[NT] NTJs...

[sculpting]

No one ever gets anyone until that person gets themselves. Prior to understanding self, there will be too many mixed messages.

Is this ever REALLY possible? Do we ever really escape our own internal voice?

There is depth, you just have to talk to them about the right things.

examples?

 

[Poki]

Is this ever REALLY possible? Do we ever really escape our own internal voice?



examples?

Relationships for one, things they have done, places they have been, things they like, whys about what people do, future, etc. Its depth of a person and people, not abstract ideas.

 

[freeeekyyy]

There is depth, you just have to talk to them about the right things.

Right. I'm not putting down ESFPs, just saying that in my experience, they don't seem to be quite as good of a match with INTJs. There was no judgment intended in my post.

 

[Thalassa]

There is depth, you just have to talk to them about the right things.

This is true. My mother has a lot of emotional depth about her children, grandchildren, other people she's loved (the men in her life), and her extended family and friends. No one said ESFPs don't have any depth at all.

But I don't connect my mom on a certain intellectual level, I actually have to overlook a ton of things with her that I would call another person out on because I accept certain things about her being my mother and I love her and the drama is pointless and won't accomplish anything.

It's much easier to accept such things in family members and platonic friends.

 

[Poki]

Right. I'm not putting down ESFPs, just saying that in my experience, they don't seem to be quite as good of a match with INTJs. There was no judgment intended in my post.

It's just "let's have fun" and nothing else

And my post was more informative, not taking offense to what you said. I can easily see where someone would pin them as just "lets have fun" and I dont think they would even take much offense to that. It just came across as if you dont know the other side of the coin with ESFPs.

 

[freeeekyyy]

And my post was more informative, not taking offense to what you said. I can easily see where someone would pin them as just "lets have fun" and I dont think they would even take much offense to that. It just came across as if you dont know the other side of the coin with ESFPs.

Gotcha.

 

[Thalassa]

I want you to know it's not just a case of Intuitives "looking down" on Sensors, it's simply acknowledging that a certain kind of connection isn't there.

This isn't all one-sided, either. I've had some Sensors tell me that they're more comfortable with other Sensors.

One of the ISTJs I know has criticized ENFPs heavily.

My ESFJ ex also used to tell me sometimes that I seemed "retarded" no fucking shit, but that he was amazed at how brilliant I seemed in writing, and that he knew how smart I really was.

Because by ESFJ standards in day-to-day life, apparently I am a retard.

 

[Poki]

I want you to know it's not just a case of Intuitives "looking down" on Sensors, it's simply acknowledging that a certain kind of connection isn't there.

This isn't all one-sided, either. I've had some Sensors tell me that they're more comfortable with other Sensors.

One of the ISTJs I know has criticized ENFPs heavily.

Marry an ISTJ and an ENFP and you will see alot of criticism(grandparents) together for 50+ years. INTJ and ENFP as well(my parents 30+ years), its a J vs P thing mostly. That serious side knocking that playful side.

 

[Thalassa]

Look, we know what we're talking about. Sorry that you don't.

I do not want to have this conversation, especially not with an Sensor.

 

[Poki]

Look, we know what we're talking about. Sorry that you don't.

I do not want to have this conversation, especially not with an Sensor.

lol, atleast we use our eyes...intuitives.

 

[Thalassa]

lol, atleast we use our eyes...intuitives.

exactly

 

[freeeekyyy]

Marry an ISTJ and an ENFP and you will see alot of criticism(grandparents) together for 50+ years. INTJ and ENFP as well(my parents 30+ years), its a J vs P thing mostly. That serious side knocking that playful side.

Absolutely, especially when the P is an E and the J is an I. One is happy-go-lucky and the other serious and dour. There is no truly "perfect" match. But some are theoretically more workable than others.

 

[uumlau]

No one ever gets anyone until that person gets themselves. Prior to understanding self, there will be too many mixed messages.

^^^ Listen to this person!

 

[sculpting]

^^^ Listen to this person!

Not buying it. Perhaps this as an Ne perspective-but-the search never ends. Thus if I sought self understanding before seeking to understand others-I would never move, as the search never ends. I will never fully understand myself as myself is defined partially by those around me-an NeFi curse-thus I must look inwards to look outwards. And to look outwards is to look inwards. In spite of the wishy-washy nature of this statement-I feel an extremely concrete sense of self-but that self is a very mobile, flexible thing. So I can become anything, yet always be true to what I am.

Even once we understand ourselves-assuming we have reached some reasonable level-we will endlessly project our own worldview upon the other. I would argue that it isnt simply an acceptance of the other that is required,or an acceptance of the self, but for me, an understanding of what it is to be the other in the truest sense possible. To understand them I must "feel" them, and be feeling what is real, not simply what i assume to be real. Understanding what is REAL, allows a rewriting of the FiSi I guess, to more closely approximate reality-not my imposed, projected version of reality.

 

[uumlau]

Not buying it.

How do you know whether someone else really gets you, unless you get you?

Perhaps this as an Ne perspective-but-the search never ends. Thus if I sought self understanding before seeking to understand others-I would never move, as the search never ends. I will never fully understand myself as myself is defined partially by those around me-an NeFi curse-thus I must look inwards to look outwards. And to look outwards is to look inwards.

*sigh* Fi at its finest, I suppose. Of course it's always a work in progress, because one is always growing and becoming. Self-understanding leads to growth and becoming that in turn leads to a new need to understand oneself, because the "new you" hasn't been evaluated, yet. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

In spite of the wishy-washy nature of this statement-I feel an extremely concrete sense of self-but that self is a very mobile, flexible thing. So I can become anything, yet always be true to what I am.

In other words, you understand yourself, except that you don't understand yourself, except that you do understand yourself?

Even once we understand ourselves-assuming we have reached some reasonable level-we will endlessly project our own worldview upon the other.

Employing a worldview does not imply projecting a worldview - which you would realize if you finished reading your own paragraph, describing understanding others in "the truest sense possible." Self-understanding actually leads to other-understanding, without much in the way of projection, because you understand which parts of you don't necessarily belong to the other.

I would argue that it isnt simply an acceptance of the other that is required,or an acceptance of the self, but for me, an understanding of what it is to be the other in the truest sense possible. To understand them I must "feel" them, and be feeling what is real, not simply what i assume to be real. Understanding what is REAL, allows a rewriting of the FiSi I guess, to more closely approximate reality-not my imposed, projected version of reality.

And if you didn't understand that about yourself, how would I ever know that about you?

The main reason I endorsed Metaphor's statement is not so much the "mixed messages" quip, but that without the self-understanding, there is, in a way, no self to be understood. It's as if it's in a quantum state, neither one thing nor another, waiting for some perturbation to make it become whatever it needs to become. The self understanding, in a way, is the decision that one is A, not B, before which point one is neither.

 

[sculpting]

How do you know whether someone else really gets you, unless you get you?

Well-does anyone ever REALLY get anyone else? I'd almost say no, but I think his is very heavily Fi tainted I suspect. For me the Fi analysis of another never really feels complete. The joy is in the continued exploration? Wait you said that huh... Perhaps it isnt about them ever getting me as much as accepting me, but realizing they may never "get" me totally. I dunno.

*sigh* Fi at its finest, I suppose. Of course it's always a work in progress, because one is always growing and becoming. Self-understanding leads to growth and becoming that in turn leads to a new need to understand oneself, because the "new you" hasn't been evaluated, yet. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Are you punctuating this with Te perhaps? (You added steps not numbered but they were still steps. ) Hehehe.

In other words, you understand yourself, except that you don't understand yourself, except that you do understand yourself?

No, this is just the nature of NeFi. It bends around things without losing self identification. It doesnt mean it is a healthy self or nonselfish self, mind you, but it is a strong sense of being a unique, isolated instance of self-that just wraps around other people, perhaps bending to its own detriment at times. So the sense of self is there very strongly. I always feel myself strongly-a core.

Employing a worldview does not imply projecting a worldview - which you would realize if you finished reading your own paragraph, describing understanding others in "the truest sense possible." Self-understanding actually leads to other-understanding, without much in the way of projection, because you understand which parts of you don't necessarily belong to the other.

So first-this is my new favorite take on MBTI-we never escape our worldview. Even when we think we have, the damned thing will sneak back up subconsciously and influence everything we say and do. Best to just face that music and then try and wade through the subsequent mess. Treat our respective world view almost like Jung told us to treat our shadow. Just be aware it influences everything we do and even traps us in some sense.

WRT self understanding, I am a bit backwards. The way I approach this is to understand the other, then look into the self and correct the inconsistencies noted between the internal reflection-the sense of self- and the external reality of the other. But the first step seems to be a requirement to look outwards and listen to the other first-then look inwards and edit that strong sense of self to be closer to reality. The closer it is to reality, the less it will project onto others and the less error will occur when intuition fills in the gap. It is an odd back and forth though and can lead to very unpleasent findings at times as others are not as kind as i once felt them to be. This can result in pain as I have to realize the hurt avoided over time when using the assumption that others didnt "intend" to hurt me-thus I could ignore the hurt. This is all very complicated and somewhat backasswards to your approach it appears.

But for yourself this is a look inwards to find an Fi core first, which once understood allows an understanding of what is yours and what is not? How do you know what doesnt belong to you?

And if you didn't understand that about yourself, how would I ever know that about you?

The main reason I endorsed Metaphor's statement is not so much the "mixed messages" quip, but that without the self-understanding, there is, in a way, no self to be understood. It's as if it's in a quantum state, neither one thing nor another, waiting for some perturbation to make it become whatever it needs to become. The self understanding, in a way, is the decision that one is A, not B, before which point one is neither.

Hmmmm. As I said earlier-there is always a sense of self held very strongly for me. I may have hidden it and guarded it especially when young, but it was always there. It is a rock, a foundation, deep roots that pull me into the ground. This is part of the reason authenticity is so important-to be inauthentic is to sever those roots and it induces an sense of emotional angst. the quantum analong though is familiar-it is a nice quiet nuetral plae I find when I just need to observe the outer world and actually detach form the sense of self...I'd almost call it Ni...and it does feel like just watching but not deciding...I dunno....

 

[Poki]

Not buying it. Perhaps this as an Ne perspective-but-the search never ends. Thus if I sought self understanding before seeking to understand others-I would never move, as the search never ends. I will never fully understand myself as myself is defined partially by those around me-an NeFi curse-thus I must look inwards to look outwards. And to look outwards is to look inwards. In spite of the wishy-washy nature of this statement-I feel an extremely concrete sense of self-but that self is a very mobile, flexible thing. So I can become anything, yet always be true to what I am.

Even once we understand ourselves-assuming we have reached some reasonable level-we will endlessly project our own worldview upon the other. I would argue that it isnt simply an acceptance of the other that is required,or an acceptance of the self, but for me, an understanding of what it is to be the other in the truest sense possible. To understand them I must "feel" them, and be feeling what is real, not simply what i assume to be real. Understanding what is REAL, allows a rewriting of the FiSi I guess, to more closely approximate reality-not my imposed, projected version of reality.

How do you "feel" someone without actually feeling yourself and not mixing those signals? I am not asking this to understand myself, but how Fi can do this unless it doesnt have its own internal feeling for that person? How does it not project outward from within your current feeling and color the situation while using that same feeling to feel what the other person feels? As hard as I may try to make my thoughts in understanding someone else, unless they are not in my thoughts...I dont even know how to turn this around.

This may sound confusing, but how does a judging function judge more then one thing at a time, that being internal and external feelings. Or is it the framework that is built that helps to drive this internal feeling based on external things. If thats the case, how can you feel based on the framework and in the present at the same time?

edit: I think you answered my questions in the post above

 

[Kalach]

I think it's all projection. Ok - I actually know two ISTJ males right now. One bores me silly, I don't have anything to talk to him about, and the other I actually can talk to, it's very easy, very comfortable on a shallow basis...but try to have a really deep conversation or intellectual argument and I hit a brick wall, it might possibly even mean war.

There's nothing like having the perfectionism and high standards of the INTJ directed at you, but without the intellectual compatibility or intrigue of strangeness.

In sum, ESFPs may be "easier" to get along with on a shallow, every day level for the same reason ISTJs are, but overall they're much less fulfilling, and in the long term that equals bad, not good.

Your theory fails; it's been tested by me.

Si is always considered the stick-in-the-mud function, yeah? Tradition, and whatnot. But something's occurred to me, having had the unfortunate opportunity to bear witness to ENFP and ESFP in operation together. Same age, same station, same environment, best friends. The ENFP is faster on the intellectual uptake from my N point of view. The ESFP has the edge, however--quicker to do--which to some degree, forgive me, is more attractive. But...

...the Ni isn't shared.

The ESFP and I both "use" it, but it isn't shared. There's no common history, no common educational background even, and since both of these EPs are Chinese, no shared cultural imagery. I can, it seems to me, recognise the Ni in the ESFP. But without the commonalities, it isn't shared. Superficially attractive, yes. A basis for seeking more understanding, yes. But not shared.

And what's worse, mine's all flexy and bendy and chock full of conscious content, but ESFP Ni is unconscious and disconcerting for the user. If I pull stupid Ni tricks that are outside the ESFP Ni interest... well, I don't know. I guess an ESP gets tired or bored and moves on.

I'd be reckoning it's the same with ENFP and ISTJ: superficial attractiveness that provides a reason for seeking to know more, but that knowing more *could* founder on discovery of some considerable difference of worldview, history, content, understanding, direction, hopes, dreams, etc and so on.

Interesting corollary is that ENFP/INTJ success is based on what is ultimately the more superficial connection when compared to ENFP/ISTJ or ESFP/INTJ.


My theory wins, and always will. If I am not Jung Incarnate then I'm Isabel Myers and I can too wear lipstick if I want. Jung wore lipstick every day of his life.

 

[Automator]

...the Ni isn't shared.

The ESFP and I both "use" it, but it isn't shared. There's no common history, no common educational background even, and since both of these EPs are Chinese, no shared cultural imagery. I can, it seems to me, recognise the Ni in the ESFP. But without the commonalities, it isn't shared. Superficially attractive, yes. A basis for seeking more understanding, yes. But not shared.

And what's worse, mine's all flexy and bendy and chock full of conscious content, but ESFP Ni is unconscious and disconcerting for the user. If I pull stupid Ni tricks that are outside the ESFP Ni interest... well, I don't know. I guess an ESP gets tired or bored and moves on.

I think I can somewhat expound on this. Though I must admit, my interest in MBTI (and typology in general) is fairly recent, so the accuracy, and perhaps even the understanding of cognitive functions and their relation to the self may be incorrect.

Anyway, I had a recent falling out with a particularly balanced ESFP, who was also a good friend of mine, over what I can only conclude to be a clash of Ni. ESFP Ni serves its master functions, so conclusions drawn from it are, in a sense, polluted in relation to, perhaps, the vaguely similar conclusions concocted by those that are Ni-dominant. In its very fundamental pieces— assuming there is an element of commonality as there was in our relation— Ni holds a consistency in its warping of reality. This is also under the assumption that the aggregate of human consciousness is, at the deepest core, the same. Add a dash of auxiliary Te, and the perception of "flawed" Ni and its deductions in conjunction with the that of "pure" Ni come to a head.

tl;dr: different strokes for different folks, but different is always right.

 

[Thalassa]

Si is always considered the stick-in-the-mud function, yeah? Tradition, and whatnot. But something's occurred to me, having had the unfortunate opportunity to bear witness to ENFP and ESFP in operation together. Same age, same station, same environment, best friends. The ENFP is faster on the intellectual uptake from my N point of view. The ESFP has the edge, however--quicker to do--which to some degree, forgive me, is more attractive. But...

...the Ni isn't shared.

The ESFP and I both "use" it, but it isn't shared. There's no common history, no common educational background even, and since both of these EPs are Chinese, no shared cultural imagery. I can, it seems to me, recognise the Ni in the ESFP. But without the commonalities, it isn't shared. Superficially attractive, yes. A basis for seeking more understanding, yes. But not shared.

And what's worse, mine's all flexy and bendy and chock full of conscious content, but ESFP Ni is unconscious and disconcerting for the user. If I pull stupid Ni tricks that are outside the ESFP Ni interest... well, I don't know. I guess an ESP gets tired or bored and moves on.

I'd be reckoning it's the same with ENFP and ISTJ: superficial attractiveness that provides a reason for seeking to know more, but that knowing more *could* founder on discovery of some considerable difference of worldview, history, content, understanding, direction, hopes, dreams, etc and so on.

Interesting corollary is that ENFP/INTJ success is based on what is ultimately the more superficial connection when compared to ENFP/ISTJ or ESFP/INTJ.


My theory wins, and always will. If I am not Jung Incarnate then I'm Isabel Myers and I can too wear lipstick if I want. Jung wore lipstick every day of his life.

You only think your theory wins because you don't want to be wrong and you're currently strongly attracted to an ESFP.

Whatever floats your boat, bro.