# How do you SP's get along with SJ's?



## Spring Dawn (Aug 21, 2011)

Both of my parents are SJ's, mom ESNJ and dad ISFJ... And I have to admit that living with them is very difficult. They always have some expectations about me, they always plan their life and they live under society rules and really care what other people will say about them. In other hand, i hate any kind of borders, i want to fill world around me in all it's shapes and colors because "you don't get a harmony if everyone play the same note". They think im very immature and spoiled btw, and i think i just see things other way. Also, they like to compare me with other girls of my age and ask why i cant be like them, and it really bothers me but i try not to comment it in order to keep peace in family. But when i just can't anymore and react on it, they say how i act different than expected because i'm big headed, very self confident and think how i know everything the best and that really hurts me... funny but my self confidence is on 0. Another thing, i'm quite a lot into pacifism and also green politics-they find it useless and stupid. I could get well with them if they would just stop comment anything and accept things how they are without trying to judge or change comething. My dad can react quite emotional and even scream at me sometimes and i always try to put cool face and act how it doesn't touch me although i feel hurt- and he always say he did it for my good and because he care. As for myself, i'm open to be friend with anyone and i will give my best to understand other side, but i would like if other side will pay attention on me, if it's possible somehow.

On other hand, my ex bf was ESFJ and with him i didn't have problems like that. He didn't try to change much on me or people around, he was into rules and plans too, but he was tolerant and he always asked me for opinion if he thought i could get upset about some his move. He was caring and gentle, although sex in a relation didn't have some special meaning to him like to me. Anyway, we got quite well and we were together 2 years. We broke up when he thought our relation should get to the next level and offered me a ring, and i didn't want to marry, have kids and lose freedom, especially because i'm still very young... but i must add that we are still friends.

I know other SJs and experience with them also vary.


----------



## MrSmashem (Aug 25, 2010)

I've found that the main problem I usually have with SJ's, is them trying to change me or tell me how to live my life. Frustrates the fire outta me. I knew my ISFJ buddy for about 2 years before I really started inviting him over to chill at my place/hang out a lot and I swear, within a week or two he started sprinkling in comments about how I treat my mom and how messy I was ect. It was annoying, but I could ignore it. Eventually he got really persistent and actually got involved in a fight I was having with my mom, that was the last straw...I cut all communication with him for months. I'm talking to him again now, but not that often and he still sprinkles in little comments about how to improve my life.

My main frustration is that I've been to his house, seen his flaws(or what I believe are flaws) and don't say a thing. It's his life, he can live it the way he wants. If he wants my input, he can ask. Yet he wants to intervene with MY life, even in areas I don't even view as problems, without me saying a thing. If I want your input, I'll ask for it. SJ's don't tend to live like that(the ones I've met at least).

Aside from that, he's pretty uptight. One day I was driving in the rain and hit a patch of oil. Caused me to drift off the side of the road into a construction zone(vacant). Ended up knocking one of those orange barrels over the top of my car and skidded about 30 feet. When I finally came to a stop, I started cracking up. No one got hurt, no damage done, everything was good. He flipped out and started screaming at me, "We could have gotten hurt!!! You're so lucky that wasn't worse!!!" I was like, "Dude, chill out, we're fine...nothing happened." "I don't care!!! If you would've just driven around that turn slower, none of this would have happened!!!" I was just like, " W/e dude, chill out."

Get's a bit aggravating. Anyways, aside from those two things(which don't apply to ALL SJ's) I'm usually get along with them pretty well. Sometimes they get annoyed by my spontaneity, though.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Don't think I've encountered any SJ's but for ISTJs in real life yet. I typically just sit there and enjoy the show, as more often than not they practice a giant double standard from my observations, but then even go out of their way trying to correct others. Admittedly I kind of like challenging their world view, as they hate being challenged and I just don't care for their explanations, driving them up the wall quite easily at times.

However, I assume that SJ behavior greatly varies dependent on the individual's healthiness (much like any other type), in that sense it's likely I only ever only encountered the grumpy and bitter type.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

xReBoRN7 said:


> I've found that the main problem I usually have with SJ's, is them trying to change me or tell me how to live my life. Frustrates the fire outta me. I knew my ISFJ buddy for about 2 years before I really started inviting him over to chill at my place/hang out a lot and I swear, within a week or two he started sprinkling in comments about how I treat my mom and how messy I was ect. It was annoying, but I could ignore it. Eventually he got really persistent and actually got involved in a fight I was having with my mom, that was the last straw...I cut all communication with him for months. I'm talking to him again now, but not that often and he still sprinkles in little comments about how to improve my life.
> 
> My main frustration is that I've been to his house, seen his flaws(or what I believe are flaws) and don't say a thing. It's his life, he can live it the way he wants. If he wants my input, he can ask. Yet he wants to intervene with MY life, even in areas I don't even view as problems, without me saying a thing. If I want your input, I'll ask for it. SJ's don't tend to live like that(the ones I've met at least).


I find that very fascinating just because my own experience is so different. I'm much more like you in this regard...in fact, it's what drives me up the wall more than just about anything else. I always hate it when I invite people over and they have the nerve to say anything about my place (apart from friendly little jokes that I know are all in fun). I, on the other hand, am pretty hypersensitive when it comes to saying anything about someone else's place when I'm over, because I know how much I can't stand it. Of course, when they joke about it themselves then I know it's ok, but I'm very cautious when it comes to making any negative comment on someone else's lifestyle.

In my experience, ESJs are more likely to make such comments, just because their judging function is dominant and extroverted (Te or Fe). However, I've also noticed similar things in certain N types, such as ENTJs. I always got the impression that their N drives them to constantly look for improvements in things, so they see their comments as a positive because in their mind they're being a help. That's why I get intimidated by them often. 

I suppose that Ss might be more likely to focus on minute details in life more and be more controlling in that regard. But I've noticed it in a lot of the J types, N or S.





xReBoRN7 said:


> Aside from that, he's pretty uptight. One day I was driving in the rain and hit a patch of oil. Caused me to drift off the side of the road into a construction zone(vacant). Ended up knocking one of those orange barrels over the top of my car and skidded about 30 feet. When I finally came to a stop, I started cracking up. No one got hurt, no damage done, everything was good. He flipped out and started screaming at me, "We could have gotten hurt!!! You're so lucky that wasn't worse!!!" I was like, "Dude, chill out, we're fine...nothing happened." "I don't care!!! If you would've just driven around that turn slower, none of this would have happened!!!" I was just like, " W/e dude, chill out."


I can be like that, though. Well, I don't flip out on people or go crazy or anything, but I do get very uncomfortable in situations like that and often do everything I can to avoid them. But I'm so calm natured that I really don't ever yell at people.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Erbse said:


> Don't think I've encountered any SJ's but for ISTJs in real life yet. I typically just sit there and enjoy the show, as more often than not they practice a giant double standard from my observations, but then even go out of their way trying to correct others. Admittedly I kind of like challenging their world view, as they hate being challenged and I just don't care for their explanations, driving them up the wall quite easily at times.
> 
> However, I assume that SJ behavior greatly varies dependent on the individual's healthiness (much like any other type), in that sense it's likely I only ever only encountered the grumpy and bitter type.



I think a lot of that sounds like a by-product of Si. Si can be hard to manage sometimes, because I think we ISJs are so dependent upon it. I've read some interesting MBTI books kind of talking about this, and how Si can sometimes lead us to having a sort of "tunnel vision" where we don't really look at a situation clearly...we instead focus on what we already know.

I think this link is a good one in showing ways ISTJs can work to overcome it.

ISTJ Personal Growth


I say that because the ISFJ link like that has helped me out a lot. I think the ISFJ really diagrams well how to make the most of Si and how well developed Fe gives a really good balance to it. The ISTJ one says similar things about ISTJs using Te.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> I think a lot of that sounds like a by-product of Si. Si can be hard to manage sometimes, because I think we ISJs are so dependent upon it. I've read some interesting MBTI books kind of talking about this, and how Si can sometimes lead us to having a sort of "tunnel vision" where we don't really look at a situation clearly...we instead focus on what we already know.
> 
> I think this link is a good one in showing ways ISTJs can work to overcome it.
> 
> ...


Major "issues" typically arise from the logic displayed. As SP I usually don't bother or seek conflict, if a Te framework is offered to me however, I look at it and rather than acknowledging its absoluteness in the given situation I abstract its principle. So rather than taking the rule for what it is I take the rules underlying principle, which I then often find to be violated by the subject(s) in question.

It's not a big deal really, though - as I can easily overlook it. It however then rubs me the wrong way it they feel entitled to give their input regarding my personal things when I see enough flaws in their own :tongue:


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Erbse said:


> Major "issues" typically arise from the logic displayed. As SP I usually don't bother or seek conflict, if a Te framework is offered to me however, I look at it and rather than acknowledging its absoluteness in the given situation I abstract its principle. So rather than taking the rule for what it is I take the rules underlying principle, which I then often find to be violated by the subject(s) in question.
> 
> It's not a big deal really, though - as I can easily overlook it. It however then rubs me the wrong way it they feel entitled to give their input regarding my personal things when I see enough flaws in their own :tongue:


It's always hard to say without knowing people, but my guess is that they don't see the same underlying principles in it that you do. They probably keep the two situations completely separate and see them as two different things. I say this just because most people I know don't view hypocrisy as a positive, and usually they don't see hypocrisy in themselves.

Sometimes it is hard to understand why someone tends to be controlling or offers their input when it is not desired, and I know many times I have been frustrated by this behavior. While I think sometimes it's an ego situation where somebody just enjoys bossing others around to feel better about themselves, sometimes people just feel a need to help others and don't understand that their input isn't helpful. I know in some conversations I've had with some INTJs we've discussed how they sometimes find others' Fe to be overstepping their boundaries, while at times I've felt others' Te as overstepping my boundaries.

I've always felt understanding one another and communicating clearly has helped out the most in these situations. Oftentimes people (ISJs probably in particular) don't understand how others are different than they are, and this can be something that is hard to figure out without a tool like the MBTI. But the more people understand the differences in others and the more this is communicated well, the more likely the people will get along without grinding each others' gears.


----------



## pericles (Apr 16, 2011)

I get along just fine as soon as their Si absorbs this fact about me:
"I do what I want when I want where I want and with whom I want."


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> It's always hard to say without knowing people, but my guess is that they don't see the same underlying principles in it that you do. *They probably keep the two situations completely separate and see them as two different things.*


That's exactly it :tongue:. As ISTP that's a really harsh reality to come to terms with, because such behavior is completely foreign and more over mind boggling for us. All the more irritating if at the end of the day they even go so far as fiddling and judging things in regards to my personal life.

I have a formula, where X + Y equals good / bad. This is universal. If you say don't harm cats, then turn around and kick a puppy and consider it okay (a bit of an extreme example) I just don't get it, because "don't harm cats" implies animals + violence = bad.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Erbse said:


> That's exactly it :tongue:. As ISTP that's a really harsh reality to come to terms with, because such behavior is completely foreign and more over mind boggling for us. All the more irritating if at the end of the day they even go so far as fiddling and judging things in regards to my personal life.
> 
> I have a formula, where X + Y equals good / bad. This is universal. If you say don't harm cats, then turn around and kick a puppy and consider it okay (a bit of an extreme example) I just don't get it, because "don't harm cats" implies animals + violence = bad.


Well, I think the thing is with Si is that it makes our own personal experiences basically create our principals and values in various situations. I find your responses pretty interesting because usually I hear them from Ns. Ns seem to be more apt to think about a lot of different theoretical possibilities .An INTP, for example, would likely use their auxiliary Ne to come up with some of the ideas I'll mention in just a bit.

Of course, part of that is just the J/P difference too, since I guess Se also focuses on those different possibilities. I guess I just always pictured the Se ones as being more concrete.

Even though your example is extreme, I guess I'll try to throw out an explanation for it, though my explanation will be extreme as well. Let's say an ISJ grew up around cats, where they were valued pets and basically treated like members of the family. However, not only were there no dogs at all in the home environment, but they were taught that dogs were an enemy and a threat to the family.


Now, environment will always play a factor with any person, regardless of type. But I think with SJs, particularly ISJs, our Si causes us to build things based on basic foundations and experience. So I think that SJs are more likely to stick to what they've known and been taught since childhood without naturally thinking about a lot of other possibilities. Ne does just the opposite...it looks to find as many external possibilities as possible. I think this is partly why a number of Ns have trouble with SJ parents.

So going back to the example, an ISJ in that situation would probably not be as likely to question the idea that cats are good and dogs are bad. They would see treating cats well and dogs badly as the natural way of things...they wouldn't even equate the too, despite all of the biological similarities.


Now, this doesn't mean that an ISJ is doomed to be closed-minded to any new ideas or is unwilling to change their mind on any topic that they learned about growing up. However, the process in which this change occurs is quite different, I think. For ISJs, in general I think we have to see an important reason to make the change.

This is where those thinks I mentioned come into play. For ISTJs, this is going to boil down to Te, and for ISFJs it's going to be Fe.

ISFJ Personal Growth

As an ISFJ, for example, I might initially believe that cats are good and dogs are bad. If someone tried to explain to me all of the biological details, showing all of the similarities between the two and how they're such similar animals, that wouldn't really change my mind on the matter. Even if I logically agreed with it and believed it, my own personal experience and attachment would keep me from *feeling* any differently every time it came up. It would never feel right to hear about someone treating a dog well.

However, through an *actual experience*, if I was able to see in action a family with a dog as a lovable pet, I'd be much more apt to change my mind about it. If I could make the connection that the dog's value in that family is the same as a cat's in my family was, then I would start connecting with the other family on an emotional level. I would be able to equate their experience with the experience that I already know. This would then let me realize that the two animals weren't quite as different as I believed when I grew up.

The process would be similar for an ISTJ, I would imagine, but I think there would be more of an appeal to their logic rather than to their emotions or relationships involved.



I could explain my own personal experiences with Si in more detail, but I think this post is already long enough. My main point is that since ISJs' principles are so experienced based, it usually takes new, strong, concrete experiences to change our minds about our values.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

This rings as interesting as it may be true at the end of the day.

Out of curiosity, though, given the fierceness of most J types, specifically those that stand by their Si, how would one approach to broaden their world view, since it doesn't seem to happen by internal logic and reasoning? Ti dominated people typically don't need to make a mistake, in order to know it's a mistake. We just think about it and can come to a valid conclusion in regards to our own being, and hence form our opinion without actual first hand experience, or even secondary experience involved (secondary as is seeing someone else commit a mistake). It comes so natural to us, to me anyway, that I'd expect any thinker to get it and think alike of course (the very curse of a well developed Ti).

There seems to be no reasoning with Si, at least not on a rational level, at times I'm inclined to believe Si may even be more of a F function, or more precisely an emotional involved function. Or perhaps it triggers emotional responses when challenged.

EDIT: More over, I typically find Si users (the ones I suspect to be such in RL anyway) to be wasting a lot of potential due to their "closed mindedness", at least I do perceive the behavior as such. This almost makes me want to broaden their horizon so they can rise above themselves, as I seem to subconsciously get a vibe of untapped potential from them - Though, if I attempt such a thing it is typically a waste of my energy, as no logic in the world seems to truly go through and they seem to have a tough time leaving the nutshell Si appears to be.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Erbse said:


> There seems to be no reasoning with Si, at least not on a rational level, at times I'm inclined to believe Si may even be more of a F function, or more precisely an emotional involved function. Or perhaps it triggers emotional responses when challenged.


I actually disagree quite a bit with this. I see it much more as a difference between S and N. 

Si is very experience based. There has to be direct, concrete evidence to change an Si user's mind about something. Just merely offering an explanation through a conversation, no matter how logical that explanation may be, is often not enough to offset a lifetime's worth of an Si user's experiences. The thing about Si is it internalizes so many little things that I think other functions kind of move past and maybe even forget about. As I'll mention later, this has both its strengths and its weaknesses.

So I don't see it as being connected to thinking vs. feeling, really. Now, from my own perspective, it certainly does, since I'm an ISFJ. It's hard for me to say exactly how it works for an ISTJ. I will say that my mom is an ISTJ, and even though we have tons and tons in common, I do think what it takes to change her mind about things is different than what works for me. That's where the T vs. F comes in...for me, the concrete examples have to deal with people and how it affects them, while for her, it has to deal with her own practical logic.



Erbse said:


> Out of curiosity, though, given the fierceness of most J types, specifically those that stand by their Si, how would one approach to broaden their world view, since it doesn't seem to happen by internal logic and reasoning? Ti dominated people typically don't need to make a mistake, in order to know it's a mistake. We just think about it and can come to a valid conclusion in regards to our own being, and hence form our opinion without actual first hand experience, or even secondary experience involved (secondary as is seeing someone else commit a mistake). It comes so natural to us, to me anyway, that I'd expect any thinker to get it and think alike of course (the very curse of a well developed Ti).


So my guess is that you may not have the opportunities to show actual concrete examples of what it is you're trying to get across to the Si users that you're referring to. You're not able to give them the actual experience that's strong enough to get them to change their minds. 

I do find it interesting hearing this from an ISTP, since usually I have this conversation with Ns. It's hard because I don't really know Se very well inside and out, especially in its auxiliary form. In general, I would say the way to look at it is think about how you use Se. From what I've read about SPs, what drives them the most is actually physically experiencing things. They like to test everything out in a physical sense to get a feel for all of the different options. While I'm sure this is stronger in ESPs, I would imagine it has an impact in ISPs as well. So I guess that might be the best way to understand Si a little better...to see how your Se works for you and drives you.

It is interesting, though. I am in no way questioning any part of your type, especially since I'm overall very unfamiliar with ISTPs. But I will say what you're describing here reminds me a whole lot of what I've heard from NTPs. They often use Ne so well to abstractly reach conclusions without having to experience or test things out themselves. 

However, I do agree that there is a strong difference between Ti and Te in this regard, and that may also have a strong impact on your relationships with the ISTJs you know.

As I'm about to mention in a bit, Si doms have a way of working inside-out....we start with all of our own experiences and personal memories as our base and foundation, and then we use either Te or Fe to apply them. So it also may help to focus more on that side of it. Instead of trying to change their minds about a topic, it might be better to focus on how they use their Te to impact others. 

So maybe the bigger focus should be on how their Te is overstepping your bounds in your relationships with them, and if you can get them to see this, they might be willing to at least hold off on their actions. You may not be able to convince them that they shouldn't feel the way that they do, but you might be able to get them to see that they violate your principles in a way that would really bother them if you did the same to them. That would be an example of a more concrete experience that might help them understand you, though this might be more effective with an ISFJ.




Erbse said:


> EDIT: More over, I typically find Si users (the ones I suspect to be such in RL anyway) to be wasting a lot of potential due to their "closed mindedness", at least I do perceive the behavior as such. This almost makes me want to broaden their horizon so they can rise above themselves, as I seem to subconsciously get a vibe of untapped potential from them - Though, if I attempt such a thing it is typically a waste of my energy, as no logic in the world seems to truly go through and they seem to have a tough time leaving the nutshell Si appears to be.


Again, I find this interesting because it's usually a conversation I've had with NTPs. I have had similar experiences with ESPs, but here's the difference: With the ESPs, their feelings have been more concerned with me *trying new things*. Not necessarily thinking about new ideas (which is more abstract), but actually doing new activities. Here's a thread I made a long time ago discussing this:

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/25276-open-ness-new-experiences.html


This is another thread that kind of touches on the issue a little, and how it might be different for different types of SJs:

http://personalitycafe.com/estj-forum-guardians/27003-how-open-change-you.html


(One very important idea mentioned in that thread is...SJs are willing to change, but *we have to see a very clear reason why the change should be made*. We don't like change for the sake of change. We don't like to try out a bunch of different things just to see what happens. We would prefer to start on a foundation of what we already know, and tweak it to make improvements upon it, only fixing the things that need to be fixed.



But I also want to address your idea about "untapped potential", since I think this has also come up in a few different places. There are two threads in particular that I think I talked about my own Si a good bit.

http://personalitycafe.com/isfj-forum-nurturers/39496-si-ocd-am-i-just-completely-crazy.html


http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...bout-others-feelings-thinking-vs-feeling.html




teddy564339 said:


> It is a blessing and a curse of dominant Si.
> 
> I've read in MBTI books that ISJs have a "rich, inner world". And the thing for ISJs is that we can get joy and pleasure out of the simplest things in our lives, and I think it's in a way that none of the other types can or can completely understand. We don't mind keeping things the same and keeping them simple...some of the happiest moments in my life have come from enjoying things and places that I've been doing since I was a kid. One of my favorite examples is my avatar. While I'm certainly a bit unique among ISFJs in this regard, I amaze myself in how much comfort and joy I get out of my teddy bear that I've had since I was a kid. A cheap, simple bit of cloth and fluff that is worthless to pretty much everyone else on the planet gives me a sense of peace and comfort that many don't understand. While it might be a mark of insanity to others, I view it as one of the easiest and cheapest ways to get happiness.
> 
> ...



Like any other function, Si has its positives and negatives, and it is both a blessing and a curse.


The thing about Si is....as Si doms, we can get so much joy and pleasure out of such simple things. We don't need tons and tons of new ideas and experiences that P types usually do in order for us to be happy. We get more joy out of adding on to our foundation, often by collecting things, whether they be new or similar to what we already have. 

The beauty of this is that a lot of times we can satisfy ourselves pretty easily, without tons of money or effort. The huge downside, though, is that so many other people just don't understand it. Our own internal world is so unique to us, so we don't get the opportunity to share this joy with others. That creates a certain loneliness and disconnect with people, and it's frustrating to feel like others just think what you like and get joy from is weird. 


So I think that's why a lot of times non-SJs feel the way that you do. You don't see or experience how fulfilling keeping things the same is to us. To you, it probably comes across as boring, unimaginative, or too repetitious. You want to see constant change and growth, and you probably view our foundations as stagnant.


To me, it's like viewing the same thing from a lot of different angles. The positives of Si are being very loyal, committed, steadfast, consistent, reliable, dependable, and able to follow through to the end. The negatives are being rigid, stubborn, judgmental, resistant to new ideas, complacent, unwilling to consider new possibilities, and susceptible to falling into ruts.

There are situations where this serves us very well, and situations where it hurts us. It all kind of depends.

Of course, the same thing could be said about SPs, I'm sure. So that's why I think the MBTI is so useful, because it helps us to see where others have strengths where we have weaknesses and vice versa. It helps us learn from one another in order to maximize our strengths and improve upon our weaknesses.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> So I don't see it as being connected to thinking vs. feeling, really. Now, from my own perspective, it certainly does, since I'm an ISFJ. It's hard for me to say exactly how it works for an ISTJ. I will say that my mom is an ISTJ, and even though we have tons and tons in common, I do think what it takes to change her mind about things is different than what works for me. That's where the T vs. F comes in...for me, the concrete examples have to deal with people and how it affects them, while for her, it has to deal with her own practical logic.


What I meant is that I also consider Si to be the non plus ultra association tools. Meaning you can re-live past experience with the same intensity as when they in fact did take place, at least that's how I imagine that to be in my head. In that sense however, Si also triggers the emotions felt, or that were caused in that moment, as otherwise a reliving wouldn't be possible, at least it wouldn't be completely authentic. In that sense I personally connect Si to emotions of sorts, while Si in and on itself is solely a perceiving function which is completely unrelated to feelings or thinking. In conjunction with other functions however, it becomes quite easy to enrage to a SJ from my experience, even if it's only through misinterpretation or misunderstanding.

I must say though, I'd have expected shit to long have hit the fan, so I'm pleasantly surprised it's going the way it is (Not necessarily by / through you, but maybe others kicking in). Inevitably, as everything, it always leads back to the maturity of an individual anyway, so I may have just been unlucky. A fierce personality / self-confidence or ego for that matter don't typically contribute helpfully either, as they more often than not tend to be out of proportion.



> So my guess is that you may not have the opportunities to show actual concrete examples of what it is you're trying to get across to the Si users that you're referring to. You're not able to give them the actual experience that's strong enough to get them to change their minds.


This is where I'm struggling really. There's something you've to understand about ISTPs: We do not care for control, dominance, or power games in the least. In that sense, we tell you what we think, knowingly it is correct from a logical perspective and hope you'll get it. I quite often get a "Yes I get it.", that however isn't true, because if you truly got it, you'd go with what I said. In that sense you are correct that logic in itself isn't enough to bust through Si's "stubbornness". Since we don't care for convincing, though, we'll typically stop right there and stamp it under category of "useless case", as it isn't in our nature to force anything upon someone else, no matter how correct we deem it.

Basically, while I perceive Si to be a massive roadblock in regards to personal development and new experiences, I do value personal freedom and choice over anything, so I will not take action against Si but hope that the person in question clicks on her/himself eventually. Needless to say that it's likely to never happen. In that sense the Si barrier seems to be a natural anti ISTP forcefield, which we simply cannot be arsed to go up against, as that would mean going against our natural inclination as well, leaving our comfort zones.

Of course I'm talking about a Si roadblock on less mature, or younger people for that matter (early/mid 20's at best). Some of them aren't in the most favorable life circumstances, yet however repeatedly cling into the same string of hope, rather than exploring valid options to see whether or not there's something to gain. Logically it's a win:win situation for the persons in question, since if things go awry you're back to square one, or more precisely don't move from where you are at right now, while otherwise the option in question is a complete / partial success improving your current situation. In that sense Si seems to prevent betterment, and instead keeps its user trapped and locked in his current misery, which could easily be dispelled if the persons would just loosen up a tad.

That of course is an ISTP's perception at work, others may perceive it entirely different.



> I do find it interesting hearing this from an ISTP, since usually I have this conversation with Ns. It's hard because I don't really know Se very well inside and out, especially in its auxiliary form. In general, I would say the way to look at it is think about how you use Se. From what I've read about SPs, what drives them the most is actually physically experiencing things. They like to test everything out in a physical sense to get a feel for all of the different options. While I'm sure this is stronger in ESPs, I would imagine it has an impact in ISPs as well. So I guess that might be the best way to understand Si a little better...to see how your Se works for you and drives you.


I've only very recently read Jung's "Personality Types", what he states however is that the dominant function (in my case Ti) always remains dominant. The other functions work in favor of Ti, but don't have much of an own saying. In that sense I can enjoy Se as auxiliary as outlet and recharge, or get out of my head for a bit, Se however will never reach the state as if it were dominant. Plus, in my case anyway, my Se isn't really "up there" so to speak, but for the fact that I enjoy physical activities / exhaustion tremendously. That could explain why I remind you to INTPs, since a not so balsy Se would imply that my N isn't being as suppressed as it could be :tongue:



> It is interesting, though. I am in no way questioning any part of your type, especially since I'm overall very unfamiliar with ISTPs. But I will say what you're describing here reminds me a whole lot of what I've heard from NTPs. They often use Ne so well to abstractly reach conclusions without having to experience or test things out themselves.


The major difference between ISTPs and INTPs is mostly Se to Ne in their auxiliary position. So ISTPs focus on knowledge of relevance to them and the world they interact in, while INTPs take pursuits for the sake of doing so, or more precisely they like to learn for the sake of learning. ISTPs learn only if it's of interest, or practical relevance to them. Both are equally capable in their abstraction skill (as it's Ti, the shared dominating function that does the refining), assuming you compare a field in which the INTP and ISTP overlaps. The ISTP however will never remain abstract for the sake of it, but mostly use concrete content (and examples) where ever possible. 

Overall ISTPs and INTPs also overlap in their ideals, which typically are summed up as Utopian.



> So maybe the bigger focus should be on how their Te is overstepping your bounds in your relationships with them, and if you can get them to see this, they might be willing to at least hold off on their actions. You may not be able to convince them that they shouldn't feel the way that they do, but you might be able to get them to see that they violate your principles in a way that would really bother them if you did the same to them. That would be an example of a more concrete experience that might help them understand you, though this might be more effective with an ISFJ.


It is not so much that I get frustrated by anything they do, but as I'm constantly getting the vibe of untapped potential I feel the desire to help them out and guide them there, so that they experience how broad and open the world is in reality. Logically speaking: The world you experienced in the past is only a part of the world, and while it is logically correct that all dogs are nasty if the only dog you ever knew bit your finger it's only natural that if you approach more dogs you'll notice that not all dogs deserve to be judged. As previously stated however, typically an effort that goes to complete waste. That's what frustrates me if anything, I can easily overlook opinion difference as at worst I'll just settle for agreeing to disagreeing.



> (One very important idea mentioned in that thread is...SJs are willing to change, but *we have to see a very clear reason why the change should be made*. We don't like change for the sake of change. We don't like to try out a bunch of different things just to see what happens. We would prefer to start on a foundation of what we already know, and tweak it to make improvements upon it, only fixing the things that need to be fixed.


What would be reason enough for you to consider change? Due to my principles I often find the SJ's around me to bring agony over themselves over and over, because they keep on relying on the same persons, just to be disappointed. It appears that some, not all of them, though, judge everything on the current state of things, rather than drawing a general consensus of everything that has ever happened.

So I'm telling them, that for as long as you keep on relying on person X, you'll keep up winding disappointed and hurt. Of course this is only logical, and logic speaking. It however still doesn't appear to be enough to take initiative to initiate change in most cases. So again, very mind boggling for me.



> The thing about Si is....as Si doms, we can get so much joy and pleasure out of such simple things. We don't need tons and tons of new ideas and experiences that P types usually do in order for us to be happy. We get more joy out of adding on to our foundation, often by collecting things, whether they be new or similar to what we already have.


I should note that I'm not necessarily certain that the people in question are actually Si dominated per-se, Si however most certainly is their primary perceiving function, so it can still be auxiliary. I however don't know to what degree Si's efficiency diminishes in a subdued role.



> So I think that's why a lot of times non-SJs feel the way that you do. You don't see or experience how fulfilling keeping things the same is to us. To you, it probably comes across as boring, unimaginative, or too repetitious. You want to see constant change and growth, and you probably view our foundations as stagnant.


It's not that, at least not for me. I'm very low maintenance myself and easy to please, or outright boring so to speak, depending on who you ask. The only thing I don't understand is that Si seems to also cling on the current state of things and stagnancy if the current state is an unfavorable one. Although I'm speaking logically unfavorable, but in some cases I also know it's also emotionally draining for the person in question.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Erbse said:


> What I meant is that I also consider Si to be the non plus ultra association tools. Meaning you can re-live past experience with the same intensity as when they in fact did take place, at least that's how I imagine that to be in my head. In that sense however, Si also triggers the emotions felt, or that were caused in that moment, as otherwise a reliving wouldn't be possible, at least it wouldn't be completely authentic. In that sense I personally connect Si to emotions of sorts, while Si in and on itself is solely a perceiving function which is completely unrelated to feelings or thinking. In conjunction with other functions however, it becomes quite easy to enrage to a SJ from my experience, even if it's only through misinterpretation or misunderstanding.


Well, in that sense I can see how Si can be emotional. However, I think a lot of times Si is subconscious as well...a lot of times we just automatically use our past experiences to understand the present and future. In that sense it tends to fit our overall logical framework. 

As far as enraging SJs...I think there are probably a number of factors that play into it. Some people are easier to anger than others, regardless of type. It may also just be that you happen to stumble upon the things that upset the SJs the most, whereas you don't tend to do the same with people of the other temperaments.





Erbse said:


> I must say though, I'd have expected shit to long have hit the fan, so I'm pleasantly surprised it's going the way it is (Not necessarily by / through you, but maybe others kicking in). Inevitably, as everything, it always leads back to the maturity of an individual anyway, so I may have just been unlucky. A fierce personality / self-confidence or ego for that matter don't typically contribute helpfully either, as they more often than not tend to be out of proportion.


I actually don't understand what you're saying here. Are you referring to this thread, or are you referring to the SJs you know IRL?







Erbse said:


> This is where I'm struggling really. There's something you've to understand about ISTPs: We do not care for control, dominance, or power games in the least. In that sense, we tell you what we think, knowingly it is correct from a logical perspective and hope you'll get it. I quite often get a "Yes I get it.", that however isn't true, because if you truly got it, you'd go with what I said. In that sense you are correct that logic in itself isn't enough to bust through Si's "stubbornness". Since we don't care for convincing, though, we'll typically stop right there and stamp it under category of "useless case", as it isn't in our nature to force anything upon someone else, no matter how correct we deem it.
> 
> Basically, while I perceive Si to be a massive roadblock in regards to personal development and new experiences, I do value personal freedom and choice over anything, so I will not take action against Si but hope that the person in question clicks on her/himself eventually. Needless to say that it's likely to never happen. In that sense the Si barrier seems to be a natural anti ISTP forcefield, which we simply cannot be arsed to go up against, as that would mean going against our natural inclination as well, leaving our comfort zones.


Well, I think a lot of it depends upon the situation too. Personal growth and development isn't the same for every person. While everyone does have weaknesses and areas they should work on improving, how they go about doing it and what they do is going to be different. Sometimes what one person perceives as a weakness in someone else isn't a weakness in that person's life.

Of course, these things are always hard to say one way or another. I always tend to focus on one's overall happiness in life and how they impact the happiness in others' lives. To me those are the most important things, though others will disagree.



Erbse said:


> Of course I'm talking about a Si roadblock on less mature, or younger people for that matter (early/mid 20's at best). Some of them aren't in the most favorable life circumstances, yet however repeatedly cling into the same string of hope, rather than exploring valid options to see whether or not there's something to gain. Logically it's a win:win situation for the persons in question, since if things go awry you're back to square one, or more precisely don't move from where you are at right now, while otherwise the option in question is a complete / partial success improving your current situation. In that sense Si seems to prevent betterment, and instead keeps its user trapped and locked in his current misery, which could easily be dispelled if the persons would just loosen up a tad.
> 
> That of course is an ISTP's perception at work, others may perceive it entirely different.


However, I do agree with you in situations like this that it's something the ISJ (or SJ in general) should aim to work on. That is, assuming that they agree with you about the state of the situation that they're in. If they have constant problems that are not being fixed and it's affecting their lives in a very negative way, then it is best for them to find a solution to the problem.

This is an area of weakness for ISJs, particularly ISFJs. If we are currently in a less than optimal situation, we often would rather choose to stay in that situation rather than take a risk to change it. Even though we know the risk could pay off to lead to a better situation, we also know that it could lead to a worse one, and that could leave us in a worse place than where we started.

Now, I imagine that for SPs, they are not nearly as bothered by this. They probably look at the situation as one where if things go badly, they can just adapt and find a way to make it better. I always view the SP lifestyle like a roller-coaster...a lot of ups and downs. Some people find roller coasters thrilling and exciting. However, some also find them to be stressful and unstable...they prefer to have consistency.

So for SJs, we have a hard time making those flexible adjustments that SPs do. Like other J types, it causes us lots of stress to have things up in the air and to not have a long-term plan. For ISJs in particular, that's why we have such a hard time risking to lose the situation that we currently have.

I think for ISJs, we have to reach a situation in life that is so bad that we can't stand it anymore before we make the change. Instead, we often choose to patiently wait until the situation improves. And sometimes it does without us having to make any big changes. I may be wrong, but I would imagine that SPs would have a bigger problem holding onto that patience without taking any action.

So it's tough to say because it really is up to the SJ in question how bad the situation truly is. From your perspective, you may see any change as a good one. But for them, it's possible that making the change just causes them more stress than it does good.


However, that does not mean that SJs are incapable of making changes. It's not like we always choose to do the same thing and never want to change up anything in our lives. But I do think in some cases it's easier than others.

For me, what I've noticed is that I am more apt to make changes when I can take baby steps, one at a time. Instead of making one huge jump, it helps if I can test the waters a little bit with something new. Once I gain some familiarity and security with the new idea or action, I start exploring it more and start seeing how it might be something good.


What I always suggest to do in situations like this is just to get the ISJ thinking about it. This is where you being an ISTP is helpful, since as you said, you won't be pushing anything on them. But if you just ask questions, particularly about how pleased, content or happy they are in their current situation...if they're not happy, it will get them thinking about it. They may even lie to you and act like everything's just fine, but in their own minds it will start the gears turning.

It usually takes a lot of time, so you have to be patient...and it's something that we have to get to on our own, without being pushed. But I think the more an ISJ analyzes their current situation and realizes that they're not happy with it, the more likely it is that they will eventually push to make a change, even if it is at a slow pace.









Erbse said:


> I've only very recently read Jung's "Personality Types", what he states however is that the dominant function (in my case Ti) always remains dominant. The other functions work in favor of Ti, but don't have much of an own saying. In that sense I can enjoy Se as auxiliary as outlet and recharge, or get out of my head for a bit, Se however will never reach the state as if it were dominant. Plus, in my case anyway, my Se isn't really "up there" so to speak, but for the fact that I enjoy physical activities / exhaustion tremendously. That could explain why I remind you to INTPs, since a not so balsy Se would imply that my N isn't being as suppressed as it could be :tongue:


That makes sense.





Erbse said:


> The major difference between ISTPs and INTPs is mostly Se to Ne in their auxiliary position. So ISTPs focus on knowledge of relevance to them and the world they interact in, while INTPs take pursuits for the sake of doing so, or more precisely they like to learn for the sake of learning. ISTPs learn only if it's of interest, or practical relevance to them. Both are equally capable in their abstraction skill (as it's Ti, the shared dominating function that does the refining), assuming you compare a field in which the INTP and ISTP overlaps. The ISTP however will never remain abstract for the sake of it, but mostly use concrete content (and examples) where ever possible.


That makes sense too. It also sheds some light on ISTPs for me, since they're one of the few types I know very little about. I don't think I know any surefire ISTPs IRL, and I don't talk to any regularly on PerC.




Erbse said:


> It is not so much that I get frustrated by anything they do, but as I'm constantly getting the vibe of untapped potential I feel the desire to help them out and guide them there, so that they experience how broad and open the world is in reality. Logically speaking: The world you experienced in the past is only a part of the world, and while it is logically correct that all dogs are nasty if the only dog you ever knew bit your finger it's only natural that if you approach more dogs you'll notice that not all dogs deserve to be judged. As previously stated however, typically an effort that goes to complete waste. That's what frustrates me if anything, I can easily overlook opinion difference as at worst I'll just settle for agreeing to disagreeing.


Well, I talked about this a good bit earlier. I think so much of it depends on the situation. I really do think it's true that what is best for you isn't always what's best for an ISJ, and vice versa. While it's good for everyone to learn about life and what's out there, as I mentioned in my last post, I think ISJs get a certain distinct satisfaction out of simple things that other types don't. It's frustrating not being able to get this across to others a lot of times. However, as long as I don't feel judged by them, then it's not a big deal.

I think the issue comes about when an ISJ refuses to understand how others are different than they are and that they have different values. I think if an ISJ can learn to do this, to be open-minded in the aspect that others have their own values that are equally valid, then it works out very well. It allows both sides to not be judgmental of one another, and to see the strengths that the other side has.





Erbse said:


> What would be reason enough for you to consider change? Due to my principles I often find the SJ's around me to bring agony over themselves over and over, because they keep on relying on the same persons, just to be disappointed. It appears that some, not all of them, though, judge everything on the current state of things, rather than drawing a general consensus of everything that has ever happened.
> 
> So I'm telling them, that for as long as you keep on relying on person X, you'll keep up winding disappointed and hurt. Of course this is only logical, and logic speaking. It however still doesn't appear to be enough to take initiative to initiate change in most cases. So again, very mind boggling for me.


Well, I think it goes back to what I said earlier in this post. It's hard for me to say anything more right now because I can't tell what kind of exact situation you're referring to. I can't tell if it's a job situation where an employer is relying on irresponsible employees, or if it's someone in a romantic relationship with someone that is making them unhappy. So I'd have to have more details before I can say anything else.

However, if it is a relationship situation, I think the big problem is a fear of loneliness, especially for ISFJs. ISFJs are known for staying in bad relationships instead of breaking up, because not only do they not like conflict/hurt feelings, they also don't like leaving the known relationship, not knowing if or when there will be another. The fear of the loneliness leads to sticking with who they have.


But like I said, I always have a hard time commenting on situations like these when I don't have the full picture of all of the details about what's actually happening. It leads to a lot of confusion and miscommunication sometimes.









Erbse said:


> It's not that, at least not for me. I'm very low maintenance myself and easy to please, or outright boring so to speak, depending on who you ask. The only thing I don't understand is that Si seems to also cling on the current state of things and stagnancy if the current state is an unfavorable one. Although I'm speaking logically unfavorable, but in some cases I also know it's also emotionally draining for the person in question.


I see your point. However, I also think that the nice thing about Si is the stability that it provides when the current state of things *is* favorable. It allows us to be content and grateful for what we have. I know some types always struggle with never being content....they're always seeking out a better, ideal or perfect situation, and they're constantly left disappointed or wanting. 

So I see all of the functions as having their ups and downs, depending on the exact person and situation.


----------



## MrSmashem (Aug 25, 2010)

Erbse said:


> Ti dominated people typically don't need to make a mistake, in order to know it's a mistake. We just think about it and can come to a valid conclusion in regards to our own being, and hence form our opinion without actual first hand experience, or even secondary experience involved (secondary as is seeing someone else commit a mistake). It comes so natural to us, to me anyway, that I'd expect any thinker to get it and think alike of course (the very curse of a well developed Ti).


I kind of get where you're coming from with this, but I don't completely agree. For example: I know drinking and driving is a mistake based on other people's experiences with it. However, I can't say it ever really sinks in without experiencing first hand. It's just a thought, "I probably shouldn't try it, but ehhh...if I do I do." The reality and the true knowledge/understanding only comes from experiencing it first hand(whether it be myself driving, myself being a passenger or even being a victim of a drunk driving accident[which still wouldn't give me complete understanding of it, but maybe enough to say, "that's definitely a bad idea, no drunk driving for me]).

Here's a description of Ti I read in this thread http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/65666-understanding-8-functions-using-perspectives-truth-language-l-thomson.html I completely related to(edit: I underlined the portion that mainly relates to your post): 

*7. From the standpoint of Introverted Thinking (Ti), a statement puts things into an abstract "space": a way in which specific things are related, including unrealized potentialities that the things might have. For example, there is a "space" of how far you can bend a piece of wood before it breaks. In this respect, Ti is no different than Te. The difference is that, from the Ti standpoint, the meaning of a statement is not defined prior to the subject matter. It's defined by the real properties of the specific things that you're talking about, and it's known only by interacting with those things yourself in some way. To understand how far you can bend the wood, you need to bend it--until it breaks, or almost breaks. Then you will know how far the wood can be bent. You won't know with numbers, you'll know with your hands. From the Ti standpoint, communication is possible only between people who share some common experience of the things that they're talking about. To say something that you can understand, I need to relate it logically to things in your own experience. To show you how far a piece of wood bends, instead of giving a numerical measure (Te), I'd either encourage you to bend a piece of wood yourself, or find some mathematically similar thing that you know about and relate wood-bending to that. Words cannot be defined prior to the reality that they're about; words and criteria defined independently of the reality would be meaningless. The world itself provides a natural set of reference points, arising from the real, causal structure of things. Ultimately, to talk is to say, "I mean that."*


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I get along with ISFJs pretty well most of the time, some ESFJs and ISTJs. I find SJs often to be down-to-earth, reliable, loyal, and I admire their ability to get stuff done 

I had more clashes with SJs as a teenager than at any other point in my life. 

ESTJs are probably the SJ I'm least likely to get along with, though I'm often drawn to the other 3 as friends or boyfriends.

Of course, there are soooo many SJs that of course I'm not going to get along with all of them, but I've noticed a general trend of appreciating ISFJs for the most part, I have an ESFJ ex, a couple of ISFJ exes, and I like an ISTJ at the moment.

My grandfather was an ISTJ and I adored him as a child, but we clashed pretty badly when I was a teen because I found him too regimented and controlling; I felt that he wasn't very open-minded, accepting or whatever, but he was always reliable, like a rock. It was probably also a generation gap, amongst other things.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

xReBoRN7 said:


> *7. From the standpoint of Introverted Thinking (Ti), a statement puts things into an abstract "space": a way in which specific things are related, including unrealized potentialities that the things might have. For example, there is a "space" of how far you can bend a piece of wood before it breaks. In this respect, Ti is no different than Te. The difference is that, from the Ti standpoint, the meaning of a statement is not defined prior to the subject matter. It's defined by the real properties of the specific things that you're talking about, and it's known only by interacting with those things yourself in some way. To understand how far you can bend the wood, you need to bend it--until it breaks, or almost breaks. Then you will know how far the wood can be bent. You won't know with numbers, you'll know with your hands. From the Ti standpoint, communication is possible only between people who share some common experience of the things that they're talking about. To say something that you can understand, I need to relate it logically to things in your own experience. To show you how far a piece of wood bends, instead of giving a numerical measure (Te), I'd either encourage you to bend a piece of wood yourself, or find some mathematically similar thing that you know about and relate wood-bending to that. Words cannot be defined prior to the reality that they're about; words and criteria defined independently of the reality would be meaningless. The world itself provides a natural set of reference points, arising from the real, causal structure of things. Ultimately, to talk is to say, "I mean that."*


That only applies if we in fact cared for the piece of wood, or had to work the piece of wood ourselves. If a stranger around us took a piece of wood and bent it until it's breaking point we'll pad his shoulders and say "Now, that outcomes was kind of obvious, wasn't it?" - we only care about systematic details if it concerns us first hand.

We inherently know that if you bend something too strongly it'll crack, where that breaking point is specifically however, is rather moot until the item in question is of importance to us in any way or form and/or we're dependent on it.


----------

