If INTJs were secretive and held things back, do you think they would tell you?
No. They're secretive because they recognize the strategic value in withholding information. If they talk too much they give away how much they know or don't know; if they say nothing and simply let others assume from their silence that they know everything, they never have to reveal exactly how much they do or don't know, which leaves them with the upper hand. That way they know more about how much you know than you know about how much they know (phew!)
They've just very cognizant of not giving away more information than strategically necessary. They like to be one step ahead of everyone.
Amusingly, when you actually correctly call out their motivations, they do everything they can to discredit your claims because they're threatened by the idea of a loud-mouthed extrovert blabbing their secret plans to everybody.
This, I think, is one of the biggest reasons INTJs dislike sharing their deepest feelings and ideas with extroverts, especially EPs. They don't want the whole world to hear about it!
As far as I can tell, giving away way too much information when it's not strategically useful seems to be one of the biggest INTJ criticisms of ENTPs...am I right, Z?
Sim's definition is mostly fine. I don't find much wrong in it. There, however, may be a number of missed points that may be added to it.
I'd enjoy hearing more elaboration on this from Ni doms. Please feel free to share your thoughts.
I'm chillin' so don't you worry bout me.
Hmm, my mother is all Fe with a marginal amount of Si.
Her mind is never still, she is constantly worried or thinking about something she needs to do, someone she needs to take care of, something she needs to take care of.
:sad:
My mother's genetic makeup and the way she was raised, well, she has no self, no identity, she can't be alone. She's never been alone, she can't even be "alone" with someone in the house, she needs to have company all the time, it's so sad. :sad:
But, if depth entails or encompasses having a focus, my uber-extroverted mom certainly has one, and it's called her family, I cannot tell you how many times she has told me that her daughters are her life, that that is all she cares about, us, and our well-being, and she ain't lyin', nope.
Both breadth and depth have foci; one is just more localized/specific (I), while the other is more generalized/global (E.)
On the contrary, I don't think you know, a.) my deeply ingrained predilection for introverts, both male and female, I'm patient as fuck when it comes to someone I care about, even in the moment, (no, the irony does not escape me), and I have always had a knack to open even the most introverted people up, hell, some took me years, but they opened up, others, well, yes, they were introverted, but no, they at least for me, had absolutely nothing to bring to the table, and listen, I did not and would not come at them with this notion, I would be like, hmm, that person seems cool, wait it out, get in a convo, and, wow, major disappointment.
There is no such thing as someone with absolutely nothing to bring to the table. You may have been majorly disappointed by the conversation with that person but the fact that you didn't enjoy their contributions doesn't mean they didn't have any.
The quiet, mysterious, shy, introverted guy is sometimes only that.
Sim are you trying to imply that all introverts have depth?
No, you are still misreading context here. The idea is that introverts
prefer to focus on depth over breadth, not that they are all inherently deep people. Some of them prefer to focus on depth but still don't do a very good job of attaining it.
As Jaguar always says, preference =/= skill.
Listen, I've got a pretty good intuition regarding introverts, as in, I seek the attention of those who usually end up being smart and lovely, but I have erred in the past, or not even erred, there have been many times in uni when an introvert felt comfortable enough to open up to me of their own volition and I was, well, unimpressed.
You need to also realize that I am truly an Idealist, and that I want to see the good in people, but some people are not worth, what I've come to relatively recently realize, waste your precious time.
That's true, but the criteria you use to evaluate those people are still ultimately relative. A person who seems a waste of time to you might not seem that way to someone else.
You need to have at least one of the following qualities in order for me to willingly choose to expend energy on you.
1.) Be genuinely kind and sweet
2.) Be funny
3.) Be highly intelligent
If you don't meet any of the above criteria, sorry, but I got better things to do, like hang out on the interwebs with the likes of you people.
Okay? I don't understand the relevance.
Regardless, Sim, I know you don't know me personally, but I have always preferred the company of introverts, and I can't ever recall one not opening up to me, irl, and I am telling the fucking truth.
We see a young guy or girl wearing glasses and we automatically assume that he or she is a nerd/bookworm/smart. :rolli:
I think the same thing happens with introverts, oh, he's quiet, he must be pensive and deep, not always the case m'dear.
I don't think you're lying; I think you're just being presumptuous about certain introverts having no worthwhile contributions to anything, simply because you personally didn't find their contributions interesting.
I don't think all introverts are deep people; I do, however, think all introverts prefer to focus on depth over breadth. Whether or not they're actually
good at it is another thing entirely.
Only in THEORY do I understand and accept what you are saying, but for the most part, IRL, especially with Ns, our dom and aux functions are so integrally entwined that I just don't see how an extroverted NP, (ENJs don't hate me.
) could possibly be lacking in depth.
This happens to Ne doms (and any extrovert) when their introverted functions suck. Likewise, any introvert with poor command of his extroverted functions will be lacking in breadth.
But, I am not a dumbtard, you are saying Ne left to its own devices would consume a vast breadth of knowledge/information. That is very true.
Yes, and without the aid of an accompanying introverted perspective, it would be all breadth and no depth. Since you (apparently) have very strong Fi, you probably have a good balance between breadth and depth (though as an extrovert you are inherently more attuned to breadth, even if only slightly.)
Hahahaha, I wrote my previous point without reading this, and what I was going to add was this, all of my bookmarks, well, some are just odd, (I likey theoretical mathematics), have a flavor, a focus, an umbrella you can put them under, I just started bookmarking on this computer but I would say that 20 % are wiki articles about cool theoretical mathematics/abstract geometry and that the rest are about human beings,
I can't post an image of all of them so I will hyperlink a few on the list.
Complex number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cetacean intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Riemann sphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_(psychology)
SENG: Articles & Resources - Counseling Gifted Adults - A Case Study
Psychological mindedness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ When I came across this article I was astounded that such a thing was labeled/categorized, let's just say my therapists in the past have often told me how great a therapist I would be.
Man I think I get why Z is always complaining about Ne doms wandering off topic.
Oy vey, what is it with Ti and analysis, i.e. dissection, I'm all about synthesis, I tend to see things in large nebulous chunks, and regarding typology, and granted this is my Fi talking, why wouldn't we be discussing things regarding complete people, I think we analyze aspects of behavior and pieces of ourselves with the intent to understand the whole, amiwrong?
Sweetheart, do you realize you are projecting your own experiences with introverts onto me.
Do you?
No, but the assumption on your part that any given introvert has no depth and nothing to contribute is implausible if that introvert hasn't really opened up and shared him or herself with you. You don't know what's going on in there unless the person has made an effort to show you.
Are there introverts with very little depth? Sure, but they still have a preference for focusing on depth, even if they suck at it.
IRL I have had nothing but success with introverts, my best friend in high school, an INTJ, A HARDCORE INTROVERT, though she would spend her free time with me, and listen to me, and chime in once in a while, it wasn't until senior year and we were on MDMA that she expressed how she felt about me.
Hahah I've had MDMA interventions with I_T_ friends and hearing them finally express emotions for the first time in their lives is really a lot of fun. (I have a close INTP friend who did exactly the same thing!)
Honestly, thinking back on that moment is gonna make me cry, she, to this day was the hardest introvert to "crack", I was constantly insecure that she thought I was some idiot, but she liked me, no, loved me and admired me, who knew, I didn't. :blushing:
I agree it's awesome when they finally open up. I take it as a big sign of respect and trust if an introvert is willing to be very open with you.
I agree with you on the Te, mayhaps, but with your description of Fe, this horse emphatically says NAY?!!?!?
The bolded part is where I REALLY disagree with you.
Fe dom users do whatever they can at the moment, i.e. modify their behavior, make some sacrifice for the sake of harmony, to make you happy for the moment, period. When an Fe user is in the company of people, s/he will do whatever it takes to bring harmony to the people. The end.
That's kind of half right; however, they don't really care about helping you or making you happy if they don't feel some sort of familial or cultural connection to you. Fe will do anything for you--as long as you're part of "the group." If you're not, sorry--Fe has no responsibility toward you.
Some Fe users (especially NFJs) consider the entirety of humanity to be part of "the group" and thus will pretty much do anything to help anybody, but this seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
Anyway though, I'm talking about the way Fe users derive morality, not their habits regarding helping others. They look for a moral standard that can apply to everybody equally and uniformly in any context--Fi takes issue with this, as it feels that generalizing moral standards circumvents individuality and freedom of expression, freedom to do what feels right to
you, no matter what "the group" thinks.
Fi wants the depth of personal individuality; Fe wants a one-size-fits-all moral standard because it has broader external applicability.
Your first statement is true, your second statement is partially true.
Many dom/aux Fe users ime have been religious, so you are right in that they will adopt a code that their community seems to adopt to too, but how is this showing breadth?
Also, um, pffft, once you get an Fe user alone, or in a small group, all religious bets are off, they will do what feels good/right right now instead of having to deal with temporary negative emotions, they want harmony first and foremost, period. (Once again how does this display breadth?)
This displays breadth because doing whatever promotes group harmony depends on everybody agreeing upon and behaving according to one collective moral standard. Fe reasons, "If your moral idea only applies to you and can't work for everybody collectively, then you need to set it aside in favor of something we can all agree to be bound by."
Fi doesn't like that because it squelches the personal freedom that goes into deciding what feels right to each person individually. Since Fe considers morality in terms of an externalized standard, though, giving up this individualized depth is fine because it allows to agree upon a universal standard by which everyone can be judged consistently.
Think of it in Te terms, since you are a Te user--when it comes to impersonal ideas, you want to establish a collective consensus based on externalized evidence; that way we can all get on the same page about what standards of measurement to use when we discuss impersonal ideas. Te doesn't really care if this removes the degree of theoretical precision that Ti prefers, because Te thinks impersonal ideas should be dealt with collectively and according to an objective standard, while personal feelings/morality should be dealt with privately by the individual (Fi.)
FeTi inverts that. It's doing exactly the same thing, just the other way around--in FeTi's view, morality/ethics is something we should all collectively agree on, while impersonal ideas and logic should be dealt with privately according to a subjective and individualized perspective. Fe shows breadth by giving up the depth and complexity allowed by Fi's personalized treatment of ethics in favor of coming up with a collective, one-size-fits-all moral standard by which everyone in the group can be consistently judged.
Unfortunately we have to make that moral standard fit everyone in the group for Fe to accomplish this, so the degree of personalized depth that Fi prefers is no longer possible. In Fe terms, morals need to fit
everyone, not just you personally.
It's just like how Te wants impersonal ideas and theories to be externally demonstrable in a way that can make sense to everyone, not just you--and this is why Te users constantly insist that Ti users provide more externally verifiable backing for their ideas. But asking us to do that is like us asking you to provide external evidence that your moral opinions are objectively correct, which completely defeats the purpose!
You say: "I feel that this is right for me." An Fe user says: "Oh yeah? Well you need to prove objectively that your moral viewpoint is shared by a majority of people!" But that's not the point for Fi! Fi and Ti are both inherently personalized, so they don't understand why Fe and Te constantly want them to use external means to prove their validity. For Ji, externalized proof is completely beside the point.
Errrrrr you had me till the last sentence.
Though you did use the qualifier "tend" I dunno, if by expertise on one subject qualifies as depth, then maybe, maybe I get what you are saying but no.
I am an extrovert, both by MBTI standards and real life standards, but my extroversion is like I dunno, just a facet of my personality, my extroversion IN NO WAY IS A DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC OF WHO I AM.
Like, I'd put it on the same level as...
This took me a while, I'm extroverted, I also am pretty easy going.
There.
My being extroverted and easy-going do reveal something about me but in no way do these two traits even scratch the surface of describing who I am.
I have probably, off the top of my head, four to seven main interests in life and my acquiring knowledge in these interests helps me gain a deeper understanding of what I care about, the human condition, Life.
Cool, it sounds like you have a pretty solid balance between Ne and Fi. The point, of course, is that you are inherently more attuned to Ne's breadth, even if you also have a relatively strong command of Fi's depth.
MAJOR EDIT:
^LULZ, I totally didn't see this part of your post, and, I agree wholeheartedly.
Yeah, again note that preference doesn't equal skill. Preferring introversion means that one prefers a narrower but deeper focus, while preferring extroversion means that one prefers a broader but shallower focus,
most of the time.
As an ENFP, when you look at something from an Ne perspective, you are favoring breadth over depth.
When you switch it up and look at it more from an Fi perspective, you are then favoring depth over breadth.
If you are a balanced individual (and it sounds like you are), then you'll be able to use aspects of both at the right times--sometimes breadth is more useful; sometimes depth is.
The fact that you an extrovert means the Ne breadth focus comes more naturally to you than the Fi depth focus, but it certainly doesn't mean you're incapable of focusing on depth!