You've actually agreed with me here saying that you are not unique in experiencing this. No special understanding is granted because it is not a special circumstance, as you stated here. Other than that, you are welcome to feel as you like and those feelings would, of course, be valid for you.
It's not the circumstance that is special, as much as it is the context and manifestation of these experiences. Perhaps the difference is that you might be inclined to think people dull, but also to accept them as fellow people who may have a different way of looking at things. My inclination is to end the boredom by either removing myself from the situation, avoiding it in the future, or influence the action to make it more stimulating. You're fine in the first situation because you've satisfied your personal Fi "good", while I'm in a bit more of a tenuous situation, because situations can and do backfire. This would lead to quite a bit more frustration in my situation, wouldn't you think?
Your original statement reflected a one-sided view of the interactions you described. People are boring and uninteresting. You are burdened by having to put up with them. There is judgment in that statement. Perhaps this links to being aware of how you are feeling (self-awareness) but not being or working on being aware of the people involved in the interaction (awareness of the environment). Either way, I find it difficult to offer understanding with only one part expressed. This may be a need at my end to see equality in all matters of the interpersonal realm.
I see no judgment whatsoever. "Some/many people do not engage my way of thinking and thus create a sense of boredom or disinterest" is what I mean by them being boring and uninteresting. It's just that most people would consider that robotic and strange, so I'm inclined to use the more Si language, even when I'm not judging at all. There's no intended implication that they're bad people for this.
Not to be presumptive, but perhaps it might help to think of it in a Te context - rather than try to assume that I am making a judgment of my superiority or burden (given the information I've related), ask "OK, why is he saying this? What information is he trying to relay that fits within the model of what I know about ENTPs?" If Fi tries to barge in, perhaps ask "yes, it violates my personal standards, but where does it fit in within his personal standards?". Might help
.
Yes all normative views are subjective. Arrogance is also a subjective judgment. I hold that assuming the ideas are 'great' without test of their merit is arrogant. having said that, I understand well the part about having your ideas ignored because they are different or not quite apparent. Ne doms would all likely empathize.
I understand what you're saying, and yes, this is likely common to all ENXPs. Just remember, we still operate under Tert Fe, and believe that people at the very least should make an effort to understand and appreciate others' ideas, even if we slip up at times or often (due to the tertiary status). Where you might be inclined to think "well, they just don't understand, or maybe it was silly" and leave it at that, we're much more likely to be offended from a "hey, I listened to him go on and on about how it was actually the Japanese who landed on the moon, and I didn't ignore him or make him feel like an idiot for an obviously idiotic statement" point of view.
It may be all that is on offer but it just doesn't suffice. Judgment of decisions here is subjective as well, isn't it? So how can you ascribe a number to being right when it may only be right in your view.
It was a ballpark figure thrown out there to indicate "much more often than not". It's not supposed to be literal. We're not Ti dom, you know
. That being said, we still live in the realm of Ti objectivity. If we say something is going to happen and it does happen, we're right. If not, we're wrong. This is regardless of who gets pissed in the process.
Meanwhile, as we've mentioned, there's a difference between dispassionate debate (where we're wont to take the devil's advocate position just to explore the possibilities) and personal decisions (where criticism is interpreted as an attack on our credibility, maybe the characteristic of ourselves that we value the most highly). Thus, our often-defensive nature when we get criticized about predictions that went wrong, and pointing out of small characteristics that we got right (defending ourselves as credible predictors), and even stronger defensiveness when our decisions come under criticism (because not only are we constantly analyzing and ruminating over the decision and playing devil's advocate with ourselves, the last thing we need is someone sniping our credibility as decision-makers to establish social dominance).
Again, the issue is the reflection in your statements that there is only the attempt made to see things from your own limited perspective connected with the assumption of being right much of the time. There are rarely only pure logical outcomes to any decision. You may be right or you may not, I'm just trying to point out that going in with this assumption could lead to being blind sighted and missing other perspectives. It's not just about running others over (that's a separate issue). It's about what may be most useful for you or more generally, any decision maker. Going in with this conviction limits what you take into account, in your own logical analysis to only how you conceive of the situation. No matter how insightful your views are, they will be limited. Not recognizing that others have opinions/perspectives of virtue will ultimately constrict the options seen and the decision made.
There are rarely only logical outcomes, but there are always logical outcomes. The logic changes with the context, but they are there. The development of Fe within an ENTP commonly manifests as reconciling the seeming illogic of the F function with it's overwhelming effectiveness in the realm of human contact, leading to it's own sort of logic. At the same time, we do share your ability to understand that things are seemingly non-intuitive on the surface - it's just that we're inclined to deconstruct the subject until its own internal logic surfaces, while that may not be the case from your perspective.
I'm also in agreement on the limitation of a single person's view - but do quibble with the idea that we don't account for others' perspectives and opinions. My own take is that we do - it's just that we demand a hell of a lot of evidence in favor of that view in order to consider it valid in that circumstance. It's not immediately apparent to consider someone's perspective just because it's right to consider others' opinions - filtering through fact and evidence is much more important to making a correct decision. Fe development leads us to consider others' opinions more readily out of reciprocality - you should consider others' opinions even if you immediately understand them to be incorrect, because you'd want them to do the same for you.
Funnily, I think ENFPs and ENTPs lie at the opposite end of this spectrum. My complaint is that there is little input from others in decision making on the part of the ENTP and I'm sure we're seen as too susceptible to other perspectives. Somewhere between these must lie a happy medium. I'm trying to be aware of that possibility and pointing to the same here.
I think it is in the development of the tert function that this happy medium can be found. We need to consider others' opinions and views in the interest of social cohesion and harmony - and perhaps because something insightful might pop up. Maybe the ENFP equivalent is using Te to filter other's opinions through the logical frameworks that an ENFP has found to have a tendency of working, and not feel bad in discounting an opinion that just does not fit or work.
That's an internal struggle you'll have to deal with on your own. For Fi-doms, the idea that we have to like all people and make them feel better is completely alien.
That was an invitation to understanding where we come from. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think this will hold little weight with Fi-doms (I'm limited by my own perspective, at least I recognize that
). When you rely on social conventions to express how you feel to us, we only see social conventions being used and not that you are trying to adapt how you feel to language that is freely available. At least with us, don't use the Fe conventions. We find them boring and insincere since by your own admission, they don't really reflect how you think/feel.
Yeah, but when we turn them off, you get pissed at how insensitive we are. You see the catch-22? We can't talk without the Fe and not sound cold and calculating to Fi dom/auxes. We can't talk with it on and not sound fake. There's very little else in our arsenal for relating to your conversant style, unless we're really, really close and I'm comfortable with sharing the internal world with you. Even then, we're constantly in danger of being judged as emotionally shallow as the only manifestation of emotion as F dom/auxes understand it is in reference to our relationships with people.
We are on the same page with recognizing that we are better than a situation/problem/challenge but rarely the people. I couldn't agree more.
So am I correct in assuming that egalitarianism is one of your core values? That's good, we can work together. With that in mind, take notice that the expression of someone's actions or thoughts conflicting with your internal principles can often come across as implying that you feel morally superior to them. I take it you're not intending this.
First, being objective and being insensitive are separate issues. Several combinations of the two are possible. It may not just be 'how' you are expressing your thoughts but the content itself that may be insensitive as well. Just a thought.
See, that's an alien concept to me. Thoughts are thoughts, and concepts are concepts. It's very important to me that I do not allow what could be seen as personal judgments to cloud (or possibly inform, from your perspective) my perspective on things, as it may lead me to an incorrect conclusion, i.e. one that is empirically untrue or does not work. When Polonius in
Hamlet says "to thine own self be true", my interpretation on that statement is to never lie to myself, or make interpretations on things that do not fit the empirical evidence, as opposed to compromising personal principles, as many interpret that phrase to mean.
So when I start discussing a highly emotionally charged or potentially offensive subject with detachment and dispassion, it's not because I think these were good things, or even neutral things - it's just that I'm exploring the subject due to something that piqued my interest. Once again, Fe is useful to determine when this is appropriate and when it's not.
Actually, yes. We live in a country and a culture that gives left-brained explanations of things much more value than right-brained. There are lots of occasions when people are accused of being irrational or too sensitive and their opinions ignored. Ummm, women have traditionally been treated in this manner because many are socialized to express their opinions with emotional subtext. I disagree that objective perspectives (not rationality - broad idea including emotional processes) get the short end of the stick.
I disagree, and most likely due to a different perspective. While perhaps on a professional level this may be the case, oftentimes there is an Fe element to it as well - it's not that expressions of emotion are disdained, it's that they're disdained when expressed at a socially inappropriate time. (speculation) While someone whose core Fi principles may have been severely violated, causing a strong need to defend those principles, establish limits and assuage the hurt, often it's not the "irrationality" that's criticized, it's why the outburst had to happen in front of so many people at such an awkward time.
I'm not discounting sexism, either, but I think that it has less to do with bias toward T in this sake as much as it is just bias towards men in general. Likewise, I don't discount that Fi-users often get the short end in general. Dom/aux male Fe-users are very commonly respected for the grace and aplomb they use in their interactions, their trustworthiness and reliability, and quiet gravitas, depending on the other functions. At worst, these types are "overbearing", "manipulative", "shallow", and "predictable". Unfortunately, their Fi-dominant/auxiliary counterparts rarely get the same level of respect.
At the same time, though, you're kind of making my point for me as well - men with highly-developed T functions are often respected for their analytical and organizational skills, but at the same time decried as "cold", "heartless", "thoughtless", "assholes", "arrogant", "uptight", "rigid", "smart, but just doesn't get it", "dictator", "fascist" and so on, and so forth. Women with highly-developed T functions are described as "ice queens", "cold", "tomboys", "dykes" (much like men with dom/aux Fi are commonly thought to be gay), "dragon ladies", "sluts", "bossy", "flighty", "random", "not maternal", so on and so forth.
So yes, when it comes to disparagement, I think when it comes to the entirety of the T function, we get much more criticism than F-users in general, however, I'm not unwilling to discount that the world of shit Fi-users have to deal with may equal or overwhelm these criticisms. Yes, the Fe-dom/aux get off way too damn easily in this department.
Nothing you said earlier highlighted that you considered the other person's emotions. You may have, your statement regarding the consequences did not reflect this. There is no judgment here of the process just a matter-of-fact evaluation that the consequences you mentioned don't necessarily prioritize the other person's emotions.
You're right, they don't. Mostly because at that point, the material consequences outweigh the emotional consequences (as we did just get laid, and Fe is satisfied if we weren't selfish in the process - Ne-users are much more interested in exploration of the concept than merely reaching climax
) in our estimation. The big issue is mostly Si - "sex is supposed to make you happy, and it's raising a ton of concerns right now". The other person's emotional state is somewhat irrelevant if it's casual, while it's a much bigger deal when in a serious relationship, as we would want the significant other to care about our feelings in that situation too.
That rope is usually long enough to hang multiples, thanks.
You assume you would be able to point to my inner motivations and cognition. You are free to assume that - once again, you may be right or you may be wrong. I wouldn't rely on being right particularly in this area.
It's not a case of actually pointing out your inner motivations and cognition, it's getting you to do it and revealing more about yourself. The operative quote here is "you think I said that because of X and Y?" No, but you clearly were subconsciously thinking that way, because that's what your brain immediately interpreted my neutral comment as implying.
Fair point. Self-awareness is likely focused on one's own motivations and cognition and less on the effects on the environment. Having said that, self-awareness implies a certain depth of understanding of ones own motivations and an understanding of how these can be changed as is the case with behavior. Just an awareness, like Q pointed out, is not the same as self-awareness. I obviously can't judge anyone else's level of self awareness but I do bristle at the idea of an entire type inherently possessing this quality. Introspection may be inherent to the type but that does not naturally lead to the depth of understanding the term self-awareness represents.
It's not so much simply introspection, as it is introspection and a need to understand how our inner worlds work. This is likely common among NTPs in general. This also leads to a ton of self-criticism that occurs mostly hidden from the outside world. When we get upset over someone criticizing us, oftentimes the anger comes not from the criticism itself, but more from the sense of "haven't you figured out that I'm beating myself up over this way more than you ever could? FFS, I don't need to deal with extra crap".
Likewise, I'm assuming that your implication is that because we don't seem to have a grip on our emotions in certain circumstances, that the claim of "self-awareness" is somewhat suspect. I'll just say that in that circumstance, what's going on outside may not square away with what's inside. "Why am I feeling this way?" and reasoning it out is a very common conversation I have with myself, even if it's not externally apparent often.
The manipulation actually takes away from awareness. Awareness implies recognition of attitudes/behaviors that could be harmful to us/others and understanding that it is useful to change them. Fi can be manipulative. As blah... said, expressing certain emotions could lead to negative manipulations of others and isn't necessarily a positive thing. This manipulation reflects an awareness of how this is done subconsciously but the lack of self-awareness that it is harmful. Self-awareness requires more work than just recognizing your powers. It comes with recognizing and practicing responsibility in utilizing them.
Awareness can also imply that you understand the emotional response, where it's coming from, purpose and consequences. While changing them can be useful, using them to your own and to others' advantage (emotional manipulation) can be useful as well, even if distasteful.
Your point about responsibility speaks more to your own personal values than awareness in general, and perhaps implies "self-awareness" more than anything.
This is moot - if you don't express the emotions, it's hard to give weight to the self-awareness being there or not. It could go either way.
Like I mentioned before, our emotions are hacked out in our heads, and the process usually effectively determines the initial cause and subsequent effects (though the process can take a long time), letting us come to terms with what we feel and why we feel it. Once again, if you're not let in, it's not your place to intervene.
By the way, a cheap trick if you want to give out emotional advice and analysis, and not necessarily receive the brunt of our wrath - "If I were in your place". "If I were in your place, I'd be feeling X. In those circumstances, I find that it's best to Y." Even if we don't immediately agree, just continuing with a response like "yeah, but it's worth a shot, isn't it?" can help a ton. With that in mind, if the response to that is something like "yeah, but that's not the way I feel about it at all", then just let it be.
Yes, there is an actual app, I think these peeps also designed another app that forces you to have no internet access for a pre-set amount of time, interestingly titled, Freedom.
