be a mess without my ESFJ mom, and she's one of the most loving and caring people I've ever met, and she really makes an effort to understand our differences, as much as she can.

There's no need to read things like "SFs are incapable of emotional depth" into MBTI; nobody who takes it seriously thinks anything like that. Just remember that S has an advantage in superior attention to detail and all the realities of the present moment, and N is comparatively strong in considering abstract connections between things, but loses perceptive ability in exchange. NFs are actually, on average, less skilled at meeting the needs of others because they're often too busy running around saving the world. The SF's comparative advantage is in superior awareness of what is immediately tangible, and that has a lot of implications in terms of real skills.

S sees and describes every detail of a particular tree; N can't do that as well but understands the relationships between different trees and sees more readily the way they form a larger whole called a forest. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

Note, also, that being an N doesn't mean you automatically have better iNtuition than a Sensor; it simply means that your iNtuition is preferred to (and by extension generally stronger than) your Sensing. Someone else could easily be better at both, regardless of MBTI type.

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.

I would argue that right now you're missing data because you're pretty new to MBTI. Don't worry; there's a lot of nonsense and misinformation out there, but there is a practically useful way to interpret it, with practice.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Sensors don't have better sensory abilities than iNtuitives by definition; they simply prefer to gather data through concrete sensory input more often than by connecting abstract ideas. Everyone does both; this is a question of which you prefer most often on average.

Note, also, that being an N doesn't mean you automatically have better iNtuition than a Sensor; it simply means that your iNtuition is preferred to (and by extension generally stronger than) your Sensing. Someone else could easily be better at both, regardless of MBTI type.

No disagreement here.

There's no need to read things like "SFs are incapable of emotional depth" into MBTI; nobody who takes it seriously thinks anything like that. Just remember that S has an advantage in superior attention to detail and all the realities of the present moment, and N is comparatively strong in considering abstract connections between things, but loses perceptive ability in exchange. NFs are actually, on average, less skilled at meeting the needs of others because they're often too busy running around saving the world. The SF's comparative advantage is in superior awareness of what is immediately tangible, and that has a lot of implications in terms of real skills.

There are people who take those generalisations seriously and that's the reason I argue on these boards, to stop misunderstanding or false generalisations from spreading. I don't know whether the statements you mention hold true for NFs either, but I'm not a NF so I won't comment on that.

S sees and describes every detail of a particular tree; N can't do that as well but understands the relationships between different trees and sees more readily the way they form a larger whole called a forest. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

For me I believe it all converges towards one point - the full picture.

I would argue that right now you're missing data because you're pretty new to MBTI. Don't worry; there's a lot of nonsense and misinformation out there, but there is a practically useful way to interpret it, with practice.

Dude. I've been on INFPgc and INTPc since October 2006...

I'm just ranting against particular aspects that I see crop up now and then. Regardless just becaues I've been here for a long time doesn't mean that I'll know another persons mind, that's why I mentioned that I could still be wrong. Ultimately all I can do is clarify sensor topics from a sensors perspective.

 

[Jeremy]

There are people who take those generalisations seriously and that's the reason I argue on these boards, to stop misunderstanding or false generalisations from spreading. I don't know whether the statements you mention hold true for NFs either, but I'm not a NF so I won't comment on that.

We should be friends in this battle. I seriously cringe every time I see a post about how "bad" sensors are. People love to judge others on the basis of S vs. N, and simplify everything down to S = bad, N = good.

I wonder if there's something within the intuitive mindset that leads to the creation of broad, inaccurate stereotypes? To be honest, within type theory, that makes sense - seeing the big picture with only a few details can lead to inaccuracies, and I think that's why this happens. People have a negative relationship with a parent or friend that identifies as an S, and therefore assume that all people who are S are stodgy, arrogant assholes who want to impose their agenda on you.

 

[Thalassa]

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.

Yeah I'm totally about causes, but I do think of one of the first things to do for a friend or a family member is to just be with them. I also cook. However, could this be because my Se is just more developed than other NFs? I don't know.

I remember spending time with my nephew every night and making a point to do it when my sis was having some personal problems and my mom was taking care of my little niece. And this wasn't "out of character" for me.

No one's ever called me emotionally negligent, unless I'm pissed off at them. One of the reasons why I think I'm an introvert is because I'd rather give lots of time and energy to people I really love instead of spreading myself too thin among acquaintences.

I guess everyone's different. I do picture Ss cleaning more though - maybe being the one's who are trying their damnedest to have the perfect home or something.

 

[TaylorS]

We should be friends in this battle. I seriously cringe every time I see a post about how "bad" sensors are. People love to judge others on the basis of S vs. N, and simplify everything down to S = bad, N = good.

I wonder if there's something within the intuitive mindset that leads to the creation of broad, inaccurate stereotypes? To be honest, within type theory, that makes sense - seeing the big picture with only a few details can lead to inaccuracies, and I think that's why this happens. People have a negative relationship with a parent or friend that identifies as an S, and therefore assume that all people who are S are stodgy, arrogant assholes who want to impose their agenda on you.

Infantile and under-developed Si?

I hate S-bashing, I know a lot of very intelligent and well-educated Sensors, they are not stupid or close-minded, they just have a different, more pragmatic and down-to-earth perspective that I find very helpful quite often. For example, my Ni has a tendency of exacerbating my anxiety issues, and I'll go "If this happens, as it might..." and my ISTP stepdad goes, "one problem, it WON'T happen, so quit getting worked up about it, it only gets you stressed out without helping anything!".

 

[proteanmix]

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?

Nobody's really answering the OP anymore it's turned into a debate about sensing vs. intuition.

I totally agree with this. One of the things I strive to be is accessible and responsive to people. I do not want to be or try to be ethereal, otherworldly, or like some helium balloon floating off into the atmosphere. I don't think it's cute or adorable. Frankly, when I meet a person who's in La-la land and doesn't even seem like they're equipped to handle the real world, I don't even try to go there with them.

I'll give this as an example. Me and two of my coworkers (one of them INFP) were having a serious conversation about how we've dealt with cancer in our families. The INFP was quiet for most of the conversation and didn't say much. When she did say something she looked at the folders behind my colleague and said "Those look like a stack of rainbows!" The metaphor did not escape me. Maybe she felt uncomfortable and didn't know what to say and said the first thing that popped into her head. Who knows what was going on inside her head and what she was getting from the conversation. But when she came out with that completely unrelated comment in the middle of a heavy conversation to me that implied she wasn't even there with us. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't. I wondered, is she even listening? Why am I here talking about such a personal topic to someone who's not even present? I know that sounds horribly stereotypical, but it's so true, it really happened! If I don't feel like a person is present in what was going on, I cease to involve them in issues that I guess people here call "deep." This is an example of things that shut me down towards people and what I try to avoid doing. She did not convey to me that she had the ability to relate to me on that level and still doesn't but whatever. I don't know what she did when she was alone or how deeply empathetic she felt. I know that for me, right then and there, I would've signaled to a person doing such heavy emotional lifting that I'm mentally there with them. That comment was like being suddenly dunked in sub-zero water. I know I personally I felt uncomfortably exposed talking with her about that and I don't talk to her in that way anymore, but I tried it to see what would happen and how she would respond. And if she was a poster on the forum, she'd probably say I know this ESFJ and all I ever hear her talk about is celebrity gossip and fashion. And she's right because that's all she'll ever get from me.

And it's so funny that when she walked into the office, my coworker and I gave each other looks like should we keep talking about what we were talking about or should we quickly change the subject? I make this point to say, just because you're not privy to people talking about "deep" or psychological issues doesn't mean those conversations aren't happening or people aren't grinding those issues internally. They're just not happening when you're around for whatever reasons. Just as I'm not sure what she's capable of but the time I did go there, she blew it with me.

Perhaps this is the difference between SF and NF. If SFs are better able to meet people material needs I don't restrict that to just making sure people are clothed and feed. There is a range if things that meet the qualifications of "material needs." I'm all about making meaningful connections with other people. I know I've written about this before but I personally strive to reach a level with people in ways to communicate we can be utterly real with each other and be ourselves. I want people to feel comfortable around me and like they can talk to me about a range of topics from celebrity gossip to personal insecurities and triumphs, science, politics, whatever. Maybe I can drop some knowledge on you, maybe you can drop something I've never heard of who knows? When this happens I feel very flattered that the other person felt like they could speak to me and open themselves up to me in that manner, I feel like we've bonded in a meaningful way and I feel like I can speak openly to them as well. Is this perhaps a difference between NFs and SFs? I am often shocked at sincerely asking someone "How are you? No, really. How ARE you?" is so effective a tool at making that first breakthrough. If they're willing to go there, I leave the door open if they want to and if they do that's cool and if not that's cool as well.

I don't expect to get deep down in it with everybody. I don't want to because I believe you've got to be careful with who you open yourself up to and who opens up to you. I don't feel like I should have some people's emotions on me or open myself up to them because their emotions are tainted in someway and I don't want mine to become tainted either. I'm concerned that I won't be able to cycle that negativity out very well.

A lot of this traits that SFs supposedly lack are simple things that can be learned by exposure. I've noticed since I've been out in the real world who they direct (explicit) vs. subtle (implicit) communicators are at my job. My preference is for the direct/explicit communicators because I don't like to play guess what I really mean with people, but I also understand that sometimes we can't say what we really mean to each other so we have to do it in different ways. I have identified the more subtle communicators and have learned to do more reading between the lines with them. Example: A coworker will be at my cube chit-chatting and my boss (who I know is a subtle communicator) will come to my cube and say "Excuse me, I don't mean to interrupt you" and give me some trivial thing to do. I know that she does that when she thinks a person has been visiting me too long but she'll never directly say to me she thinks I have too many visitors.

I just see so much of what is supposedly intrinsic to NFs as things that if you are at all a student of human nature, you'll get if you care to pay any attention to it and learn your way around it. I don't believe that there is some level of something out there that I will always be oblivious to or standing outside peering at a party I'll never be invited to. I can ride my bike with no handlebars...

 

[Thalassa]

I'll give this as an example. Me and two of my coworkers (one of them INFP) were having a serious conversation about how we've dealt with cancer in our families. The INFP was quiet for most of the conversation and didn't say much. When she did say something she looked at the folders behind my colleague and said "Those look like a stack of rainbows!" The metaphor did not escape me. Maybe she felt uncomfortable and didn't know what to say and said the first thing that popped into her head. Who knows what was going on inside her head and what she was getting from the conversation. But when she came out with that completely unrelated comment in the middle of a heavy conversation to me that implied she wasn't even there with us. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't. I wondered, is she even listening? Why am I here talking about such a personal topic to someone who's not even present? I know that sounds horribly stereotypical, but it's so true, it really happened! If I don't feel like a person is present in what was going on, I cease to involve them in issues that I guess people here call "deep." This is an example of things that shut me down towards people and what I try to avoid doing. She did not convey to me that she had the ability to relate to me on that level and still doesn't but whatever. I don't know what she did when she was alone or how deeply empathetic she felt. I know that for me, right then and there, I would've signaled to a person doing such heavy emotional lifting that I'm mentally there with them. That comment was like being suddenly dunked in sub-zero water. I know I personally I felt uncomfortably exposed talking with her about that and I don't talk to her in that way anymore, but I tried it to see what would happen and how she would respond. And if she was a poster on the forum, she'd probably say I know this ESFJ and all I ever hear her talk about is celebrity gossip and fashion. And she's right because that's all she'll ever get from me.

If someone said that to me I'd assume that they were just immature. Is she very young? Sounds like maybe the topic made her uncomfortable and she wasn't mature enough to deal with it.

Perhaps this is the difference between SF and NF. If SFs are better able to meet people material needs I don't restrict that to just making sure people are clothed and feed. There is a range if things that meet the qualifications of "material needs." I'm all about making meaningful connections with other people.

I think this is completely off base. I think that maybe *you* are more able to make meaningful connections with SFs, but that doesn't mean that NFs aren't capable of making meaningful connections. To the contrary, some of the first people I ever made deep, meaningful, empathetic connections with were NFs (though I've also been very close to several SFPs) - I needed this because my experiences with SPs and SJs (probably mostly SJs) were shallow. I thought that they were materialistic and didn't know how to relate to people as their inner selves. Now this is an adolescent...

But what I'm wondering here is this: do you feel that you make more meaningful connections with SFs because you are also an SF so you relate to them better? Do you see what I'm getting at? Because I don't think the statement you made here is true at all in most cases, though I'm sure some NFs are like that - just as some SJs are shallow, materialistic purse collectors. There's good and bad with every type.

 

[proteanmix]

If someone said that to me I'd assume that they were just immature. Is she very young? Sounds like maybe the topic made her uncomfortable and she wasn't mature enough to deal with it.

She's my age which is 28.

I think this is completely off base. I think that maybe *you* are more able to make meaningful connections with SFs, but that doesn't mean that NFs aren't capable of making meaningful connections. To the contrary, some of the first people I ever made deep, meaningful, empathetic connections with were NFs (though I've also been very close to several SFPs) - I needed this because my experiences with SPs and SJs (probably mostly SJs) were shallow. I thought that they were materialistic and didn't know how to relate to people as their inner selves. Now this is an adolescent...

Yeah, you're right, I said me. Nor do I think that NFs can't make meaningful connections.

But what I'm wondering here is this: do you feel that you make more meaningful connections with SFs because you are also an SF so you relate to them better? Do you see what I'm getting at? Because I don't think the statement you made here is true at all in most cases, though I'm sure some NFs are like that - just as some SJs are shallow, materialistic purse collectors. There's good and bad with every type.

What's off base? What I think is odd that NFs seem to be limited to connecting with other Ns, but can't seem to cross that gulf into S-land. Which I asked in my previous post, why are NFs billed as the great typological humanitarians when most NFs on this forum admit they don't communicate well with sensors. It seems like people are repeatedly saying it's the sensor not getting IT or understanding IT. If you consistently have problems communicating with a group of people across the board then why is it a limitation of that other groups understanding? How well do they communicate with each other? If it seems to be minimal or easily clarified communications when they communicate, then where does the problem lie? Why is the problem automatically with the other group?

And most of my friends are NFs and as far as I know we understand each other.