I sometimes do a version of your (2) here. For instance, if I have a student who has needed guidance on appropriate dress for formal presentations, I might compliment his attire when he appears suitably dressed. I consider it important to see that happy face only if I care about the person, or it gives me confirmation that some strategy is succeeding.
Oh, I see. Yeah, I relate to that!
The first highlighted part referred to my case (3). I will do this if I feel the need, but find it draining for the reason stated. I thought you might consider my statement in case (3) insincere because I in fact did not like the person's scarf, thus it would be almost a lie. I actually find it very difficult to tell a real lie, meaning to say something I know to be untrue. For this reason, I will confine my pseudo-smalltalk to things I actually mean. If I dislike the person's scarf, I will compliment something else, or chat about the weather, last night's game, or some other banal but commonplace topic. For me, the insincerity lies not in the falsehood of my comments but in my making them at all.
Ah, so it's insincerity in the general sense, as opposed to the specific sense. I can see both sides of that, and I think I've felt frustration at both of those things at least once. But I've gotten used to the sort of insincerity you're talking about, since both of my parents (INTP and INFJ) use Fe a lot and have raised me in a sort of "You will make small talk and you will LIKE it" environment.
[MENTION=10496]skylights[/MENTION], since you're an ENFP and involved in this conversation -- how do ENFPs feel about small talk? Seems like people who use tert or inferior Fi (like me and Coriolis) dislike it for the most part.
Interesting that you use the analogy of a tessellation. This is an ordered geometric structure, that lends itself readily to interpretation as a repeated pattern, rather than each individual piece and its place in the strucure, much as a chemist might write the formula for a polymer.
The reason why I chose the metaphor is that pieces in a tessellation, if it were like a puzzle, are identically shaped and easy to switch around. I was imagining them in all different colors (and not as identical; I should have clarified). Say you've got a blue piece (representing a particular piece of Si data that fits into the general whole), and when you look at the tessellation, you get used to that particular piece in that particular section being blue. Then the piece breaks, or something falls on it and dents it, or it becomes flawed in some other way. Technically speaking, with Si, it is very easy to get rid of that piece of data and replace it with a new one; the problem is that it's a red piece, not a blue one, and even though the piece fits in perfectly, it takes a little while for my Ne to get used to the tessellation as a whole, without that blue piece being there. The picture is different now.
Your average INTJ is quite capable of the highlighted as well.
Maybe I've been imagining things, but to me, Ni curtness feels different from Si curtness. When the NJs I know are really mad and are curt, their curtness practically begs for elaboration; it always seems intentionally vague and like it's leading somewhere. Whereas Si curtness doesn't want it to lead anywhere, so it is very clear, and the tone is less leading and more "here are the exact facts of the matter without any elaboration, because I'm too tired to play games with you and I want you to understand me". Like this moment from The Santa Clause, featuring Bernard (ISTJ):
Bernard: The Santa Clause: In putting on the suit and entering the sleigh, the wearer waives any and all rights to any previous identity, real or implied, and fully accepts the duties and responsibilities of Santa Claus in perpetuity until such time that wearer becomes unable to do so by either accident or design.
Scott: What does that mean?
Bernard: Means you put on the suit, you're the Big Guy.
Scott: I didn't put on a suit to...
Bernard: [lividly] Try to understand this!
Elves: Ooh...
Bernard: [calmly] Let me explain something to you, okay? Toys have to be delivered. I'm not gonna do it. It's not my job. I'm just an elf. It's Santa's job, but Santa fell off the roof. Your roof. You read the card. You put on the suit. That clearly falls under the Santa Clause, so now you're Santa. Okay?
Si curtness: Point A. Point B, Therefore, Point C. Now shut the hell up.
I suppose which approach I take depends on the topic, my current mood, how much time I have, and the exact nature of the other person's behavior. I think as long as I am toying with someone, I am leaving them room to redeem themselves (or perhaps just more rope to hang themselves). I am more likely to resort to the cold, cutting assessment when they are beyond hope, as a parting salvo.
The bolded is so interesting! Maybe I've been projecting this whole time, when I thought INTJs acted like that while in the mindset of "They're beyond hope anyway, so I might as well have fun with them". But I guess it makes sense, then, because it is leaving their options open in the Ni style, leaving room for them to exercise their free will and either, as you said, redeem themselves, or give themselves more rope on their noose.
!
@ first sentence - me too! @ second - probably true. Still, I do find with the SFJs I know, that deception is generally unusual. My mom, an ESFJ 2w1, is a brilliant master of the art of tact, and can get almost anyone to do almost anything for her. But the way she does it is less by leaving out or changing information (that seems more like an NJ tactic) and more through connecting personally with the other - for example, with customer service, she is always very clear about I know this is not your fault, and I know that it's hard to be the messenger, but I have (this) issue... - and in that way she is still very up front, but she has a sixth sense in terms of knowing how to "navigate the channels" of Fe to achieve her goals. Whereas my ENFJ 3w4 best friend is also very persuasive, but she constantly is manipulating the information itself by using highly specific wording and by omitting certain things and including others. It used to really piss me off because I would always suspect I was never getting the full story! An ENFJ I know at work does this, as well.
I only know two ESFJs (and I don't know them very well), and I've never heard them speak poorly of anything-- neither of them ever complains, neither of them ever gets vocally upset (because they both silently fume, like I do, when they're angry), and they focus 99% of their social energy on other people when they're chatting with them. But of the three or four ENFJs I know, there is one who acts just like the ESFJs you describe, to the point that I mistook her for an ExTJ. (Of course, she's a 3w2, and the other ENFJs I know are 2w1 or 2w3, so that might make a difference in the drive and directness of their Fe.)
I do not know what extent NTJs do this to, however.
I have DEFINITELY seen it in NTJs.
ENTJs do it very skillfully, I think. Though many of the INTJs I know will come across as suspiciously vague or curt when they leave out information.
I definitely think I use it, but I think it more underlies my understanding of things and plays less of an active role in terms of my communication. What I said about it being easier for an N dom to seek further meaning than to focus on reality remains true for me, and it is more taxing for me to concentrate on facts than to look to possibilities. It's also important that you guys - both SJs and NJs, are driven by that Je to make external change, where I have less of that drive, so I more rarely feel the need to manipulate the external world to conform to my internal agenda. So not that it's moot, but I have so much less explicitly goal-direct behavior that
That makes sense. How would you say it affects your perception?