It isn't "fake", it's a "mode."
It isn't "fake", it's a "mode."
i get it. i'm a portrait photographer and have a mode too. it's important when working with people and you need them to feel relaxed and happy...like i would assume you do as a dancer as well.
What about seeing modes as the different face we were when interacting with different people? We are different with our parents, bosses, mentors, children, employees, coworkers... why are these modes seen as anything contrived?
That other thread got crazy, so I wanted to send some love directly to the ENFPs, the charming, gushy and delightful creatures you are!
We've likely all experienced it on either side; not knowing how deep a relationship should be following what we perceived to be a deep connection/not realizing that the other person perceived something as more significant than we did. At the end of the day, we have a difference in both communication and values. The joys of being human and flawed
To take a previous OP and reword it into a different structure:
Situation:
There are types (or just people) who love connecting with people. These connections can be created through something deeply emotional (skipping smalltalk and jumping straight into something more personal) or devastatingly intellectual (gosh, ideas are sexy, aren't they?).
Questions:
1) With these high intensity - low commitment interactions, what is really happening?
2) Is there anything morally wrong with connecting with people on a deep personal/intellectual level and not following up with a relationship of some sort? Would this be better depicted by shades of grey rather than black and white, and if so, how would it be measured?
3) How is this being perceived by the stakeholders in this situation? (The person who is seeking and creating these interactions, the person being interacted with)
4) How can we build a shared vocabulary and social construct to deal with the confusion the consequences of these missed communications create? How can someone set up boundaries to make it clear to others what they are willing and unwilling to participate in?
5) Is there value in these sudden, seemingly more personally invested, interactions? Should we condition those around us to stop engaging in them for the sake of self-protectionism?
I personally strive very hard to not be at all different with all those different people. I even get into trouble because of it. To me it's being contrived. I personally feel weird if I have to talk differently with different people. It's about authenticity. Everyone has a different view of course. It works for me though, and people tend to like it after a while.
Uumlau, I myself refuse to "learn" it. But what do you mean by not learn anything? Not learning what exactly? To act in a certain way with people to get what we want?
Lady X said:i know what you mean but imo i'm not being inauthentic when i say complimentary things to people at work..if one pose is unflattering and i adjust them and then say that's it perfect...and get a beautiful expression or line...i don't think it's being fake to say so...but it's a mode because i don't usually go around complimenting peoples posture or expressions outside of that.
It's like learning a language, but the words are the same.
In the computer world, it is sometimes appropriate to use XML, sometimes to use CSV, sometimes to use javascript, sometimes to use java. All of these things do sort of the same thing, but they have different priorities.
Different social venues have different priorities. You don't change who you are: rather you change your mode of expression and understanding.
But yeah, it's kind of "rudimentary Fe" so it "feels fake" to us TJs.
I genuinely mean it, but I'm saying it in a "different language".Well if you are genuinely meaning it when you say it's perfect after the adjustment, that's not being fake at all. And it has nothing to do with complimenting peoples posture outside of that. You wouldn't do it outside of that, because it wouldn't be "perfect", because perfect only relates to the fact it is now possible to take a good shot. You are not taking shots while not at work.
Just to avoid confusion, I'm actually an ENFP.
And using the programming metaphor, I see flirting as using loopholes in C to get the same result you could get without needing to exploit loopholes in Java.
If you are genuinely interested in what the other person has to say, you don't need to change modes at all. You just say what's on your mind.
1) With these high intensity - low commitment interactions, what is really happening?
2) Is there anything morally wrong with connecting with people on a deep personal/intellectual level and not following up with a relationship of some sort?
2) Is there anything morally wrong with connecting with people on a deep personal/intellectual level and not following up with a relationship of some sort? Would this be better depicted by shades of grey rather than black and white, and if so, how would it be measured?
I genuinely mean it, but I'm saying it in a "different language".
Yeah, I'm not talking about coding hacks. I'm talking about sending XML to the people who want you to send XML, and CSV to the people who want you to send CSV. The info is the same, only the containers and methods of storage/retrieval are different.
sexy geek talk you two haha
see...is that flirty or jokey?
It's flirty because it's a joke that has sexual connotations.
To take a previous OP and reword it into a different structure:
Situation:
There are types (or just people) who love connecting with people. These connections can be created through something deeply emotional (skipping smalltalk and jumping straight into something more personal) or devastatingly intellectual (gosh, ideas are sexy, aren't they?).
Questions:
1) With these high intensity - low commitment interactions, what is really happening?
2) Is there anything morally wrong with connecting with people on a deep personal/intellectual level and not following up with a relationship of some sort? Would this be better depicted by shades of grey rather than black and white, and if so, how would it be measured?
3) How is this being perceived by the stakeholders in this situation? (The person who is seeking and creating these interactions, the person being interacted with).
4) How can we build a shared vocabulary and social construct to deal with the confusion the consequences of these missed communications create? How can someone set up boundaries to make it clear to others what they are willing and unwilling to participate in?
5) Is there value in these sudden, seemingly more personally invested, interactions? Should we condition those around us to stop engaging in them for the sake of self-protectionism?