We can get beyond definitions once you get them straight. ENTPs don't usually like being mired in definitional red tape; as I told you earlier, if we're doing that with you it's because we don't think you have the definitions down enough to explore New patterns with you.
mkay. I am always open to a better way/better definition. Never said I wasn't.
Epitome of enlightenment? No, I've stated repeatedly that we can throw out Jung and discuss cognition from a non-Jungian perspective if you want to. I certainly don't think this is the only way to consider the human mind.
I'm studying Jung. More than some, less than others.
But I do think that if you're going to use the Jungian model, you should learn its definitions, or most of what you're saying won't make very much sense.
I don't think I'm that far off. You make it sound like I'm some ape human that has not idea what functions even are.
It makes none of these assumptions at all. It's just an example to illustrate that important distinctions can look like pointless nitpicking when you don't understand their importance.
You talk a lot about how you're trying to get deeper, but I don't really see it. What's deeper about your approach? The fact that you're renaming clearly defined concepts as you see fit?
I'd say the very same thing about you. I try to use intuition, observation, feeling, and thinking to figure things out; especially as it regards current function theory, and I post quite a bit about it, predominantly about it, in fact.
Some of my approach isn't necessarily deeper, some is. I believe I use more of a Te approach, that of reorganizing and redefining what exists, identifying where there are gaps (that can then be filled), and along the way, use lingo everyone can understand.
My protectiveness of ideas is stereotypically Ti.
This flatly contradicts the FiTe perspective, which would be inclined to be more protective of personal feelings but pay more attention to external influence regarding impersonal ideas.
You probably have trouble communicating with INFPs largely because of the disconnect between their FiTe perspective and your FeTi one.
I've already told you I'm leaning away from the tert aligned similarly to the dom, so you saying FiTe holds little to no validitiy for me at this time. I disagree. You use Fi, not Fe.
No, the INFP disconnect results from the feeling aspect of our personalities, for the most part, and always has. I think it's highly cavalier of you to think you know best what an F aux has an issue with regarding an Fi dom. Just another illustration that you think you know
everything better than anyone else.
Please explain how INTJs are motivated by Fe.
They are motivated by Fe because Fe is usually their tertiary function.
Te wants to find the most objectively effective method of achieving its goals. If that means pretending to be nice to certain people at times, INTJs are often willing to do that. They typically make a point of not revealing their true feelings because they've decided they're happy dealing with the world in a Te way most of the time, and revealing Fi can make them feel vulnerable.
But once you enter into the world of people, and relating with people, you are using Fe, not Te. There is no reason to assume that there is an underlying manipulative motivation there. Manipulation would ensue only if a person is unbalanced. You are implying all INTJs would inherently be imbalanced.
This gets at the heart of what you are missing about functions. It's not Fe use unless the INTJ really genuinely believes in the value of the Fe perspective for its own sake, and not just to fulfill some Te goal.
I disagree with this. I have seen Jung speak to this occasionally, but I don't believe a person needs to believe consciously in the value of a function to use the function. Especially if that function is in the tert position. In fact, I'm pretty sure Jung says that all processes except the dominant are largely unconscious processes,
and that a person might not know he is using them, but that others can see them in use.
Talk to some INTJs and ask them about adjusting their feelings to mirror those of their cultural/social groups. You'll find that they rarely do this, but that they keep their true feelings hidden quite often because they see strategic advantage (Te) in not making them known.
No, they don't need to adjust. You might.
But if they inherently use Fe over Fi, they will naturally be able to get along with people without necessarily adjusting their beliefs at all.
This is a good segway for relating that the stereotypical definitions of Fe are not very good. Fe is not just about societal expectations within social groups or culture. That is an outdated perception, and it might have worked 100 years ago when Jung wrote Psychological Types, but the world has changed a lot since then. We have discussed this before, I think, a while back. They might indeed keep their true feelings hidden. Who doesn't!! Fe doesn't have much to do with true feelings, necessarily.
This is just another example of how little you grasp Fe, but I'm not blaming you necessarily, because F is your tert function.
Occam's razor is a generalized approach to getting a guess at how to deal with problems we know nothing about. It doesn't really apply when we're working with a concept we actually have detailed information about. If a physicist is telling me that matter is really made up of particles called atoms that are too small to see, I'm not going to "Occam's razor" him by saying the more simple explanation is that these tiny invisible particles don't exist because we can't see them.
Obviously, with all the discussion and arguing and debating done around here and elsewhere as it regards typology, we don't know crap; there is forthcoming debate and possible change looming on the horizon for the tert function's orientation, and to say INTJs use Te in a manipulative way to appear as Fe, I'd classify it myself as a "problem we know nothing about."
How about this: If it looks like a horse, smells like a horse, and shits like a horse, it's probably a ......horse.
Only with people that:
A) They care about emotionally (Fi), or
B) They have a particular strategic reason to maintain peace with (Te).
If neither of those conditions applies, they can and will be coldly dismissive.
Yes, they can be horribly cold and harsh. They just usually don't need to be nor care to be, especially with those they don't know. So, you are wrong there. If they feel 'safe' with someone, they're probably going to be harsher with them, imo.
But either way, the way to distinguish Fi vs. Fe is not what they're doing, but why they're doing it. If an INTJ friend/family member is being nice and polite to you, it's probably because Fi is telling him that's the right thing to do, from a purely personal/subjective moral standpoint, uninfluenced by any external standards of morality.
It would only be Fe use if he's being nice to you because external social/cultural standards demand it, and he sees inherent value in aligning with that, regardless of what his subjective personal feelings say about it. Fe-ers will tend to suppress their own internal feelings about something if they can see that it's in the best interest of their cultural/social group as a whole. Fi-ers, if prompted to do something they personally feel is wrong, will very rarely go along with it, regardless of what anyone else thinks.
Your conceptual understanding of F is convoluted and messed up. As I said before, it can be Fe (or any other function) whether you give it conscious thought or not. The bolded is basically bullshit, and a spewing of bad definition. There are much better and more valid definitions of Fe than that. I think your little definition of Fe up there ^ more aptly represents Fi ideas; you'd have to make yourself appear Fe, even though you are feeling Fi feelings. Think about it.
The basic difference: Fe needs to know what other people important to the user think before making moral evaluations, and Fi doesn't. (In fact, Fi usually finds the idea of changing your moral view to fit that of others grossly inappropriate and offensive to its integrity.)
Yeah, okay. Or Fe terts use Fe to appeal to the masses to spread their ideas and insights.
Can you really imagine an INTJ asking the bolded question? It goes directly against that rugged sense of individualism that Z was talking about. Fi-ers tend to regard Fe as a fake, superficial way to give up control of your own feelings that lacks depth and integrity.
Once again, look at why, not what. I've seen ESFPs lie to women about agreeing with their moral perspectives to try to get them into bed, but that doesn't mean they were motivated by Fe. Se+Te had ulterior motives and blocked out the Fi voice saying "This is fundamentally wrong!"
That's just not even applicable. That's a manipulative behavior and a twisted, lying one at that.
There is significant debate among Jungian scholars as to whether he actually intended to say that the tertiary is in the opposite direction of the dominant. Most of his work is directed at describing the functions themselves, and he didn't spend much time on talking about their order in real people. He was focused on describing each function in a dominant role by exaggerating its traits to show all the logical conclusions of that function having total control.
Myers actually agreed with you, but many Jung students don't, as Jung was vague on this issue and doesn't seem to have definitely stated what he thought about it one way or the other. There is no definitively accepted interpretation about this.
Maybe when they finally release his Red Book, that'll shed some light on this.
Oh, I thought it was out. Jung also thought he was an INTP, but some think he was an INTJ. Just because we see ourselves one way, does not mean we are that way. Even if Jung did see it that way, what does it really matter? It is up to us to take his work and theory further than he did. He understood that would, and should, happen.
Furthemore, so Jung was more hung up on definitions and a philosophical approach to personality. That is even more reason why the field is wide open for function theory interpretations and hypotheses. His work has gaps, we know more now, there are more of us. Why not continue forth?