[MBTI General] Why NFs think that they understand NTs ?

[FemMecha]

not sure. sorta confused with the wording. but did i just get made an example of, and taken down a notch? or were you appreciating that i answered your question in an honest fashion?

I just deleted that post because I figured it was too tangential. The fact that such a statement could bring someone down a notch indicates that there is a lower lever of respect for being called a Feeler. Otherwise it should not be capable of insulting anyone. My point is that in this environment it really isn't a criticism for a Feeler to be called Thinker. I have never seen it used as an insult and my opinion is that it is implicitly a compliment whereas calling a Thinker an Feeler in a debate tends more towards being a way to insult or flame. Having others say any push-back against negative comments about Feelers is by nature personalizing or self-pity is an example of projection something without examining some other possible sources of defensiveness. I can't prove it definitively, so will leave it only as my own subjective impression and is somewhat on a tangent.

In a thread like this, there is an advantage to not assuming a negative motivation in the person who is making the negative statements about the other group. If it is honest, then assuming so keeps you on the same page, and if there is an element of passive-aggression or ego, then remaining cool helps bring it back to a more reasonable page and is the best argument against what was presented in the OP which described a problem of having Feeler react with anger at those instances where a Thinker does not feel emotion and such. In the instances this happened in the thread are the same moments that would provide the most information about this problem. There would be value in recreating the problem in this less personal, online context, so I would think the negative responses from Feelers are important and informational even if some readers don't understand or enjoy that style of communication. In cases where the response to these Feelers is also defensiveness, projection, and judgment is kind of bringing the whole thing full circle. (Not suggesting specific moments because only the actual poster knows their own reactions)

 

[Lauren Ashley]

Lovely how people are assuming that those who disagreed with the OP were getting angry and flaming. Is it because they have NF in their type code? I doubt if those with NT under their username responded in the same way, that they would be accused of being defensive.

 

[EcK]

Lovely how people are assuming that those who disagreed with the OP were getting angry and flaming. Is it because they have NF in their type code? I doubt if those with NT under their username responded in the same way, that they would be accused of being defensive.

What are you saying about NTs :steam:

 

[heart]

I just deleted that post because I figured it was too tangential. The fact that such a statement could bring someone down a notch indicates that there is a lower lever of respect for being called a Feeler. Otherwise it should not be capable of insulting anyone.

My point is that in this environment it really isn't a criticism for a Feeler to be called Thinker. I have never seen it used as an insult and my opinion is that it is implicitly a compliment whereas calling a Thinker an Feeler in a debate tends more towards being a way to insult or flame. Having others say any push-back against negative comments about Feelers is by nature personalizing or self-pity is an example of projection something without examining some other possible sources of defensiveness. I can't prove it definitively, so will leave it only as my own subjective impression and is somewhat on a tangent.

Some Feelers even do themselves, making statements in a self-congratulatory tone about how "thinker-like" they are.

Lovely how people are assuming that those who disagreed with the OP were getting angry and flaming. Is it because they have NF in their type code? I doubt if those with NT under their username responded in the same way, that they would be accused of being defensive.

+1

His point is not difficult to understand: he wants to be provocative but not antagonistic. That is, he wants to provoke thoughtful discussion but not a flame war. Conflicting opinions=good. Conflicting egos=waste of energy

He said he wanted to get beyond the harmony seeking side and get to the more impassioned sides of NF. He got it. I don't see why people are getting upset about that. He even said he was learning from it.

 

[alexx]

NT's make no sense to me, so not all NF's think they do.

 

[Lasting_Pain]

NT's make no sense to me, so not all NF's think they do.

At least you admit it.

 

[CrystalViolet]

There's an implication made by many NT's that they are some how more intellingent than NF's.
And hands up any feelers who've accidently stirred up NT bee hives and lived to tell the tale.
I have to admit I haven't posted as much lately mainly because I resent the fact that it is implied that I'm emotionally unstable, not quite able to cope with life, less logical, less intellingent......I have dealt with this my whole life, I don't need to deal with it in my leisure time. These implications are bandied about, and then you expect us not to use the one slight gift that you don't posess.
I've never said that I understand NT's, but I understand emotions, they are my first language, but like any language, there is room for intrepretation. Sometimes aspects of communication do get lost.
Disclaimer:I'm not implying all NT's, or NF's

 

[Amargith]

+1

I'd also like to add, as it is my 'first language', I almost do not realize it when I do check up on someone's emotions. It's just part of the process, and it sometimes raises questions which I then ask. Maybe I shouldn't, as they're sometimes met with defensive comments and paranoid guesses as to my motivation that just make me roll my eyes. But the times that this does not happen, it's quite enriching, so I can't help myself.

 

[Salomé]

He said he wanted to get beyond the harmony seeking side and get to the more impassioned sides of NF. He got it. I don't see why people are getting upset about that. He even said he was learning from it.

Who is getting upset? You said you didn't understand. A couple of people took that comment at face value (an NT habit) and sought to provide clarification. If you say "I don't understand" when really you mean something else, how can there ever be any understanding?

Then a handful of NFs decided to hijack the thread to complain about their feelings of inferiority. Thats the only upset I'm seeing here.

EDIT: this reminds me of why communication and understanding can be such a challenge with Fs. They are so accustomed to couching their message in terms that will not give offence, or phrasing requests in the most roundabout way imaginable so as not to appear to be asking for anything directly ( because, Heaven forbid they should ever have a selfish impulse!) that often the message is lost on the typically blunt and straightforward NT type. Give me blunt, please!! Reading between the lines gives me a fucking sore head.

 

[Virtual ghost]

All of this sounds nice but this is not the real problem.


The real problem appears when you get emotionally needy or you get pissed off and your entire good logic throws out window.



I have already said in the other thread that I have started all of this as a conflict since I want to bypass your classical approach to people. Which is that you are nice and carring in general (which is fine). It is just that often you seem nice just for the sake of it.



I am interested in the side of you that you don't like and you try to aviod it or hide it.
I understand NFs on the outside since interparsonal emotions or their displays are logical in many cases.

I am after things like: moods , constant problems with depression and/or stress , fear that no one will like you which are more expressed in NFs then NTs , why NFPs have the tendency to be so thin skinned etc.

In a way I am after your emotional baggage. I have done a few threads about NFs before and many replays looked like shallow in a certain way. Since people were hidding bad emotions. (at least that is how that looked like me)

 

[Amargith]

We're thin-skinned since we're more in tune with emotions. We pick up on the smallest flicker, which means that if you throw a frigging truck-load of bad emotions at us we're going to suffer more from it than those who didn't notice the flicker in the first place

And this also explains the need to be liked. If you can constantly pick up on anyone feeling slightly annoyed with you (even if it's just coz of one sentence you said and after they don't give it another thought and therefore in general might even like you), it makes you acutely aware of this. Since it's not a pleasant sensation, you try to avoid it from happening again.

As for moods, sorry, but NTs are just as prone to those as we are, it's just expressed differently ime. Same goes for depression or stress.

 

[Salomé]

All of this sounds nice but this is not the real problem.
....
In a way I am after your emotional baggage

Err. Who has the problem here?

Since people were hidding bad emotions. (at least that is how that looked like me)

Why don't you tell us more about your mother?




What was I saying about NTs being straightforward?
Yeah, scratch that.

 

[Salomé]

And this also explains the need to be liked. If you can constantly pick up on anyone feeling slightly annoyed with you (even if it's just coz of one sentence you said and after they don't give it another thought and therefore in general might even like you), it makes you acutely aware of this. Since it's not a pleasant sensation, you try to avoid it from happening again.

False. I know certain people dislike me. I couldn't give a damn. Haven't you heard that you can't please all of the people all of the time?
Also, you seem to go out of your way to annoy some people.

As for moods, sorry, but NTs are just as prone to those as we are, it's just expressed differently ime. Same goes for depression or stress.

True.

 

[Amargith]

I've learned a long time ago that you indeed can't please everyone. Those that you cannot please no matter what you do, I don't bother with anymore. Wasted energy, really. I don't ever go out of my way to annoy people, but if who I am annoys them, and I know that nothing can change that, I stop caring and be mindful of their quirks and preferences.

I'm sure you can tell when someone dislikes you. But I doubt you pick up on every subtle emotion you cause in others and actually feel what they feel or are probably feeling . Otherwise I'm pretty sure you would care.

 

[Night]

We're thin-skinned since we're more in tune with emotions.

This is an interesting point, Amargith.

Does familiarity with emotion necessarily presume vulnerability to emotion?

Could it be conversely argued that comfort with emotional expression should instead permeate a sense of resilience, and not susceptibility?

 

[Amargith]

This is an interesting point, Amargith.

Does familiarity with emotion necessarily presume vulnerability to emotion?

Could it be conversely argued that comfort with emotional expression should instead permeate a sense of resilience, and not susceptibility?

Compare it to a dog who is way more sensitive to high-pitched noises than we are. If then you produce a high pitched and very loud noise..who's going to suffer most, do you think?

On the other hand, produce a very soft high pitched noise, and the dog will be the one to pick up on it. Not us.



And...I'd also argue that those who have learned to deal with this 'sensitivity' (aka are more mature), will be able to deal with it better at a higher intensity than those who have never had to deal with it and are suddenly exposed to it. Example: the intensity/rush of feelings of a crush or love.

 

[Night]

Compare it to a dog who is way more sensitive to high-pitched noises than we are. If then you produce a high pitched and very loud noise..who's going to suffer most, do you think?

On the other hand, produce a very soft high pitched noise, and the dog will be the one to pick up on it. Not us.

That's more-or-less the response I was driving for; it makes sense that saturation of trait expression is likely linked to individual diversity in experience.

That is to say, a F will have a higher probability of a nonlinear approach to emotion, whereas an T will have a greater chance of adopting a creative outlook towards reason.

This principle is certainly more anecdotal than rational; moreover, it shouldn't imply that diversity in experience will automatically translate to success in practice. It's kind of a truism, but I think it holds water.

Know what I mean?

 

[Virtual ghost]

This is an interesting point, Amargith.

Does familiarity with emotion necessarily presume vulnerability to emotion?

I think that this correct. Since you need emotion to accept and understand emotion. (if we overlook the most basic ones).

 

[Amargith]

..I think I do


Basically, being sensitive to emotions has the added danger of getting 'too close to the fire' and getting burned that way.
I doubt logic holds the same amount of danger for NTs

 

[Night]

I doubt logic holds the same amount of same danger for NTs

Actually, I think for some folks, the availability and sensitivity to conducting a 'logical approach' to life can be paralytic.

The desire (urgency) to behave reasonably can intellectually freeze behavior, both as an expression of contemplation and insecurity at the notion of failure (being 'illogical' in thought/practice).

Of course, this methodology suffers from the same extremism as the 'thin-skinned' ideology currently under review. Intensity of focus and efficiency in movement don't always march in cadence; more often than not, the greater visibility one has, at some point, must successfully integrate with mechanical effort for it to have real-world 'relevance' - both in external reinforcement for the user and real-time application for his theories.

Unless satisfaction is derived from the relationship between paralysis and wisdom. Fleshing this connection is probably more about what one seeks on an individual level.

I think that this correct. Since you need emotion to accept and understand emotion. (if we overlook the most basic ones).

Thanks -

What do you think of Amargith's counterpoint? Does emotion/logic exist on a continuum where one's 'ideal' frame of reference is centered on moderation in awareness?

That is to say, do people who know a 'good amount' have a greater chance at implementation than those who only have a slight -or- profound understanding of either/both trait? (Think of the Bell Curve and real world success)