Question for NFs.

[SolitaryWalker]

Nobody's missed any points--except, in this case, you. You proposed an intellectual exercise, but the way we were to go about it might not have been the most effective, even if it was the only way we could do it on a forum. Thought exercises are great, man, but if you're going to get the most out of them, you've got to consider the path to "figuring things out for their own end." I didn't suggest affinity diagrams for any reason other than to say that this concrete method may have worked better than this thread for this particular exercise; littlelostNF took hold of that comment and appreciated it as something useful to her. That reaction was independent of whatever reactions she has to your exercise.

And *I* did not miss your point. I get that you're not concerned with actually coming up with five words, but the thought exercise still could have been presented in a more effective way so as to be less frustrating. That MY point is different from YOUR point does not actually indicate that I don't understand you. It only indicates that we value different things.

I would agree that we just value different things and that neither one of us is right/wrong here. This is quite fitting since our judging functions are diametrically opposed to one another.

[Eileen]

Practical? That's neither here nor there... since when is redefining temperaments when perfectly adequate descriptions already exists practical?

Anyways... let's start over again. I like Eileen's idea, shall we all find concepts relating to NFs? Perhaps it will be easier to find that for each of the four types... then based on those, find connecting themes behind the temperament. I believe that way we can be more constructive then just throwing random words on the table. Te approach works for somethings too you know...

sweet! we can do it without SW's permission.

I think it will be hard, though, in this format to go "backwards" to a category. Any suggestions for a process before we jump into something totally confusing?

[nightning]

sweet! we can do it without SW's permission.

I think it will be hard, though, in this format to go "backwards" to a category. Any suggestions for a process before we jump into something totally confusing?

Who needs HIS permission.

Hmmmm, it might be easier if we remove our existing generic descriptors of NFs from our minds and start off thinking about how different types perceive and respond to different things. It wouldn't be that much different from creating mind maps.

Let's start off with INFJs since that's probably the easiest for us to work with.

Ummmm inner vision with paradoxical beliefs comes into my mind. So does the need for a purpose in life and striving to achieve personal goals. Very internally focused with a humanistic bent.

[Eileen]

Let's come up terms like "personal goals" and "internally focused" which we could sort of move around (though that's the really hard part - where do we move them? How do we do that together?).

The end that I see might have some kind of... diagram or graph? In the center would be the "quintessential traits" of NFs, and on the sides, somehow, there would be the traits of the individual types (with maybe a place for shared traits that are not quintessential, like between INFJ and INFP).

Damn it, where's Melody when you need him?

[nightning]

Let's come up terms like "personal goals" and "internally focused" which we could sort of move around (though that's the really hard part - where do we move them? How do we do that together?).

The end that I see might have some kind of... diagram or graph? In the center would be the "quintessential traits" of NFs, and on the sides, somehow, there would be the traits of the individual types (with maybe a place for shared traits that are not quintessential, like between INFJ and INFP).

Damn it, where's Melody when you need him?

Diagram/graph would be good... I came up with a little something back in INTPc... didn't get much response on it. But we can use that as a starting point. Oh and please ignore the little point on ENTP. That has been resolved, but I haven't corrected it yet. Hope you can read it...

[Eileen]

WOW, nightning, that's TOTALLY NEAT! :P I was envisioning something more geometric, but yeah, let's work with what you've already got.

[nightning]

WOW, nightning, that's TOTALLY NEAT! :P I was envisioning something more geometric, but yeah, let's work with what you've already got.

It'll be great if we can start filling in the gaps. Any thoughts or ideas on "personal goals" and "internal focus" of different types? Anything that your mind can come up with... we'll leave organizing and making sense of everything later.

[MacGuffin]

Can you make that pic a bit bigger nightning?

I'm old and can't see well.

[nightning]

Can you make that pic a bit bigger nightning?

I'm old and can't see well.

Yes... I always respect the old folks...

Is this big enough?

Darn it! file size too big... here...

[MacGuffin]

Thanks! I saved it.