# NTs how do you cope with daily interaction with mainly SFs?



## wanderingfox (Aug 20, 2015)

I'm around waaay too many SFs right now! I work at the YMCA and my God, everyone's a Feeler. My first two boyfriends were ISFJs (opposites attract?) and so is my dad (ESFP). I know I'm in the wrong line of work for my personality type, and it's especially hard being female and having them all think I should wear my feelings on my sleeve. While everyone's crying over some emotional story, I'm sitting stone-faced thinking, "Well they're all good now aren't they?" I feel so mean, insensitive and unfeminine compared to SFs. 

It's hard to avoid them completely, especially if you're a girl and want to have friends. NT females aren't exactly a dime a dozen! My best friend is ISFP, but we live far apart and I'm not sure we'd get along seeing each other more than 1-2 times a year. I like how chill she is.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

wanderingfox said:


> I'm around waaay too many SFs right now! I work at the YMCA and my God, everyone's a Feeler. My first two boyfriends were ISFJs (opposites attract?) and so is my dad (ESFP). I know I'm in the wrong line of work for my personality type, and it's especially hard being female and having them all think I should wear my feelings on my sleeve. While everyone's crying over some emotional story, I'm sitting stone-faced thinking, "Well they're all good now aren't they?" I feel so mean, insensitive and unfeminine compared to SFs.
> 
> It's hard to avoid them completely, especially if you're a girl and want to have friends. NT females aren't exactly a dime a dozen! My best friend is ISFP, but we live far apart and I'm not sure we'd get along seeing each other more than 1-2 times a year. I like how chill she is.


I think the dichotomy between F and T by "emotional" and "unemotional" is not exactly accurate. It's not how Jung meant it to be, it's more MBTI pseudocrap, not that Jung's was in any way scientific but it holds more water. Being an insensitive asshole doesn't make you NT, it just makes you an insensitive asshole. It's how we take decissions - the F and T are judging functions. Yes, more xFs may cry at Titanic and very little Ts will, but there are times when you should show emotion. A nice coworker feeling sick should promt you to give her/him help. A more sensitive coworker crying at work about her child being sick should make you feel compassionate, maybe not cry exactly but conpassionate nonetheless. I'm not saying this to accuse you of anything cause idk the details but I'm just saying this because there are too many Fi doms/sec that think they're T because they're not criers and vice versa.


----------



## Jingting (Apr 1, 2016)

I try to get enough sleep, then I won't be yelling at my ESFP brother when he's annoying or making a mess. I'm more in control of my emotions. I hang out with two ISFP friends and I get along with them pretty well. It's a bit awkward when we have silence but we have similar hobbies, such as reading.


----------



## Elistra (Apr 6, 2013)

I don't mainly interact with SFs. What SFs I do interact with tend to be SFPs, rather than SFJs.


----------



## illuminuxi (Apr 8, 2016)

Depends on the SF. Generally, I try to learn what I can from them.


----------



## Yu Narukami (Jan 14, 2016)

Elistra said:


> I don't mainly interact with SFs. What SFs I do interact with tend to be SFPs, rather than SFJs.


I cannot for the life of me get along with SFJs. At least from a sample size of about 5, none of the stuff I talk about interests them and vice versa. 

SPs in general seem fine to me. I think it helps that I have a relatively developed Se and that can be a great point of interaction. "Going to the theme park will be cool!" or "let's go hiking next weekend" or something similar. It helps to actually DO something with them as opposed to simply talking to them. 

Overall, though, I do agree that conversation with Ni generally comes the easiest. Ne attention span exhausts me, Se spontaneity and excitation over smaller things gets repetitive after about half an hour, Si as mentioned above I just can't connect with.


----------



## TheVerb (Mar 4, 2015)

I get off my intellectual high horse and try to understand that the lens with which they view the world is much different from my own.


----------



## katanon (Apr 20, 2016)

wanderingfox said:


> I'm around waaay too many SFs right now! I work at the YMCA and my God, everyone's a Feeler. My first two boyfriends were ISFJs (opposites attract?) and so is my dad (ESFP). I know I'm in the wrong line of work for my personality type, and it's especially hard being female and having them all think I should wear my feelings on my sleeve. While everyone's crying over some emotional story, I'm sitting stone-faced thinking, "Well they're all good now aren't they?" I feel so mean, insensitive and unfeminine compared to SFs.
> 
> It's hard to avoid them completely, especially if you're a girl and want to have friends. NT females aren't exactly a dime a dozen! My best friend is ISFP, but we live far apart and I'm not sure we'd get along seeing each other more than 1-2 times a year. I like how chill she is.


Agree that it is difficult as a female, and even more difficult if you try to limit yourself to NT girl friends. What I have found is that I can form solid friendships with a lot of different types if they don't use Fe or have it low on their functional stack. Some of my best friends are ENFPs and ISTJs because they don't care too much about harmony or social norms and can brush my sometimes asshole-ness aside understanding that it is just how I am, and it means them no harm 

But yes, I can tried to contort myself to get an ESFJ to even tolerate me and have failed miserably every time. The best way with these types is to try NOT getting too close and smile from a distance I have found :frustrating:


----------



## katanon (Apr 20, 2016)

Agree! I can generally get along with SPs well enough and bond over silly/fun surface level stuff and activities. I can not, for the life of me, work with SJs who are so rigid and controlled for no reason other than to be rigid and controlled. In my limited and unfortunate experience, SJs can/do not see the bigger picture that I always see and impose unnecessary rules/regulations to feel more "in control" of the situation. I am always criticized for challenging these inefficient rules/regulations and giving warnings that certain "big picture" things aren't being considered and that they are being too shortsighted.......only for them to realize too late that the exact things I was warning them about are going to happen. And then, of course, I am criticized for not stepping in and explaining it/warning them sooner.

Every. Damn. Time.

And when I do really, really try to shed light on some strategy...I am told to "get back in the box" and that my "ideas" are good, but that we do not have time. Meanwhile the quality of work suffers and we are inefficient.

Ok end rant about SJs...but they are the fucking WORST to work with for a big picture, strategic NT such as myself


----------



## IAmBored (Nov 20, 2015)

Poker-face, nod every now and then and pretend to listen all the while I organize the rest of my day, think of homework and "why is there a scratch that high on the wall, noone here is nearly tall enough to make that scratch... Maybe someone threw something at that wall because of the sheer frustration of having to listen to these people".
Also, they are able to stand my angry/passionate and very detailed rants about how the education system should be reformulated from scratch. They don't make me shut up...although they nod every now and then and end up thinking I'm crazy. *sigh*


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

I try to see things from their perspective, and withhold judgment for as long as possible. It kills me, don't get me wrong, but it gets them out of my office faster. Which is normally the point. 

I hate people....


----------



## theamazingkierster (Apr 4, 2016)

I have a lot of friends and family members who are SFs and-don't freak out-I get along with them pretty well. I think mbti gets this weird thought that SFs are the majority and therefore are horrible creatures. Sure, I clash with those people at times, but I let it go. Pride goes before the fall, as they say...


----------



## ientipi (Oct 17, 2013)

I am happy, let my Ne come out and show itself, and I'm really nice in general which really allows me to get away with being extremely blunt without being perceived as rude. 
Also one of the biggest things is that as a girl NT, i already have a very strong personality, so to avoid being perceived as a 'threat' to other girls i have to just be really sweet and innocent seeming. 
sometimes its hard work, sometimes its just convenient but also i think..not quite positive, just going off what people have been really telling me recently...that I'm a naturally really sweet person. so it is just good in general. 

oh and the reason its good not to be perceived as a threat in everyday life to the girls around you is because one needs to accumulate as many symbiotic relationships as possible to ensure as much success as possible in whatever it may be that you're interested in. having groups of SF girls vying for your humiliation or failure just doesn't benefit you in any way


----------



## HerpDerpette (May 1, 2016)

I have ESFJ mum and ISFP dad...I can only take them in short bursts, normally if I'm in the same area for more than 1hr we'd start arguing -.- I used to have SF friends from uni but most times during clubbing, they talked about celebrities, tv shows, how hot football players are, drinks...just topics that seem so irrelevant to talk about for hours. I've learnt to listen, nod/smile, don't provoke them, consider their feelings and ask relevant questions. In the end I stopped meeting up with them since there's no use of continued relations...oh well, good thing I have great NTs around me.


----------



## Alphar (Jun 1, 2015)

Just smile and wave


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

I know I'm late to this thread, and a lot of times I don't post in the NT forum because of some potentially iffy interactions that can pop up. But after reading some of the interesting posts, I do feel like adding in some of my own input as an ISFJ, especially because for the most part I've gotten along well with the NTs in my life.


First off, as these next three posts mention, I think some of this stuff about SFs is just irritating behavior in general. A lot of stuff people are posting about SFs gets on my nerves too. I also find it boring to constantly talk about small talk. 

I know S types are more prone to this kind of thing, but it's not like it's an SF trait. A lot of it is a matter of just finding people to talk to who have common interests, no matter what their type is. That doesn't mean you'll always get along and always have something interesting to talk about, but that doesn't mean you can't have good conversations. My best friend is an INTP and I have another close INFP friend. We have plenty to talk and connect about.






aphinion said:


> A large majority of my family is made up of SFs, so I have quite a bit of experience in this area.
> 
> There's _a lot_ of small talk. Seriously, everyone wants to talk about their day, which is fine. Really, I get that it's normal. But truthfully, I don't really care about all of the teeny tiny details that they want to talk about every day. And there's really only so many times that I can hear someone talk about their incessant work drama over and over before I want to blow my brains out. But since I generally love my friends and family, I put up with it because I understand that it's how they bond socially. They show that they care by talking and listening, and in turn I have to talk and listen in order for them to actually believe that I care about them too.
> 
> ...



I could go into a whole lot of detail about these kinds of emotional interactions and explain more about them, but I won't since it's off topic. However, I think your main point is...you can establish good relationships with people of different types, like you're describing here. And if both sides care about each other, they can find ways to compromise to make it work. It's much harder when only one side is doing this, though. 

But what you're posting here is proof that different types can offer each other a lot. Every person is different....I'm not going to say every NT is going to be able to have great relationships with SFs. I learned long ago not to try to push that on people. If some NT feels like their life is going to be best if they only deal with NTs, NFs and STs, I'll trust them on it.

But I can say that this isn't true for EVERY NT. For some NTs, at least, finding ways to make these relationships work can be very beneficial. Just like for me as an SF, my relationships with NTs have been very beneficial.




Delicious Speculation said:


> I work in a public school settings. SFs dominate. I've developed outside-of-work friendships with an ESFP and an ESFJ. The ESFP is quick to find creative solutions to problems in the classroom, and her students are better for it. She and I work together frequently on projects and find that our personalities complement one another nicely. The ESFJ is a genuinely kind person and I can trust her to make any accommodations needed. She's also excellent at adjusting her communication style on the fly, which is something I struggle with at times.
> 
> I make it work by acknowledging that I'm not a touchy-feely person, and that being emotionally detached and reserved =! being an asshole and hating everyone. I have to work as part of a team with teachers, so it behooves me to learn how to get along with people. I don't have the luxury of stepping out of everything and congratulating myself on how much smarter I am (and I am, in some ways, but the two teachers I mentioned above are smarter than me in other ways). I get the sense that being an adult working with other adults makes a big difference, judging by other answers in this thread.
> 
> The teambuilding exercises, though? All of us hate them. SF or NT, doesn't matter. We'd rather make fun of said teambuilding exercises. The ones we make up are way more fun. There's an ESTP who can always be counted on to say something inappropriate when things get too safe during staff meetings.


I'm in education too. And this goes back to my earlier point...I agree with you completely. I think these team-building exercises are absolutely ridiculous. I think sometimes people see stuff like this and just label it as an "SF" thing. Sure, maybe the people who come up with them are SFs, and maybe some SFs like them...but that doesn't make them SF things. 




Yu Narukami said:


> I cannot for the life of me get along with SFJs. At least from a sample size of about 5, none of the stuff I talk about interests them and vice versa.
> 
> SPs in general seem fine to me. I think it helps that I have a relatively developed Se and that can be a great point of interaction. "Going to the theme park will be cool!" or "let's go hiking next weekend" or something similar. It helps to actually DO something with them as opposed to simply talking to them.
> 
> Overall, though, I do agree that conversation with Ni generally comes the easiest. Ne attention span exhausts me, Se spontaneity and excitation over smaller things gets repetitive after about half an hour, Si as mentioned above I just can't connect with.



Again, I think this is kind of a case by case thing. I would be like the Se users you're talking about here. I enjoy doing things with people more than just talking sometimes. I can see how in general this would be stronger in Se users, but Si users value these kinds of things a whole lot too. I have an ESTJ friend who always has to constantly be doing something. 








katanon said:


> Agree! I can generally get along with SPs well enough and bond over silly/fun surface level stuff and activities. I can not, for the life of me, work with SJs who are so rigid and controlled for no reason other than to be rigid and controlled. In my limited and unfortunate experience, SJs can/do not see the bigger picture that I always see and impose unnecessary rules/regulations to feel more "in control" of the situation. I am always criticized for challenging these inefficient rules/regulations and giving warnings that certain "big picture" things aren't being considered and that they are being too shortsighted.......only for them to realize too late that the exact things I was warning them about are going to happen. And then, of course, I am criticized for not stepping in and explaining it/warning them sooner.
> 
> Every. Damn. Time.
> 
> ...




While I do see how SJ qualities are driving this situation, there are some other pieces that explain it.


It is definitely true that SJs prefer consistency and structure. It is also true that they have trouble seeing the big picture and can sometimes be closed-minded to ideas.


But if an SJ is continuously following a stupid rule, and it's consistency getting bad results, and they refuse to change it no matter what....there's something else wrong with the situation.


It may be that the SJ doesn't care. If they view it as simply a job, and they don't care about the company improving, and they're happy with it the way that it is...then it's just a matter of value and priorities. Sometimes that's all that SJs will care about...creating a comfortable life and maintaining it. Some other types find this kind of thing boring, which is understandable...but if the SJ is happy with it, they won't see any reason to change it.


Now, if the SJ isn't happy with it...if they continue to do the same thing over and over again, don't listen to new input, and then go back and complain about it and wonder why it's not changing....then they're just stupid. It's that simple. That's just stupid. If you make mistakes, don't learn from them, don't try to improve, and aren't happy with it...then that's your fault. While being an SJ leads to this, and makes it harder to dig out of it....there's no excuse for stupidity. Type and temperament doesn't excuse that. 


Which goes back to my point earlier. Type is related to all of this behavior, but it's not the only factor.



In your situation, if they really are just being stupid about it...it probably won't change. At least, not until things get bad enough to where it's forced to change. So I would say your frustration is probably going to continue. Unless you can earn a position of authority to make people listen to your ideas, then I don't see it changing. So you'd either have to figure out a way to get that, find a new work situation, or just accept the fact that you're going to be frustrated. 


There are dumb rules and things and people at my job too. I get frustrated by them. But I know that when it's something I can't change, I either have to accept it, or find a new situation.


----------



## Delicious Speculation (May 17, 2015)

teddy564339 said:


> Which goes back to my point earlier. Type is related to all of this behavior, but it's not the only factor.
> 
> In your situation, if they really are just being stupid about it...it probably won't change. At least, not until things get bad enough to where it's forced to change. So I would say your frustration is probably going to continue. Unless you can earn a position of authority to make people listen to your ideas, then I don't see it changing. So you'd either have to figure out a way to get that, find a new work situation, or just accept the fact that you're going to be frustrated.
> 
> ...


And you just succinctly described my biggest frustrations with the public education system. On the one hand, new age "reforms" are so out of touch with reality that they don't work, and on the other hand, there really IS a lot of stupidity and unwillingness to change, especially when you get up to district level administration. And that's not type-specific. There are plenty of NTs with shitty ideas who are unwilling to bend.

You can also find lots of SJ educators who are wildly creative with fantastic ideas and *gasp* visions. Type =! behavior.


----------



## Marshy (Apr 10, 2016)

Whats an SF?


----------



## Winterleaf (Jun 13, 2016)

talk to them like you are talking to a child, don't ever try to persuade them.


----------



## peter pettishrooms (Apr 20, 2015)

I have a high tolerance for them considering that my family is comprised of SF types. I know that I can easily find conversations with them boring, so what's the best way to spend time together that can compromise both of our different needs? Actually doing things together whether it be spending time outdoors, travelling and sightseeing, or cooking.


----------



## Aladdin Sane (May 10, 2016)

I have much more of a problem dealing with ES types.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

peter pettishrooms said:


> I have a high tolerance for them considering that my family is comprised of SF types. I know that I can easily find conversations with them boring, so what's the best way to spend time together that can compromise both of our different needs? Actually doing things together whether it be spending time outdoors, travelling and sightseeing, or cooking.


Healthy SFs can be wonderful for sure. I'll take a fun, smart ESFP over a boring, one-sided NT anytime.

However, for some reason, a lot of SFs seems to be unbalanced. But that may be me noticing that more in SFs than other types since they're more common.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

ziggy stardust x said:


> I have much more of a problem dealing with ES types.


ESTPs are actually great. I've never met an ESTP I didn't like at all.


----------



## Aladdin Sane (May 10, 2016)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> ESTPs are actually great. I've never met an ESTP I didn't like at all.


I can't think of any ESTP's in my life aside from my brother (he is the gambling type of ESTP) and we don't really see eye to eye. We don't have anything in common. I'm trying to think of an ESTP female but can't think of any at all.


----------



## Scarlet.Black (Jan 6, 2016)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> Healthy SFs can be wonderful for sure. I'll take a fun, smart ESFP over a boring, one-sided NT anytime.
> 
> However, for some reason, a lot of SFs seems to be unbalanced. But that may be me noticing that more in SFs than other types since they're more common.


I think that SF can be quite unbalanced before they develop some N. Without Ni SFPs don't always see the consequenses of their actions before they burn themselves or someone else. And SFJs way of thinking can be very hidebound before they develop their Ne.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Scarlet.Black said:


> I think that SF can be quite unbalanced before they develop some N. Without Ni SFPs don't always see the consequenses of their actions before they burn themselves or someone else. And SFJs way of thinking can be very hidebound before they develop their Ne.


You can say that about any type really according to whatever functions aren't even in their functional stack. 

But you'd be wrong since all the types need develop their 4 main functions mostly to be a healthy example of their type.

Of course, it's not a science so you can have your opinion and I can have mine.


----------



## Wolf (Mar 20, 2016)

Like I do with everyone else. Taking everything one step at a time. 

I've accepted that not everyone functions / thinks / thrives in the same way that I do, I have to keep that in mind while dealing with other people (especially S-users) or I will inevitably come off in a very condescending, hurtful, and insensitive way. 

I have found that, with "S" and furthermore with people in general, if you are ever unsure about something they have said, take it at "face-value", and nothing more. There's usually no point in analyzing and "N'ing" the sh*t out of it, as much as I find myself doing it.


----------



## Parrot (Feb 22, 2015)

I got my haircut today by the same lady I've gotten it from for years. She's an ESFP and just goes on and on about nothing. She does a great job, but don't care about anything she talks about.


----------



## fieryelf (Mar 28, 2016)

Drunk Parrot said:


> I got my haircut today by the same lady I've gotten it from for years. She's an ESFP and just goes on and on about nothing. She does a great job, but don't care about anything she talks about.


Well I guess we have the same hair dresser haha


----------



## Parrot (Feb 22, 2015)

fieryelf said:


> Well I guess we have the same hair dresser haha


It's a generalization, but I find SFPs the most likely to do hair. Makes sense as Se is great for that kind of thing. She always does a wonderful job.


----------



## Scarlet.Black (Jan 6, 2016)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> You can say that about any type really according to whatever functions aren't even in their functional stack.
> 
> But you'd be wrong since all the types need develop their 4 main functions mostly to be a healthy example of their type.


We were talking about SFs and in theory their N functions develope later than their first and second functions. So yes it means that when they have developed (almost) all of their functions they would me more balanced. That's what I was saying so I am not sure why you are disagreeing. 

Why do you think that they are unbalanced? And how?


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Scarlet.Black said:


> We were talking about SFs and in theory their N functions develope later than their first and second functions. So yes it means that when they have developed (almost) all of their functions they would me more balanced. That's what I was saying so I am not sure why you are disagreeing.
> 
> Why do you think that they are unbalanced? And how?


Sorry for late reply.

"I think that SF can be quite unbalanced before they develop some N. Without Ni SFPs don't always see the consequenses of their actions before they burn themselves or someone else. And SFJs way of thinking can be very hidebound before they develop their Ne."

You were saying they are unbalanced until they develop their N. I never said they were unbalanced?!

But my reply to you was that you can say that about any type. You can say ENTPs are unbalanced until they develop their Si. Etc

According to this theory, we are all unbalanced until later in life (when we apparently develop our inferior function unless we had a traumatic event of some sort that allowed it to develop earlier than normal). Yet, I was asking why I - as a NT, and many of my NT friends, find it harder to "survive" SFs then say, NFs or STs. So I don't understand how your theory holds water in that case.


----------



## Nefarious (Aug 4, 2016)

My sister is an ESFP and I mainly keep things on a more shallow level and stay out of arguments. She tells me to talk to her about anything, but more often than not takes it very harshly and gets pissed off. I'm the calmer one of us and retract. I've learned what to say and not to say to her. She can't handle differing opinions and can take it personally. She's a hothead in short. So we only have fun. We never delve too deeply in to things and that's what works for us.


----------



## Felix5 (Apr 27, 2015)

Not all SFs are the same. My entire family are SFs and STs. I have one intuitive INFJ cousin who I always related to, but we aren't the closest. The closest person to me would probably be my ISFJ mother, but I definitely have a special relationship with all of them. That being said, I never had any problems getting a long with my family, I don't understand why people act like the two are from different planets. Being around each other might actually be good for us and teach us how to see things outside of our own perspective. Things that are important to my mother, aren't important to me, but that doesn't mean that they aren't important. 

I was raised by an ISFJ mother and she always doted on me and treated me like I was someone special. I feel as if she taught me more things than she hindered or repressed. She was very loving and nurturing and I've grown to appreciate that quality in people and understand its importance in my life. Hugs and words of affection are very important for most people, including INTJs (if they really stop to think about it, a healthy person shows and expresses affection. No one is a robot). 

I also grew up with an ESFP brother who was very silly and adventurous as a child. I think he taught me how to let loose and find the humor in things. I think he enjoyed my extreme sense of humor, dry wit and I enjoyed his mockery of authority figures.

I also grew up with ESTJ father (lots of rage there). As a child I did not relate to him at all, unless he was being funny. I'd say our sense of humor is actually somewhat similar. Now that his anger has dissipated, I think I get along with him better now. I actually find that he seems to prefer me over my ESFP brother (the two hate each other). 

I also have an ISTJ grandmother (I think my grandmother was an ESTP-wonderful, goofy, and intelligent guy). She and I are very similar in personal tastes and interests, although she is very traditional and conservative. I think she appreciates my interest in culture, music, art, and literature. I don't really relate to my ISTP uncle, but me and my ISFP aunt are fairly close. 

That being said, there were of course things I could never really communicate with them. They don't know my deepest thoughts and feelings...but that's ok. I don't think those things are meant for them. I can save that for Mr Right or any of my mind mate/soul mate friends.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Felix5 said:


> Not all SFs are the same. My entire family are SFs and STs. I have one intuitive INFJ cousin who I always related to, but we aren't the closest. The closest person to me would probably be my ISFJ mother, but I definitely have a special relationship with all of them. That being said, I never had any problems getting a long with my family, I don't understand why people act like the two are from different planets. Being around each other might actually be good for us and teach us how to see things outside of our own perspective. Things that are important to my mother, aren't important to me, but that doesn't mean that they aren't important.
> 
> I was raised by an ISFJ mother and she always doted on me and treated me like I was someone special. I feel as if she taught me more things than she hindered or repressed. She was very loving and nurturing and I've grown to appreciate that quality in people and understand its importance in my life. Hugs and words of affection are very important for most people, including INTJs (if they really stop to think about it, a healthy person shows and expresses affection. No one is a robot).
> 
> ...


I think you had the rare luck of having to interact with SFs that are healthy and balanced. Interacting with such people is a great pleasure, however I only know one of those.

Of course we can learn from each other, and no, we are not from different planets - we are more alike than we think but there are some critical key differences between how each of us sees the world.

I don't really get along with women and a lot of women are SFs. I do not care for their interests and since they are not my mother, I don't feel like I have to listen to their drivel when I could do something much better like watching paint dry. To them my own interests must seem like total crap too so it's fair play.


----------



## Mr Oops (Jun 29, 2016)

xSFJs are fine. I don't understand ISFPs... and their feelings.


----------



## Mr Oops (Jun 29, 2016)

teddy564339 said:


> Again, I think this is kind of a case by case thing. I would be like the Se users you're talking about here. I enjoy doing things with people more than just talking sometimes. I can see how in general this would be stronger in Se users, but Si users value these kinds of things a whole lot too. I have an ESTJ friend who always has to constantly be doing something.


Doing something productive is most essentially Te trait.

It takes a lot from me to become productive. I know an INFP from work who was constantly on a Te grip. Always worrying over Te when it wasn't about Fi and being part of the great humanity. It was exhausting as she tried to give me something to do. It got even worse when she figured out that I was actually capable of doing those things but kept constantly putting down my intellectual Ti work that I happily did on my free time for fun. They do not understand Ti mindset which needs quite a lot idleness and thinking on your own.


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

oh, the horror of talking to other people


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

idoh said:


> oh, the horror of talking to other people


Lmao


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

SpasticCheeto said:


> My mother is an ESFJ, I'll let you figure out what happens.


One upping you: my Fe dom neurotic mom was raised by a narcissistic ISTJ mom that has no love for the truth, that never even had a mom. And an ESFP father that was fortunately not around too often.


----------



## Marshy (Apr 10, 2016)

Yu Narukami said:


> I'm not following your point on classical mechanics. Classical mechanics is the framework of motion as set by Isaac Newton a.k.a. Newtonian physics (What is classical mechanics?), and it's accuracy has been proven to be incorrect in relativistic speed or extremely large masses. Modern mechanics doesn't imply Quantum Mechanics either, it also includes, like I said, the relativistic frameworks. And actually, on the contrary, I find your opinion on science to be unrealistic. I don't know if you are aware of this, but theories are never really "proven"; they are simply accepted until we find inaccuracies, after which we modify our theories or come up with a new one. As in the case of Newtonian mechanics, it was never "proven" holistically; it was only shown to operate under the specific constraints dictated by the scopes of the evidence that were presented to temporarily validate it. When it was found to not work when applied to A. planetary motion (specifically mercury) and B. high-speed subatomic particles, we searched for an alternate framework. Classical mechanics isn't a "sub-discipline" of modern physics; by definition, modern physics is the physical framework made AFTER Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, i.e. non-classical. But we still do use classical physics because its accurate enough for the applications we use in a day to day basis, so it has some use. And I think this is a perfect example of something being useful while not being universally accurate. So, completely neutrally speaking, you should probably fact check more during your study of physics.
> 
> I don't come to the same conclusions are you do. Not implying that I am necessarily right, but please explain how what I said contradicts itself. Basically, your argument to me is not strong enough as it is because you are simply saying "this is wrong" without actually explaining why it is wrong (see: 2 posts ago).
> 
> ...


"I dont know if you are aware of this but theories are never 'proven' " 
Yes they are never _proven_ but there better be an overwhelming amount of evidence and intuition that leads to a just theory. To say they are never 'proven' is true to a sense, but its also nonsensical as it assumes that you can actually prove anything.
The point where you say classical mechanics isn't a sub-discipline is completely incorrect. Classical mechanics provides good approximations, perhaps not as accurate as modern, but not as "accurate" as modern. Is it incorrect if a mathematician approximates an answer of 1 to be 1.001? The entirety of your first paragraph is based on mis-informed conclusions. 
As for the apples, you did not understand that. If you go back to your original remark the "sugary tastes" (point 1)is a representation of the "si" you did not feel compelled to get along with. If you came to that conclusion than by *your* original statement you assumed you never will like apples (in this sense, you also admittedly said it was a small scale).
I've already talked about your third paragraph above as this is just rephrasing what you said earlier so feel free to go back up if you want.
The bird example can not be proven to be incorrect, or at least has not been yet. So at this point it stands to be, correct.
Now heres the problem. The bird-bridge scenario does not have the symbol for MBTI in it making it irrelevant.
I see how you came to the conclusion that you don't get along with SFJs, but you cant just pick and choose the parts you want and apply them to your actual life without actually coming up with a _fundamentally correct_ theory. If it is not fundamentally correct, the entire article of the MBTI is void, you can use some applications to make an accurate theory, but until then it might as well be like _The ever expanding Earth_ in which we know that to a sense the earth did get "bigger" but not the same definition of "bigger" they should have been using. Maybe I should have rephrased earlier: you are not *incorrect* to say that you do not like SFJs _yet_, but it is completely unrealistic to assume that you can not get along with them _because_ they are SFJs, as the sample size is relatively small. It is and will remain an incomplete thought


----------



## Yu Narukami (Jan 14, 2016)

Marshy14 said:


> "I dont know if you are aware of this but theories are never 'proven' "
> Yes they are never _proven_ but there better be an overwhelming amount of evidence and intuition that leads to a just theory. To say they are never 'proven' is true to a sense, but its also nonsensical as it assumes that you can actually prove anything.
> The point where you say classical mechanics isn't a sub-discipline is completely incorrect. Classical mechanics provides good approximations, perhaps not as accurate as modern, but not as "accurate" as modern. Is it incorrect if a mathematician approximates an answer of 1 to be 1.001? The entirety of your first paragraph is based on mis-informed conclusions.
> As for the apples, you did not understand that. If you go back to your original remark the "sugary tastes" (point 1)is a representation of the "si" you did not feel compelled to get along with. If you came to that conclusion than by *your* original statement you assumed you never will like apples (in this sense, you also admittedly said it was a small scale).
> ...


That's factually incorrect. Look up the definition of "modern physics." It's not simply "physics used in modern eras," it specifically refers to physics based on principles that are non-classical by definition. Physics 252 Home. Or any other reputable source will tell you the same. I don't know how this all works in your mind but if you want to argue your point about classical mechanics as a sub discipline of modern physics you need to literally re-write every physics textbook out there (including the ones you are using for your physics studies). Or you can change whatever you think so it lines up with how other people have chosen to define the terms you are using instead of expecting definitions to be invalidated just because it doesn't make sense to you. I don't think I am the misinformed one when it comes to this point.

Here's the thing: as you already said above, "nothing is ever proven," so how would you go about determining the fundamental correctedness of a theory objectively? Maybe you can argue for the whole overwhelming evidence portion, but who goes about determining what degree of surety is required before it can be counted as fundamentally valid? Something's not either completely wrong or completely right; it's all probabilistic. Branding something as either fundamentally correct or incorrect is just based off of a binary scale in different individuals heads. It's too subjective to be of use; thinking of things in a "shades of grey" manner makes more sense. There isn't a magical switchover at sample size n = 100 when something suddenly because valid, nor do observations need to be predicated on predetermined correct theories to warrant attention either. If that were the case then you would also have to agree that the phrase "leaves are green" cannot be used until people know what chlorophyll is, since it's purely observational at that point. Also, I don't think I ever said I couldn't get along with them BECAUSE they are SFJs. Like I mentioned earlier, it could be that it is just people who TEST as SFJ, or anything else. I never pinned it down simply to them BEING SFJ.

If it feels like, to you, that for a lot of points we are going around in circles with a lot of points, I'd like to contest that _it's because we are operating on fundamentally different viewpoints_. To reiterate, I can see WHY you believe what you believe, and I don't believe it to be WRONG. But I don't believe it to be the ONLY VALID WAY OF THINKING either. My points are not without a few flaws here and there, but neither are yours, and it's not because of those minor flaws that you disagree with me or vice versa. We are just fundamentally different principles that don't arrive at the same conclusion. I wonder if you can agree with me on that.

Anyway, flick your response to me in a PM. I think we cluttered this thread enough with unrelated stuff already lol. Sorry @ OP


----------



## Marshy (Apr 10, 2016)

Yu Narukami said:


> That's factually incorrect. Look up the definition of "modern physics." It's not simply "physics used in modern eras," it specifically refers to physics based on principles that are non-classical by definition. Physics 252 Home. Or any other reputable source will tell you the same. I don't know how this all works in your mind but if you want to argue your point about classical mechanics as a sub discipline of modern physics you need to literally re-write every physics textbook out there (including the ones you are using for your physics studies). Or you can change whatever you think so it lines up with how other people have chosen to define the terms you are using instead of expecting definitions to be invalidated just because it doesn't make sense to you. *I don't think* I am the misinformed one when it comes to this point.


You are misinformed though, or you aren't thinking about it correctly. " field of study or work that is related to one aspect, but not the whole, of a broader field of study or work. Social psychology is a subdiscipline of psychology. Phonology is a subdiscipline of linguistics." 
Classical mechanics _is_ a subdiscipline of quantum mechanics. Quantum and relativity are what makes up modern mechanics. You assume your view and my view are mutually exclusive.
I felt compelled to clear this up here though, everything else will be in pm's


----------



## TheVerb (Mar 4, 2015)

Marshy14 said:


> I am perplexed that people can live their life on a broad assessment of people with minimal scientific backing.
> I will conclude everyone in this thread or that has viewed this thread is now brain-dead. :happy:
> 
> 
> ...


Ah, my sincerest apologies. Next time I will be sure to write an essay with a strong thesis supported by quotes from various academic journals to appease your intellectual standards oh great one.


----------



## Marshy (Apr 10, 2016)

TheVerb said:


> Ah, my sincerest apologies.


stopped reading after that.
I forgive you


----------



## Whatevs (Oct 17, 2016)

Step 1) Shut up.
Step 2) Be nice.
Step 3) See Step 1.

This is what works best for me most of the time lol.


----------



## Tamehagane (Sep 2, 2014)

^^Thanks for the fun reading at the top of the page.

As an introvert, it's easy enough for me to deal with xSFx's, and then retreat into the darkness. I've had two good ESFJ friends-- they seem to appreciate my terrible sense of humor, and I appreciate them making my social life less awkward. It's kind of superficial, very few deep, stimulating conversations, but I don't see the harm in it.

I've been studiously avoiding any sort of projects with them, to preserve the peace just in case. Luckily, we're in completely different majors.

I do feel bad for you ENT's, though. You guys might actually _want_ to work with them.


----------



## SevenENTP (Nov 5, 2016)

Depends on the SF. Get along very well with ESFPs. We're always joining each other's Happy Hours, they don't get into silly "one up on you" debates with me, they're easy to talk to and fun. ISFJs on the other hand are a struggle. Dealing with one at work now and she is appalling ignorant of the industry we operate in, doesn't have much business sense, never joins team social events, but gets by just telling people what to do. Had an ISFJ friend who I had to back away from because she was rigid and her idea of fun was inviting me over to watch a chick flick while her cats crawled all over me.


----------



## Elistra (Apr 6, 2013)

Marshy14 said:


> I am perplexed that people can live their life on a broad assessment of people with minimal scientific backing.
> I will conclude everyone in this thread or that has viewed this thread is now brain-dead. :happy:
> 
> 
> ...


And this is the difference with Thinkers (be they ST or NT) and Feelers (be they SF or NF), distilled down to its essence.

Most Thinkers would immediately recognize the above post as an attempt to intellectually 'lord it' over others (not to mention the hypocrisy it contains), and then become fully aware of their irritation on an emotional level.

If faced with a similar rhetorical volley directed at them, most Feelers will feel hurt or angry immediately, but usually will take longer to recognize or describe what was wrong with the rhetoric from a Thinking perspective.


----------



## Marshy (Apr 10, 2016)

Elistra said:


> And this is the difference with Thinkers (be they ST or NT) and Feelers (be they SF or NF), distilled down to its essence.
> 
> Most Thinkers would immediately recognize the above post as an attempt to intellectually 'lord it' over others (not to mention the hypocrisy it contains), and then become fully aware of their irritation on an emotional level.
> 
> If faced with a similar rhetorical volley directed at them, most Feelers will feel hurt or angry immediately, but usually will take longer to recognize or describe what was wrong with the rhetoric from a Thinking perspective.


:'(


----------

