# Bow down to my knowledge!!



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

Hello to you. Hello to you and you. Good Day. blah.

Anyway, So although I believe I lead with subjective feeling I still want to lay it out for you guys to help me interpret in terms of functions/whatever personality thing you want to use.

Example: I realize that I am continuing my old thought process from high school now that I am more care-free. I am now naturally finding ways to see everyone in a "cute" way. I want to make sure that I love everyone I see (even though I might not act like it). I am not sure if you understand me, but I hate the idea of treating people like actual strangers or like people "you don't know". Also, I don't want to feel like I need to avoid people for no good reason. Today I decided to quickly say hi to this one dude who I've been avoiding for like... ever, even though I've only talked to him once. Usually, I find him very "hey, I am just going to talk to you and act like you care about what I have to say" and I don't like that (at least with him). Still, that isn't a good reason to runaway every time he comes close *it doesn't sit right with how I see people in general* So I resolved issue by saying hi to him at breakfast today. Now I feel like I "love" him the same way I love a random stranger. So I am happy that everyone is now "equal" in my eyes.

I feel like this is Fi (and I haven't studied anything, but feel free to enlighten me or call me a fool). I have my own internal concept of what's an acceptable way to view/treat people in general. The rule is: If I can treat you well AND "love" you then that means that I've let go of all the disturbances you might cause me as a stranger. In the example above, I don't have a burning desire to talk to that kid. Still, if he was to come to me or if I see him randomly then I'd feel ok smiling at him and treating him the way I treat other stranger-ish people naturally (which is either warm or distant-warm) now that he isn't an exception to the rule. It feels much better than giving him the cold stares I usually give him.

Example: I realize that I can connect random ideas in meaningful ways. Today I had a discussion with "smart people" (they are smart... I just wasn't paying attention to them) about the concept of objectiveness. They were using some terms that I didn't understand, but most of it was in colloquial english. Still, it was hard for me to participate and fully understand (I kept on thinking about my own thoughts too). Suddenly, someone did something that I was able to tie into the conversation (she took the water bottle that I intended for myself, except I left in the middle of the table because I felt bad for already having a water bottle and taking another one). It didn't have much to do with the conversation, but that was the only way I could actually discuss anything *because I am not smart*

...Is this Ne? I mean, I don't know. My sister says that I can connect random things together so I can understand things better. She could be wrong.


Example: I realize that as I create my own ideas about life I try to point on specific moments in my past to understand who I am now. So I will talk about my experience playing tennis to understand my idea on how I should live my life and interact with society. Or I will talk about how my interests from my childhood to understand why I hold a specific belief. So I really enjoy using chopsticks and I even remember the first time I used chopsticks. Now I use chopsticks because it connects me to my value system *I don't want to give out too many details because it's personal ...not personal-person ...I just don't like people knowing my ideals. It will lose its meaning if everyone felt the way I felt.*

I want to say this is Fi-Si ...but you know me... as stupid as a bucket of chicken. Maybe something else explains this better.

Example: I want to say that I can understand Fe from personal experience, but I don't know. My teacher who says she has studied cognitive functions thinks I don't use Fe at all (I don't know what she has actually studied so who knows). I try hard to understand a person. I did this on this forum only once and not really in real life (and I only did this with one person... I find it to be a waste of time) I will want to understand what kind of language the person likes to communicate with. So I'll think "this person likes logic more than emotions" so if I want something from the person (like a question answered), I might try to appear more logical... of course that doesn't work for me xDDDD.

I believe this is Fe because Fe tries to understand social interactions and if they are good at it, then they know what kinds of words to say to get a decent response out the general population of people. I realize that I might not be good at this because I got in trouble at work one time for using the word crazy at a mental health center. I was asked to describe myself and I decided to call myself crazy (because ...it's true.) My supervisor pulled me over and tried to tell me that it means I am calling myself insane, but I didn't really see that at first because in this day and age ...people can use words however they want. Why can't I use words how I want to? I don't mean it in a bad way (I am not making fun of mentally ill people). I also realize that I might not be objective because I through peace signs everywhere and people get confused by what I mean. I use it when I am happy, leaving a social group or entering a social group. Other people are like ".....BICYCLE?!?!?!?!" and I have to tell them what it means to me. It's worse to do this with my Asian friends xDDDDD I mean, I stole it from their culture. I like their culture a lot and I do use it in pictures, but it means something other than its cultural meaning when I use it and that meaning can change.


Ok. So other functions. ...I am not going to do that right now because I just spent four hours typing this. So I guess I'll leave it at that. Do tell me how these play out function-wise, if they are related to the functions. If they are not ...please ...try to tell me nicely that I am as stupid as hell? :crazy:

**Also, I want to analyze my title creation skills. I tend to create titles that don't always connect with the idea exactly, but I do my best so that you can have a small clue (but not too much otherwise that's just boring ...and I don't know how to express myself clearly at times). In this case, the title is what is because I feel like I am trying to explain my understanding of the functions and ...just to joke around, I want to act like I know it all. Of course, I don't. I enjoy being witty when I can. I mean, I am aware that it says that interesting titles are better, but I am not sure if I focus on that or not. Right now, I am trying to understand how I expect you to respond to it, but it's kind of hard. Either you'll be simply intrigued or you'll just be confused or you'll see the title, laugh and then move on or you'll read the post and not reply or you'll just think that I am one messed up F***cker who wants to blow up the Earth and you'll think that I should be banned... I mean.... I love you... ***cough**** <_<"

I absolutely hate doing this, but ... @Amaterasu ...yeah? You want to help out?


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

@pandamiga
I'm just going to be a little busy today. Can I come back to this thread tomorrow? I assure you of a reply.


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

@Amaterasu No worries; you must do what you need to do. I am "studying" right now, so if you want me to wait... then that's still beneficial for me xD Thank you ^_^


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> Example: I realize that I am continuing my old thought process from high school now that I am more care-free. I am now naturally finding ways to see everyone in a "cute" way. I want to make sure that I love everyone I see (even though I might not act like it). I am not sure if you understand me, but I hate the idea of treating people like actual strangers or like people "you don't know". Also, I don't want to feel like I need to avoid people for no good reason. Today I decided to quickly say hi to this one dude who I've been avoiding for like... ever, even though I've only talked to him once. Usually, I find him very "hey, I am just going to talk to you and act like you care about what I have to say" and I don't like that (at least with him). Still, that isn't a good reason to runaway every time he comes close *it doesn't sit right with how I see people in general* So I resolved issue by saying hi to him at breakfast today. Now I feel like I "love" him the same way I love a random stranger. So I am happy that everyone is now "equal" in my eyes.


Is F, but hard to say if it's Fe or Fi but it sounds a little more Fe-ish to me.


> I feel like this is Fi (and I haven't studied anything, but feel free to enlighten me or call me a fool). I have my own internal concept of what's an acceptable way to view/treat people in general. The rule is: If I can treat you well AND "love" you then that means that I've let go of all the disturbances you might cause me as a stranger. In the example above, I don't have a burning desire to talk to that kid. Still, if he was to come to me or if I see him randomly then I'd feel ok smiling at him and treating him the way I treat other stranger-ish people naturally (which is either warm or distant-warm) now that he isn't an exception to the rule. It feels much better than giving him the cold stares I usually give him.


Hm, possible to say here what you seem to be using although I can suspect Fi-Te axis and Ne or Se.


> Example: I realize that I can connect random ideas in meaningful ways. Today I had a discussion with "smart people" (they are smart... I just wasn't paying attention to them) about the concept of objectiveness. They were using some terms that I didn't understand, but most of it was in colloquial english. Still, it was hard for me to participate and fully understand (I kept on thinking about my own thoughts too). Suddenly, someone did something that I was able to tie into the conversation (she took the water bottle that I intended for myself, except I left in the middle of the table because I felt bad for already having a water bottle and taking another one). It didn't have much to do with the conversation, but that was the only way I could actually discuss anything *because I am not smart*
> 
> ...Is this Ne? I mean, I don't know. My sister says that I can connect random things together so I can understand things better. She could be wrong.


You need to contextualize more. How did her taking your water bottle allow you to chime in on the conversation?


> Example: I realize that as I create my own ideas about life I try to point on specific moments in my past to understand who I am now. So I will talk about my experience playing tennis to understand my idea on how I should live my life and interact with society. Or I will talk about how my interests from my childhood to understand why I hold a specific belief. So I really enjoy using chopsticks and I even remember the first time I used chopsticks. Now I use chopsticks because it connects me to my value system *I don't want to give out too many details because it's personal ...not personal-person ...I just don't like people knowing my ideals. It will lose its meaning if everyone felt the way I felt.*
> 
> I want to say this is Fi-Si ...but you know me... as stupid as a bucket of chicken. Maybe something else explains this better.


Sounds kind of Si-Fi.


> Example: I want to say that I can understand Fe from personal experience, but I don't know. My teacher who says she has studied cognitive functions thinks I don't use Fe at all (I don't know what she has actually studied so who knows). I try hard to understand a person. I did this on this forum only once and not really in real life (and I only did this with one person... I find it to be a waste of time) I will want to understand what kind of language the person likes to communicate with. So I'll think "this person likes logic more than emotions" so if I want something from the person (like a question answered), I might try to appear more logical... of course that doesn't work for me xDDDD.


Ah, well yeah, this seems more of an Fi-Te approach than Fe. Honestly, I can't give you a good Fe response either... I think you will have to turn to the Fe aux and doms here. I am much too incapable of being consciously aware of my Fe for most of the part. Understanding a person doesn't just boil down to Fe though. Fe is more about creating group harmony and trying to make people get along, kind of. It's about taking upon the values of group as yours or picking up generally agreed upon group values and apply them in practice. Fe is result-oriented that way. Many Fe users are for example good party hosts in that sense since they try to ensure that everyone feels like they belong (doesn't mean they accomplish it though!). 

But yeah, I think good Fe use is not specific for Fe users. My ENFP friend is a good Fe user (but only in certain areas) because her Fi kind of overlaps with Fe in some areas, because her Fi shares Fe values, kind of, that even makes sense. I don't think the perespectives are 100% static in this sense, as I think we are capable of somewhat shifting perspectives as we go. The underlying motivation can be Fi however.


> I believe this is Fe because Fe tries to understand social interactions and if they are good at it, then they know what kinds of words to say to get a decent response out the general population of people. I realize that I might not be good at this because I got in trouble at work one time for using the word crazy at a mental health center. I was asked to describe myself and I decided to call myself crazy (because ...it's true.) My supervisor pulled me over and tried to tell me that it means I am calling myself insane, but I didn't really see that at first because in this day and age ...people can use words however they want. Why can't I use words how I want to? I don't mean it in a bad way (I am not making fun of mentally ill people). I also realize that I might not be objective because I through peace signs everywhere and people get confused by what I mean. I use it when I am happy, leaving a social group or entering a social group. Other people are like ".....BICYCLE?!?!?!?!" and I have to tell them what it means to me. It's worse to do this with my Asian friends xDDDDD I mean, I stole it from their culture. I like their culture a lot and I do use it in pictures, but it means something other than its cultural meaning when I use it and that meaning can change.


lol this is quite an FiNe response with Si as the starting point. Even I realize that what you said was kind if inappropriate given the social setting though, so yeah XDDDD



> Ok. So other functions. ...I am not going to do that right now because I just spent four hours typing this. So I guess I'll leave it at that. Do tell me how these play out function-wise, if they are related to the functions. If they are not ...please ...try to tell me nicely that I am as stupid as hell? :crazy:


I think you've provided sufficient information in some areas to strongly point towards INFP.


> **Also, I want to analyze my title creation skills. I tend to create titles that don't always connect with the idea exactly, but I do my best so that you can have a small clue (but not too much otherwise that's just boring ...and I don't know how to express myself clearly at times). In this case, the title is what is because I feel like I am trying to explain my understanding of the functions and ...just to joke around, I want to act like I know it all. Of course, I don't. I enjoy being witty when I can. I mean, I am aware that it says that interesting titles are better, but I am not sure if I focus on that or not. Right now, I am trying to understand how I expect you to respond to it, but it's kind of hard. Either you'll be simply intrigued or you'll just be confused or you'll see the title, laugh and then move on or you'll read the post and not reply or you'll just think that I am one messed up F***cker who wants to blow up the Earth and you'll think that I should be banned... I mean.... I love you... ***cough**** <_<"


God, overwhelmed by INFP cuteness. Must. resist. hugging.


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

Thanks @LeaT. You better resist hugging me. I have some lethal hugs. My sisters call me the rib-crusher... =DDDD

Yeah, I've always had problems really understanding Fe because I am a nice person and really friendly. I don't create social harmony, but I feel like I can detect it and try to see how it fits into my ideals on how life should be experienced. I also care to protect myself socially, so even if everyone is laughing and having a good time I may still be able to detect something that doesn't sit right with me. I'll think that these people are either mindless or they don't realize what their interaction means in the "esoteric" picture. Basically, I'll think they just don't see what I see. It takes work to disprove this.

And what you said about Fe and Fi overlapping makes a ton of sense because I do care to think that people should be comfortable around me, but at the same time I take time to make sure I am deeply satisfied with my actions (like I did with that annoying dude. He'll still be annoying, but now I won't care because my heart no longer feels that pang that I usually feel when he comes close). So yeah... I used to think I used Fe. Then all of a sudden people wanted to call me an ENFP/INFP. I was all "bitchwtf?!" 

For the waterbottle:

We were talking about qualia (subjective experience) in relation to the word game that Wittgenstein thought about. Basically it's that language is an attempt to contain our internal experiences so we can understand what a rock is. I believe that the qualia is more important than the tools we use to explain it. I feel this way because I placed a bottle of water in the middle of the table realizing that something was going to happen to it (either I'd drink it or someone else will). It was really hard to follow the conversation because I couldn't ask clarifying questions. It's hard to interrupt these kinds of people and have them respond to your questions. I don't really know what they were talking about, but I used the water bottle to say that subjective experiences are the basis of language, and everyone was having a hard time answering my questions. They said that once we can translate feelings into words that everyone understands we should stop there and that I was being too subjective with that example so it's unanswerable. I wanted to debate further ....but ...you know xDDD

Actually, I wanted to bring in Jung to help explain my ideas, but everyone seemed to be done with my ranting. Which reminds me, I can't wait until I understand Jung enough so I can beat people over the head with my ideas xDDD

Also, when I talk about philosophical ideas like that, I tend to feel like people shouldn't disagree with me (I'll feel a pang if you do, but I won't chainsaw your dog). I am not saying that I am right, but you need to go along with my concepts and help me develop them.

*sigh*


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> Thanks @_LeaT_. You better resist hugging me. I have some lethal hugs. My sisters call me the rib-crusher... =DDDD


lol oh noes :shocked:


> Yeah, I've always had problems really understanding Fe because I am a nice person and really friendly. I don't create social harmony, but I feel like I can detect it and try to see how it fits into my ideals on how life should be experienced. I also care to protect myself socially, so even if everyone is laughing and having a good time I may still be able to detect something that doesn't sit right with me. I'll think that these people are either mindless or they don't realize what their interaction means in the "esoteric" picture. Basically, I'll think they just don't see what I see. It takes work to disprove this.
> 
> And what you said about Fe and Fi overlapping makes a ton of sense because I do care to think that people should be comfortable around me, but at the same time I take time to make sure I am deeply satisfied with my actions (like I did with that annoying dude. He'll still be annoying, but now I won't care because my heart no longer feels that pang that I usually feel when he comes close). So yeah... I used to think I used Fe. Then all of a sudden people wanted to call me an ENFP/INFP. I was all "bitchwtf?!"


lol for some reason that expression is something I can see my ENFP friend doing/saying for exactly the same reason but different context XDDDDDDD


> For the waterbottle:
> 
> We were talking about qualia (subjective experience) in relation to the word game that Wittgenstein thought about. Basically it's that language is an attempt to contain our internal experiences so we can understand what a rock is. I believe that the qualia is more important than the tools we use to explain it. I feel this way because I placed a bottle of water in the middle of the table realizing that something was going to happen to it (either I'd drink it or someone else will). It was really hard to follow the conversation because I couldn't ask clarifying questions. It's hard to interrupt these kinds of people and have them respond to your questions. I don't really know what they were talking about, but I used the water bottle to say that subjective experiences are the basis of language, and everyone was having a hard time answering my questions. They said that once we can translate feelings into words that everyone understands we should stop there and that I was being too subjective with that example so it's unanswerable. I wanted to debate further ....but ...you know xDDD


pfft, early Wittgenstein can fuck off for all I care XDDDD I never liked his early ideas much. And of course they were going to disagree with you. I find it funny you mention Jung further down because....


> Actually, I wanted to bring in Jung to help explain my ideas, but everyone seemed to be done with my ranting. Which reminds me, I can't wait until I understand Jung enough so I can beat people over the head with my ideas xDDD


I was actually going to say what you seem to describe is actually the divide between Je and Ji users, sigh. Je users tend to not really want to have everything subjective or see how one can decide everything subjectively. They need some kind of external measurement to compare to.


> Also, when I talk about philosophical ideas like that, I tend to feel like people shouldn't disagree with me (I'll feel a pang if you do, but I won't chainsaw your dog). I am not saying that I am right, but you need to go along with my concepts and help me develop them.
> 
> *sigh*


lol I hear you there. Ne's gonna Ne. You want them to help you achieve more idea-generation and it's frustrating as hell when you can't get it. Been there, done that plenty of times :dry:


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> Hello to you. Hello to you and you. Good Day. blah. ...


I agree with @LeaT. Based on your posts in this thread and that other recent thread of yours, you vibe pretty strongly INFP to me.

Wanting "to make sure that I love everyone I see" — and being "happy that everyone is ... 'equal' in my eyes" — is more NFP-ish than NFJ-ish. I'd say INFJs have a tendency to inhabit worlds well populated with heroes _and villains_, and to insist that _distinctions must be made_ — and, frankly, and especially as the years pass, to end up disappointedly (and sometimes somewhat misanthropically) concluding that there sure seem to be a lot more douchebags than good people, dammit. NFPs don't _really_ think everybody's great, of course, but I think they're more likely to keep doggedly cherishing "love everybody" ideals — and trying to find/appreciate what's good in everybody and overlook/forgive what's bad — than the more temperamentally judgmental (where people are concerned) NFJs.

I've compared INFJs' and INFPs' appreciation of people to the difference between two movie lovers, one of whom is more of a movie snob and one of whom is more of a movie buff. The former doesn't necessarily love movies any less, but he loves the _best_ movies, and insists that _distinctions must be made_, and is often disappointed, and is inclined to feel that any significant amount of "flaws" basically spoils a movie; while the latter has more of an "it's all good" attitude, and is more able to appreciate the stuff he likes in a movie regardless of the fact that it may have a lot of faults as well. You might say NFJs have more of a default tendency to be people-raters, while NFPs have more of a tendency to be people-appreciators.

NFPs are the quintessential hippie-types, which is consistent with both the "love everybody" ideal and which I also note because you told us you "throw peace signs everywhere." :tongue:

You mentioned being confused partly because of some people-orientation that you associate more with Fe than Fi ("Fe tries to understand social interactions and if they are good at it, then they know what kinds of words to say to get a decent response out the general population"), but what you described in that section of your post just sounded more like _common F_ (and especially NF) to me than NFJ in particular.

And meanwhile, the way you thought about that incident where you used the word "crazy" at the mental health center also seems more INFP than INFJ to me. You say, "people can use words however they want. Why can't I use words how I want to?," and that central focus on having your words authentically express your own mental world at the expense of tailoring the words to fit the understanding/expectations of the people you're addressing is pretty much classic "Fi over Fe" (if you're looking at it from the cognitive functions side).


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

reckful said:


> I agree with @_LeaT_. Based on your posts in this thread and that other recent thread of yours, you vibe pretty strongly INFP to me.
> 
> Wanting "to make sure that I love everyone I see" — and being "happy that everyone is ... 'equal' in my eyes" — is more NFP-ish than NFJ-ish. I'd say INFJs have a tendency to inhabit worlds well populated with heroes _and villains_, and to insist that _distinctions must be made_ — and, frankly, and especially as the years pass, to end up disappointedly (and sometimes somewhat misanthropically) concluding that there sure seem to be a lot more douchebags than good people, dammit. NFPs don't _really_ think everybody's great, of course, but I think they're more likely to keep doggedly cherishing "love everybody" ideals — and trying to find/appreciate what's good in everybody and overlook/forgive what's bad — than the more temperamentally judgmental (where people are concerned) NFJs.
> 
> ...


...*Sigh* Yeah. 

I see your point about movies. I don't watch movies a lot, but I tend to just want to appreciate everything if it's possible. Only once do I remember seeing a movie and not wanting to watch it because thought they'd do that stupid shit and say "follow your own path" ...but now that I think it the movie was pretty ok since that wasn't their main message. I don't want to divide the movie into good and bad. It's either all good or it's all bad or it's just a movie. In this case, it's just a movie. I can't use it develop my personal beliefs at this point. But I can't live in a world where there are both villians and heroes. =( It makes me cranky and I have to adapt everything to fit my understanding.

I find it interesting that you say this because Le9acyMuse said that INFJs are more perfectionists and INFPs are more laid back. Now I see his point more clearly because of you. ....Good ole' Te you got there (if you'll let me stereotype).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

^ Just to clarify: I wasn't saying I think INFJs and INFPs tend to have those different attitudes toward _movies_. I was comparing what I see as somewhat characteristic INFJ/INFP differences in terms of their attitudes toward _people_ to the way those two hypothetical movie lovers approach movies.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

I didn't notice anything in your post that came across as Fi. 
You seem very much people orientated, which Fi isn't. Perhaps more so with enfp's, but I can only speak from my infp perspective. 

Wanting to love everybody isn't something I relate to at all. Everything I feel goes very deep so I limit who and what I allow myself to develop any kind of feeling about. I certainly don't want to see the best in people. I divide everything into good and bad. Then I make my judgements based on weighing them up. 
From my pov, which is obviously biased, I see Fe types judging good vs bad much more. They seem to push the bad side of something from their thoughts, until it all goes wrong and all their negative thoughts about the situation spill out.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I didn't notice anything in your post that came across as Fi.
> You seem very much people orientated, which Fi isn't. Perhaps more so with enfp's, but I can only speak from my infp perspective.
> 
> Wanting to love everybody isn't something I relate to at all. Everything I feel goes very deep so I limit who and what I allow myself to develop any kind of feeling about. I certainly don't want to see the best in people. I divide everything into good and bad. Then I make my judgements based on weighing them up.
> From my pov, which is obviously biased, I see Fe types judging good vs bad much more. They seem to push the bad side of something from their thoughts, until it all goes wrong and all their negative thoughts about the situation spill out.


I think people with ideals along the lines of "love everybody" generally aren't talking about "loving" in any kind of significantly emotional way. It usually has more to do with acceptance and appreciating differences and trying to avoid negative judgments and that sort of thing, rather than the kinds of strong emotional bonds they'll have with their true "loved ones."

In your last paragraph, did you mean to refer to Fe? You talk about dividing everything into good and bad yourself (and you're Fi), but then say you "see Fe types judging good vs. bad much more," but maybe I'm missing a nuance.

Just out of curiosity (if it's OK to ask), do you usually come out INFP on dichotomy-based tests? Also: Do you tend to come out close to the middle on J/P (or any of the other dimensions)?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

I meant, I believe fe is more likely to want to ignore the bad and only see the good in things or people. Fi wants to see the true picture, good and bad. 

I always get the result infp, not anyway near a j.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

pandamiga said:


> Hello to you. Hello to you and you. Good Day. blah.
> 
> Anyway, So although I believe I lead with subjective feeling I still want to lay it out for you guys to help me interpret in terms of functions/whatever personality thing you want to use.
> 
> ...


Wow! This illustrated something quite Fi-like, I think, better than I've seen anywhere (a lot more clearly). I definitely know I don't lead with it from this (I lead with Ni - never ever thought I led with Fi, but I do have a personal code nonetheless), but I can see myself in this mildly (not the same ways, cares, and methods as you, but the concept rings a bell to the general process and what ideas one might fixate on with Fi). I would say you're definitely an Fi dom. (your lack of self confidence in the thinking department kind of supports this pretty well).


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> I meant, I believe fe is more likely to want to ignore the bad and only see the good in things or people. Fi wants to see the true picture, good and bad.
> 
> I always get the result infp, not anyway near a j.


Can you provide some published examples that back up how you ascertained that Fi focuses on the whole picture in regard to people and Fe prefers to only to see the good.? 
I have never heard either described as such before and I am curious about the validity of such concepts.


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

> I think people with ideals along the lines of "love everybody" generally aren't talking about "loving" in any kind of significantly emotional way. It usually has more to do with acceptance and appreciating differences and trying to avoid negative judgments and that sort of thing, rather than the kinds of strong emotional bonds they'll have with their true "loved ones."


 @_Neverontime_

This is exactly what I mean. I don't consider everyone to be my best friend or have an emotional attachment to the world. I just know that I shouldn't go around calling you a complete jerk because what if you do something that I find value in? You can't be both good and evil. So if I can find the value in you (say, you have strong spiritual beliefs that I also believe in) even if you are loser who seems to be too dependent on other people. I'd rather say I love you because you have something that I value.

With people I truly love, it's different. I actually consider them to be in a different group from the rest of humanity. They actually become unique individuals that are meant to "serve" my other, stronger visions, so to speak.


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I meant, I believe fe is more likely to want to ignore the bad and only see the good in things or people. Fi wants to see the true picture, good and bad.
> 
> I always get the result infp, not anyway near a j.


Actually, I got this strange insight that you might not be completely correct. If Fe ignores what's bad and only focuses on the good, then that would mean it's not objective. Instead it would be subjective because it takes what it wants from the outside based on it's internal images (... isn't that more Fi?). But Fe is objective so it actually doesn't do that. Fe does want truth because it wants to know how the social world really works even if it is in relation to the person who uses Fe (so it seems subjective, but it ain't).

I could be wrong. I just say what bubbles in my mind, so do correct me.

And I understand that you took a test, but why did you bring up that fact?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> Actually, I got this strange insight that you might not be completely correct. If Fe ignores what's bad and only focuses on the good, then that would mean it's not objective. Instead it would be subjective because it takes what it wants from the outside based on it's internal images (... isn't that more Fi?). But Fe is objective so it actually doesn't do that. Fe does want truth because it wants to know how the social world really works even if it is in relation to the person who uses Fe (so it seems subjective, but it ain't).
> 
> I could be wrong. I just say what bubbles in my mind, so do correct me.
> 
> And I understand that you took a test, but why did you bring up that fact?


Fe is objective because it focuses on general ideas regarding socialization, not whether something is good or bad. Those values are determined based on the group the Fe user is trying to ascertain. If the majority of people thinks murder is bad, the Fe user will think murder is bad, of course stereotyping and simplifying here.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> And I understand that you took a test, but why did you bring up that fact?


I asked her about her J/P dichotomy test results, so that's why she mentioned that. People sometimes come out one way on dichotomy tests but conclude they're another type through cognitive function analysis, so I sometimes ask if it seems potentially relevant to the discussion.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

reckful said:


> Wanting "to make sure that I love everyone I see" — and being "happy that everyone is ... 'equal' in my eyes" — is more NFP-ish than NFJ-ish. I'd say INFJs have a tendency to inhabit worlds well populated with heroes _and villains_, and to insist that _distinctions must be made_ — and, frankly, and especially as the years pass, to end up disappointedly (and sometimes somewhat misanthropically) concluding that there sure seem to be a lot more douchebags than good people, dammit. NFPs don't _really_ think everybody's great, of course, but I think they're more likely to keep doggedly cherishing "love everybody" ideals — and trying to find/appreciate what's good in everybody and overlook/forgive what's bad — than the more temperamentally judgmental (where people are concerned) NFJs.
> [...]
> NFPs are the quintessential hippie-types, which is consistent with both the "love everybody" ideal and which I also note because you told us you "throw peace signs everywhere."


What you're describing as INFP here is almost exactly what I've seen my (undoubtedly) INFJ friend go through. He's _never_ made distinctions between people, he's always insisted that everyone is "equal" and "should be loved." He refuses to fight and thinks that any... mean person... just needs a chance to "prove themselves." And he's been this way for at least ten years. Granted, he's about as 296 as one can get.

Perhaps @pandamiga is an INFP 2? Have you looked any at the Enneagram, Pandamiga?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Paradigm said:


> What you're describing as INFP here is almost exactly what I've seen my (undoubtedly) INFJ friend go through. He's _never_ made distinctions between people, he's always insisted that everyone is "equal" and "should be loved." He refuses to fight and thinks that any... mean person... just needs a chance to "prove themselves." And he's been this way for at least ten years. Granted, he's about as 296 as one can get.


I think the personalitypage site mostly does a reasonably decent job with their type pages, and I like the fact that they have a page devoted to the negative side of each type (somewhat euphemistically described as the "personal growth" page). Here are a few items from their list of weaknesses INFJs can be prone to:



personalitypage said:


> May apply their judgment more often towards others, rather than towards themselves
> May have unrealistic and/or unreasonable expectations of others
> May be intolerant of weaknesses in others
> May be cuttingly derisive and sarcastic towards others
> May hold grudges, and have difficulty forgiving people


I also think Keirsey has a lot of insightful things to say about the types, but I think he paints an overly rosy overall picture of the NFs by focusing too exclusively on the admirable way an NF "idealist" tends to relate to the people in what you might call their "in group" and downplaying or ignoring the award-winning levels of rancor and contempt that an NF is capable of feeling (and sometimes displaying) toward people who they view as failing to measure up in some important human respect. And I think NFJs are more prone to that particular "dark side" (if you want to view it that way) than the more easygoing and less judgmental (relatively speaking) NFPs. As between ENFPs and INFPs, I'd say INFPs are definitely more woundable and quicker to write someone off, but as between INFJs and INFPs, my experience has been consistent with typical MBTI portraits that view a typical INFJ as significantly "less F" (if you will) than a typical INFP. I've posted elsewhere that I think INFJs are probably both the "least NF of the NFs" (in Keirseyan terms) and the "least F of the Fs" in Jungian/MBTI terms. If you're looking for a purveyor of sarcasm or scathing contempt among all the F types, it seems to me that an INFJ is arguably your best bet.

You know the old expression, "I love mankind; it's people I can't stand"? Notwithstanding your friend's general principle about there being no bad people, just good people who are misunderstood (or whatever), when it comes to his attitude toward the various individual people he actually deals with in real life (as expressed to you, not to their faces), are the things he says really pretty much free of derision, disapproval and eye-rolls?


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

Paradigm said:


> What you're describing as INFP here is almost exactly what I've seen my (undoubtedly) INFJ friend go through. He's _never_ made distinctions between people, he's always insisted that everyone is "equal" and "should be loved." He refuses to fight and thinks that any... mean person... just needs a chance to "prove themselves." And he's been this way for at least ten years. Granted, he's about as 296 as one can get.
> 
> Perhaps @_pandamiga_ is an INFP 2? Have you looked any at the Enneagram, Pandamiga?



...So you're saying I am an INFP and that my enneagram is 2?
I haven't looked into enneagram, but I did take one test. I got 9w1, but other people think I could be a 7, 9, or any of those happier enneagrams. I don't know.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

pandamiga said:


> ...So you're saying I am an INFP and that my enneagram is 2?
> I haven't looked into enneagram, but I did take one test. I got 9w1, but other people think I could be a 7, 9, or any of those happier enneagrams. I don't know.


I'm not saying you _are_, I'm saying it's a possibility. Since everyone else seems to think that you're Fi, but I see you as sharing quite a few traits my friend has, INFP 2 was a sort of middle-ground. Especially given that 2 is a people-oriented type.

FWIW, 2 is very much positive, or "happier," just like 7 and 9.

@_reckful_, I'll reply later. I'm not really having luck expressing my thoughts at the moment.


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

Paradigm said:


> I'm not saying you _are_, I'm saying it's a possibility. Since everyone else seems to think that you're Fi, but I see you as sharing quite a few traits my friend has, INFP 2 was a sort of middle-ground. Especially given that 2 is a people-oriented type.
> 
> FWIW, 2 is very much positive, or "happier," just like 7 and 9.
> 
> @_reckful_, I'll reply later. I'm not really having luck expressing my thoughts at the moment.


Oh, I see. Yeah... I see what you're saying. I wouldn't say that I am "people oriented" I read some of type 2, but I guess that is still a possibility. I mean, I use love to emotionally detach myself from people. I mean... once I love a random stranger, I don't really feel like I need to do anything after that.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> I mean, I use love to emotionally detach myself from people. I mean... once I love a random stranger, I don't really feel like I need to do anything after that.


That sounds like quintessential Fi by some definitions.

Marie-Louise von Franz was apparently one of Jung's prize pupils, and here's a little passage about the poet Rilke that made me chuckle from her book, The Inferior Function:



Marie-Louise von Franz said:


> Introverted feeling, even if it is the main function, is very difficult to understand. A very good example of it is the Austrian poet Rainer Maria Rilke. He once wrote: "_Ich liebe dich, was geht's dich an._" ("I love you, but it's none of your business.") That is love for love's sake! Feeling is very strong, but it does not flow toward the object. ... Naturally, this kind of feeling is very much misunderstood, and such people are considered very cold. But they are not at all; the feeling is all within them.


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

reckful said:


> That sounds like quintessential Fi by some definitions.
> 
> Marie-Louise von Franz was apparently one of Jung's prize pupils, and here's a little passage about the poet Rilke that made me chuckle from her book, The Inferior Function:


bahaha!! I laughed so hard reading that. I wanted to tell a friend a similar thing since we were debating love today. I love him a lot, but really I don't really expect him to respond to that ....I want him to forget that I am a human being and just act like he would if no one was around. And I'd do the same. When I love you it means that I almost don't care about you. You be you and I be me. To me, that's true love. I am like that with my family. ...I don't go about saying "Hi! mommy and daddy, I am home from college!!! I MISEED YOU!!!!" Instead, I'll stare at them for a few seconds... decide that they are not upset about anything and then hide in my room for 3 months.

How do you experience Fi?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> bahaha!! I laughed so hard reading that. I wanted to tell a friend a similar thing since we were debating love today. I love him a lot, but really I don't really expect him to respond to that ....I want him to forget that I am a human being and just act like he would if no one was around. And I'd do the same. *When I love you it means that I almost don't care about you.* You be you and I be me. To me, that's true love. I am like that with my family. ...I don't go about saying "Hi! mommy and daddy, I am home from college!!! I MISEED YOU!!!!" Instead, I'll stare at them for a few seconds... decide that they are not upset about anything and then hide in my room for 3 months.
> 
> How do you experience Fi?


Well, I don't think "When I love you it means that I almost don't care about you" really fits the Rilke situation. Rilke was writing to his wife, as I understand it, and von Franz notes that his "feeling" was "very strong" but just didn't "flow toward the object."

As far as how I "experience Fi" — both in the context of a romantic relationship and a strong friendship, and with the caveat that I'm not sure to what extent this is best viewed as Fi or T or IT or INT or what — I'd note two things:

1. To me, _doing things for each other_ is not an essential part of a romantic relationship or friendship. Ideally, it's based simply on love or fondness for who the other person is, not what the other person does for me (and _vice versa_). I've done several posts at another forum discussing the core drive INFJs (especially) seem to have to make "noble sacrifices" or otherwise engage in significant acts of service for the people they care most about. And in that context, and as an example of more of an _opposite_ orientation toward love, I've quoted C.S. Lewis. In The Four Loves, he noted that, "to the Ancients, Friendship [— by which he meant the kind of kindred-spirit best-friendship that a person has with, at most, a select few —] seemed the happiest and most fully human of all loves," and Lewis concurred with that assessment, and went on to note that the idea of one person doing something for the benefit of another played no essential part in — and was in fact somewhat "alien" to — this highest form of human love.



C.S. Lewis said:


> A Friend will, to be sure, prove himself to be also an ally when alliance becomes necessary; will lend or give when we are in need, nurse us in sickness, stand up for us among our enemies, do what he can for our widows and orphans. But such good offices are not the stuff of Friendship. The occasions for them are almost interruptions. They are in one way relevant to it, in another not. Relevant, because you would be a false friend if you would not do them when the need arose; irrelevant, because *the role of benefactor always remains accidental, even a little alien, to that of Friend. It is almost embarrassing*. For Friendship is utterly free from Affection's need to be needed. We are sorry that any gift or loan or night-watching should have been necessary — and now, for heaven's sake, let us forget all about it and go back to the things we really want to do or talk of together. Even gratitude is no enrichment to this love. The stereotyped "Don't mention it" here expresses what we really feel. The mark of perfect Friendship is not that help will be given when the pinch comes (of course it will) but that, having been given, it makes no difference at all. It was a distraction, an anomaly. It was a horrible waste of the time, always too short, that we had together.


That strongly resonates with me. INFJs are often said to have somewhat of a _martyr_ streak, and to seek opportunities to play _benefactor_, in contrast to Lewis's experience of the benefactor role as "almost embarrassing," and an anomalous irrelevancy in the context of "the happiest and most fully human of all loves."

2. The other possibly noteworthy thing about the way I experience romantic love (in particular) is that I wouldn't say I care all that much how much an SO loves me, as long as she's happy enough with the overall relationship to want to stay with me. I really don't seem to have that strong a need/desire to _be loved_ by anybody. If I love an SO, I want her to be happy and I want her around — which means, obviously, that I want her to love/like/appreciate/whatever me enough to want to stick around, but that's loving/liking me as more of a _means to an end_ thing, which seems meaningfully different to me from the common desire that a lot of people seem to have to _feel loved_.

There's an old expression along the lines of "In love, there is always one who kisses and one who offers the cheek." Suppose God pulled you aside and said, pandamiga, I've got some good news and some bad news and some good news. The first bit of good news is that you're going to get married next year and the marriage is going to be happy and last a lifetime. The bad news is that it's going to be one of those situations where one of you is the kisser and one of you is the offeror of the cheek. That is, one of you is going to basically be crazy about the other and think of them as really special, and the other one is going to have milder feelings — more along the lines of a strong friendship — but be content with the marriage. But the second piece of good news is: you get to choose which party you want to be. In my experience, if you pose that hypothetical to different people, you get some very different responses. But for me, it's not a close call. I'd much rather be the one who loves more, and spends my life with someone I'm really crazy about. The fact that they may love me quite a bit less (or feel more like just a good friend) really isn't a big deal to me as long as they're happy and have no desire to leave.

It's been my (limited) experience that women are more likely than men to prefer to be the one who's loved more, rather than be the one who loves more, and maybe it's mostly a T/F thing (to the extent that it's influenced by Jungian/MBTI factors). But, assuming there's something to Fi and Fe, I wouldn't be surprised if it might also be somewhat of an Fi/Fe thing and, if it is, I'd guess Fe types would be the ones who care more about _being loved back_ — consistent with what would seem to be von Franz's implication that an Fe spouse would be more inclined to say that whether or not you loved her (and how much) certainly _was_ "her business."


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

reckful said:


> That sounds like quintessential Fi by some definitions.
> 
> Marie-Louise von Franz was apparently one of Jung's prize pupils, and here's a little passage about the poet Rilke that made me chuckle from her book, The Inferior Function:


Interesting. Would you say this is comparable to how I reason around this where in the case I love a person, I expect that person to just know? I don't need to express it further than that. I feel people should know and feel this innately and yeah, those feelings can be rather strong. I am curious to hear now if you think that's Fi colored by Ti or if you think that's just Ti.

Clarification: I also read the C. S. Lewis quote and what you wrote about how you experienced your Fi, and I agree. To me, true love or the highest kind of love, should not be in actions alone but should be quintessential to one's being between two people. It's not just what I say or do as those things are in the end utterly pointless if you cannot prove the depth of your feelings, which should be innate. I can compare to my ESFJ grandmother who does a lot of things for me and it's not that I don't know that she doesn't love me (in fact I seem to be the only person that is the center of her life -.-), but her actions ultimately feel... hollow. I wonder if this also has part to do with enneagram sexual instinct connection. 

The relationship itself between any two people should simply reflect the love between these people innately in interaction. You should know and feel the love from one another. That's very ideal to me. I absolutely know what you mean with the Fe user's martyr complex. It can get on my nerves, especially if I see it as highly unnecessary and it's encroaching on my personal independence. Your sacrifice means nothing if I cannot share the same bond with you, I guess. There is no meaning behind the actions or the words. I can't see them and feel them.

Sacrifice when I need it the most, *when I demand it*, not any other time. Any other time I will expect you to manage on your own, and you should the same for me. My relationship and love to you has nothing to do with my dependence on you. (Actually, I think the last part about dependence really hit the head on the nail about the Fe-Ji divide).

Clarification 2: I started to think if this is an enneagram 4 thing? I can't do any good self-analysis of myself right now, but at least at face value the entire reasoning does seem very Fi. I also wanted to add that C. S. Lewis quote has a certain idealistic air I just find really beautiful and it struck a nerve. I can't say anything more than I just utterly agree. Your actions mean nothing if the feelings behind those actions are not true or genuine and while it may seem presumptuous of me judging the feelings of another person, it's just something you feel in the interaction I guess. If the feelings are deep or not.

And oh, I just wanted to bring up an RL example I see as a good reflection of this ideal: I have a very sporadic relationship with my ESTP cousin. We're friends but we rarely see or talk to each other. That's perfectly fine with me and probably with her too. *We don't need to see each other* an X amount of time each month or year. However, our friendship is rather deep and strong and when we meet it's always like yesterday. Things don't really change between us that way and it's not hard to pick up where we left off. However, in times of need, we will always be there for each other. We don't need to vocalize this. _We just know._ The day I call her and say I need help with this, I know she will be there for me. It's not the action itself that matters I guess, but the readiness of it. That the relationship is that strong and deep where it's not the action itself that matters, but that I know that we will be there for each other because it's genuine. It's quintessential between us. No need to say or show it. We can simply demand on it when required. 

Bleh, I need to go take a T shower after all this F gush now f


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Arclight said:


> Can you provide some published examples that back up how you ascertained that Fi focuses on the whole picture in regard to people and Fe prefers to only to see the good.?
> I have never heard either described as such before and I am curious about the validity of such concepts.


Mostly, it's from my own experience and pov, which I did state in my first post. 

Jungs Extraverted Feeling description discusses the contrasting opinions of the Fe type from one moment to another regarding the same object. He talks of Ti eruptions of the Fe types as a result of the subject assimilating too much to the object. 

"Only a very slight alteration in the situation is needed to provoke forthwith an entirely contrary estimation of the selfsame object. The result of such an experience is that the observer is unable to take either judgment at all seriously. He begins to reserve his own opinion. But since, with this type, it is a matter of the greatest moment to establish an intensive feeling rapport with his environment, redoubled efforts are now required to overcome this reserve. Thus, in the manner of the circulus vitiosus, the situation goes from bad to worse. The more the feeling relation with the object becomes overstressed, the nearer the unconscious opposition approaches the surface."

"The stronger the conscious feeling relation, and therefore, the more 'depersonalized,' it becomes, the stronger grows the unconscious opposition. This reveals itself in the fact that unconscious ideas centre round just the most valued objects, which are thus pitilessly stripped of their value. That thinking which always thinks in the 'nothing but' style is in its right place here, since it destroys the ascendancy of the feeling that is chained to the object. 

Unconscious thought reaches the surface in the form of irruptions, often of an obsessing nature, the general character of which is always negative and depreciatory. Women of this type have moments when the most hideous thoughts fasten upon the very objects most valued by their feelings. "

If a person sees a true picture of someone else, then their opinion of that person would remain fairly consistent from one moment to the next.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> Actually, I got this strange insight that you might not be completely correct. If Fe ignores what's bad and only focuses on the good, then that would mean it's not objective. Instead it would be subjective because it takes what it wants from the outside based on it's internal images (... isn't that more Fi?). But Fe is objective so it actually doesn't do that. Fe does want truth because it wants to know how the social world really works even if it is in relation to the person who uses Fe (so it seems subjective, but it ain't).
> 
> I could be wrong. I just say what bubbles in my mind, so do correct me.
> 
> And I understand that you took a test, but why did you bring up that fact?


Fe isn't objective, it's extraverted. It aligns itself with the general external consensus. Fi doesn't take what it wants from the external reality based on internal images, it judges the external reality based on the internal images. 

If it only sees the good then how can it make subjective judgements?


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Iiiii... in all my limited knowledge of you gained from your post.....

Believe that you are an INFP, or possibly an INTP. Look at their portraits, and see if they match what you feel is true about yourself.

What you described in these paragraphs sounded to me like:

Your first example: INFP.
That bit inbetween: I agree that it's Fi based.
2nd example: This sounds like Ni. You're taking threads common to things and using them to build or find something they all share. That's Ni.

2nd Paragraph: Sounds like some more things my INFP girlfriend has said. I think it's a combination of Ni or maybe Si and Ti together.

3rd (the one with tennis): sounds like something my INFP GF says again. She'll talk about two things that don't seem related to me, and then the relationship will end up being how two dissimilar things made her feel. I think that's a combination of Ni and Si.

I don't know quite what you mean with the Fe part, but that doesn't sound like Fe to me. I don't know quite what it sounds like, besides trying to find a cool idea to explain how each person works.


The rest, I don't quite see where you're going, but the last part where you explain how you're trying to control what people think/do with use of nuances and details sounds like some Fe maybe, or some things an ESFJ might do, though they might not say they'd done them aloud. The last 4 lines or so in particular reminded me of some particularly douchey ESFJ's I knew. But, hopefully that was just some attempted humor 

Anyhow, I hope that helps and isn't offensive. I'm pretty high and a little drunk right now, but your post did interest me - this time last year, I might have just skipped it, but I've dated two INFP's now, and it's interesting to see how they process things.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> @_Neverontime_
> 
> This is exactly what I mean. I don't consider everyone to be my best friend or have an emotional attachment to the world. I just know that I shouldn't go around calling you a complete jerk because what if you do something that I find value in? You can't be both good and evil. So if I can find the value in you (say, you have strong spiritual beliefs that I also believe in) even if you are loser who seems to be too dependent on other people. I'd rather say I love you because you have something that I value.
> 
> With people I truly love, it's different. I actually consider them to be in a different group from the rest of humanity. They actually become unique individuals that are meant to "serve" my other, stronger visions, so to speak.


Ok, of course I may be wrong, but I don't believe you are a infp from what you have said so far. It's difficult to explain why I don't believe so, using objective terms and providing objective evidence because I don't judge by objective terms and evidence. I have to 'translate' my fi judgements into my inferior Te mode of expression, while still being considerate towards your feelings, which drains me of energy. 

Now looking at the whole thread objectively, there is one Fi dom saying you're probably not Fi, everyone else saying that you are. Those posters are INTJs (tert Fi) INFJ's (no Fi) INTP (no Fi) entp (no Fi) and yet you are considering those posts more valuable, which could suggest you align your own judgement with the general consensus? 

You are inquiring because somebody else told you that they think you're Fi. Your reasons for thinking so yourself, don't make any sense to me. 

This is only a personal observation, but the only other types I've come across on this forum who will adamantly debate Fi with an Fi dom are inxj's. Whereas I value personal experience of others when making judgements, above external evidence and above the majority opinion.

If I was asking about Ni for example, I would value the input of the inxj's above the input of any amount of xntps. The fact that you seem to evaluate information in an entirely different way, also adds confirmation in my mind that you are not an infp. 
Obviously I've only seen a very small part of who you are, so I can only speak of that part.


----------



## nakkinaama (Jun 20, 2012)

How intelligent this thread is... I must bow down to it!


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Fe is objective because it focuses on general ideas regarding socialization, not whether something is good or bad. Those values are determined based on the group the Fe user is trying to ascertain. If the majority of people thinks murder is bad, the Fe user will think murder is bad, of course stereotyping and simplifying here.


Eh, not really. It's a cognitive process, so of course, it'll involve *reasoning* (that would defeat the point entirely if it didn't), but it is more open to outside input in order to narrow down decisions for action (it's divergent and a counter-reaction to Ti's focus on general facts and truths accepted by the person), while Fi avoids this altogether. It would analyze in terms of "why so-and-so groups might find such a position beneficial or detrimental," while Fi is the more narrow-minded version that involves not a broad, anthropological/sociological approach, but more of generalist approach from one's own understanding of values, such as "I always thought people inherently know such a position is inherently wrong/detrimental, regardless of consequences."


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Fe isn't objective, it's extraverted. It aligns itself with the general external consensus. Fi doesn't take what it wants from the external reality based on internal images, it judges the external reality based on the internal images.
> 
> If it only sees the good then how can it make subjective judgements?


I guess you're right. I don't know. I mean, I just know that I am not one of those people who would agree with the consensus that when my classmates die that I should take a moment of silence. Everyone else will be expressing their feelings (they won't be crying, but ...you know... they'll be doing what people do when people die). I mean, I care about the kid, but I'd rather not participate in such behavior if I can't base my feelings on how I think I should feel.

I've always been this way, I think. I remember laughing at the age of six when my mom's dad died. And even today, at 20, I can't cry for my mom when her brother died. Death is "bad", but if can't decide on my own why it's bad then I won't feel any emotion.


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

ZazzaPalazza said:


> How intelligent this thread is... I must bow down to it!


You know... I am about to start a cult soon... yeah? You up to it?


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Ok, of course I may be wrong, but I don't believe you are a infp from what you have said so far. It's difficult to explain why I don't believe so, using objective terms and providing objective evidence because I don't judge by objective terms and evidence. I have to 'translate' my fi judgements into my inferior Te mode of expression, while still being considerate towards your feelings, which drains me of energy.
> 
> Now looking at the whole thread objectively, there is one Fi dom saying you're probably not Fi, everyone else saying that you are. Those posters are INTJs (tert Fi) INFJ's (no Fi) INTP (no Fi) entp (no Fi) and yet you are considering those posts more valuable, which could suggest you align your own judgement with the general consensus?
> 
> ...


Nah, man ... say what you need to say. I don't mind. ^_^ You don't need to be wrong.

I don't know if this means anything, but I used to be against the idea of being an ENFP/INFP (on my own I never considered those types ...I expected that everyone would call me an Fe-dom/aux). I was getting frustrated because everyone kept saying I was (on another forum ...I convinced a few people that I was an INFJ). I was trying my best to prove them wrong, but at some point when people do say the same thing over and over and over again ....I got to stop being a bitch. I don't think INFPs came into this forum saying "I AM AN INFP AND THAT'S IT!!!!!!! You are never going to change my mind". Actually, I came in here thinking that I was an INFJ and I really wanted to others to see that because that is who I thought I was based off of my understanding. I never let anyone change that idea until I was almost forced to. You don't know how many times I had to not express my butthurt. Then I kept on getting ENFP or INFP and one ISFJ/ISFP (on this forum). I didn't think it was fair to try to change their minds because you are who you are and people will see that (even if MBTI/JCF didn't exist), so I don't see why I need to shove anything down their throat (although I tried). So I did my own research this past summer and I did realize that I do come off as INFP, but in my heart I thought I was more "open" than that. ...but yeah.

In the end it doesn't matter supermuch. I don't need to walk around with the label INFP or INFJ, but I do have some kind of mental process and I need to be aware of that otherwise I am not self-aware and I am just being like those drunken party people who do shit and not think why are you doing shit. If you want to tell me how I think then go ahead. I am not afraid of different opinions.

But as you can see many people can have different opinions and to be honest I really only trusted one person's (LeaT's) ...it just so happens that she is saying the same thing most other people have been saying.

So yeah, I am who I am and it's the definitions/types that will change, not me or you. And you're still an INFP if you feel so.

Edit::

Oh, and for objective evidence... A "true type expert" typed me as an INFJ, so I see why you say that (wait... are you saying that I am an INFJ?? I am getting confused). I didn't believe her... I thought I wasn't intuitive based on what I studied. Even though she's been practicing for ten years... I'd rather see why I am the type I am with my own eyes, rather than trust an expert. and I thought I was an ISFJ. ....Then I studied more and I realized that Ni and Si very sound similar... so then I concluded that INFJ is definitely likely for other reasons that I concluded for myself.


----------



## nakkinaama (Jun 20, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> You know... I am about to start a cult soon... yeah? You up to it?


Omg
You must have a 4 in your tritype
Tempting but no thanks


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> Nah, man ... say what you need to say. I don't mind. ^_^ You don't need to be wrong.
> 
> I don't know if this means anything, but I used to be against the idea of being an ENFP/INFP (on my own I never considered those types ...I expected that everyone would call me an Fe-dom/aux). I was getting frustrated because everyone kept saying I was (on another forum ...I convinced a few people that I was an INFJ). I was trying my best to prove them wrong, but at some point when people do say the same thing over and over and over again ....I got to stop being a bitch. I don't think INFPs came into this forum saying "I AM AN INFP AND THAT'S IT!!!!!!! You are never going to change my mind". Actually, I came in here thinking that I was an INFJ and I really wanted to others to see that because that is who I thought I was based off of my understanding. I never let anyone change that idea until I was almost forced to. You don't know how many times I had to not express my butthurt. Then I kept on getting ENFP or INFP and one ISFJ/ISFP (on this forum). I didn't think it was fair to try to change their minds because you are who you are and people will see that (even if MBTI/JCF didn't exist), so I don't see why I need to shove anything down their throat (although I tried). So I did my own research this past summer and I did realize that I do come off as INFP, but in my heart I thought I was more "open" than that. ...but yeah.
> 
> ...


Now that came across more Fi than your first post. I'm going to call @eyenexepee because he will probably understand much better than me and he must have studied the ass off infp- infj differences. 

You might also find this thread helpful http://personalitycafe.com/infp-forum-idealists/110447-wondering-if-youre-infp-not-check-out.html


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Now that came across more Fi than your first post. I'm going to call @_eyenexepee_ because he will probably understand much better than me and he must have studied the ass off infp- infj differences.
> 
> You might also find this thread helpful http://personalitycafe.com/infp-forum-idealists/110447-wondering-if-youre-infp-not-check-out.html



Yeah, I'll listen to what you guys say, but really... I don't think it's best to seek the opinions of every expert... but I'll look forward to what you guys have to say. Maybe I am *insert type here* who is just very stubborn and wants everyone to fuck off.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> Yeah, I'll listen to what you guys say, but really... I don't think it's best to seek the opinions of every expert... but I'll look forward to what you guys have to say. Maybe I am *insert type here* who is just very stubborn and wants everyone to fuck off.


You want me to un-call him? Not a problem


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

reckful said:


> Well, I don't think "When I love you it means that I almost don't care about you" really fits the Rilke situation. Rilke was writing to his wife, as I understand it, and von Franz notes that his "feeling" was "very strong" but just didn't "flow toward the object."
> 
> As far as how I "experience Fi" — both in the context of a romantic relationship and a strong friendship, and with the caveat that I'm not sure to what extent this is best viewed as Fi or T or IT or INT or what — I'd note two things:
> 
> ...


That was a very moving post. I feel that exact way about friendship and consider myself lucky to have a few people that I connect that closely with no matter how much time or space comes between us. 

I'm not sure I'm as good with romantic relationships in this regard. Maybe because I haven't really ever reached that same level of friendship here.


----------



## PlacentaCake (Jun 14, 2012)

ENFJ? I know it is Fe... just an idea.  I didn't look at all your posts, so I hope you don't take that personally. I obviously am not in your head and I don't know the entirety of your life experience. You would know best


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

christicake said:


> ENFJ? I know it is Fe... just an idea.  I didn't look at all your posts, so I hope you don't take that personally. I obviously am not in your head and I don't know the entirety of your life experience. You would know best


Yeah, thanks. ENFJ did seem likely at times. You don't have to look at all of my posts. So what is Fe to you?


----------



## PlacentaCake (Jun 14, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> Yeah, thanks. ENFJ did seem likely at times. You don't have to look at all of my posts. So what is Fe to you?


I notice my dad has it, he is an ENTP. I don't know much about the functions, but I've read that it has to do with a search for harmony. Fe, I've read, will likely think about other people, how will ____ affect others.

I really don't know much, you just reminded me of my mom a little. Who come to think of it, will sometimes scores an ENFJ and sometimes scores an INFJ on her tests.


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

saffron said:


> That was a very moving post. I feel that exact way about friendship and consider myself lucky to have a few people that I connect that closely with no matter how much time or space comes between us.
> 
> I'm not sure I'm as good with romantic relationships in this regard. Maybe because I haven't really ever reached that same level of friendship here.


I was going to respond to @reckful posty-thing about love, but I forgot =(

...All I know is that I don't want to be dependent on someone's love. I wouldn't want to be the kind of person who needs to have "loved ones" by my bedside crying over my rotting body if I was on my deathbed. It just scares me for some reason. It reminds me of the time I got annoyed at a girl who decided to do a good deed for me. I didn't trust her to be authentic (she could just be doing it while harboring ill will towards me). However, if I was the one who did a good deed for the girl then I would feel better because I know my intentions. I don't know the other person's. ..So maybe I don't want to be the one who offered the cheek??? I want to be in more control than that. I'd love the way I want to love another and the other person can do their own thing as long as I am comfortable with it.


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

christicake said:


> I notice my dad has it, he is an ENTP. I don't know much about the functions, but I've read that it has to do with a search for harmony. Fe, I've read, will likely think about other people, how will ____ affect others.
> 
> I really don't know much, you just reminded me of my mom a little. Who come to think of it, will sometimes scores an ENFJ and sometimes scores an INFJ on her tests.


Yeah, those tests are tricky. I get INFP/INFJ/ENFJ/INTP. I got INFJ more, but that could be that I know what they're trying to test... so I feel like I know how to skew it to INFJ since that's the type I thought I was for a really long time. ...Unless, you're taking about the official MBTI test ...?

Also, I've noticed lately that in my real life I worry more about how others affect me and I get very closed-off when I feel like my coworkers are trying to dig into me and understand me (I am very critical of them because I feel like they have bad intentions or shallow ones) ...but that's not to discredit your opinions.


----------



## PlacentaCake (Jun 14, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> Yeah, those tests are tricky. I get INFP/INFJ/ENFJ/INTP. I got INFJ more, but that could be that I know what they're trying to test... so I feel like I know how to skew it to INFJ since that's the type I thought I was for a really long time. ...Unless, you're taking about the official MBTI test ...?


No. Online testing is ok. I took some online tests before I knew too much about all the functions, so I escaped over analyzing the questions while testing.  You seem to have a lot of knowledge already and you know your life best, I'm sure you'll figure it out! Well, that is just my philosophy.


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

christicake said:


> No. Online testing is ok. I took some online tests before I knew too much about all the functions, so I escaped over analyzing the questions while testing.  You seem to have a lot of knowledge already and you know your life best, I'm sure you'll figure it out! Well, that is just my philosophy.



....Oh, well before I started studying I came out as an INFP (but I didn't really consider that as important at the time). I started studying, asked a pro, they got INFJ. I considered it for a really long time, but slowly and slowly it didn't feel too right. She asked me really shallow questions, in my opinion, like... "where do you work and do you like people" ...I just don't see how they could get a good picture of me (even through video) despite the fact that they've done this for like fifteen years or whatever they said. I just didn't see how I didn't use Si at least in some way (I thought I was an ISFJ). I know I compare and contrast the past and present so I can understand my feelings. *edit:: I know that the focusing on the past isn't true Si, still... without the experiences I remember most I wouldn't have the philosophy I have now.

>=( Still, I appreciated her input.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I love the discussion going on here. So open-minded!

Anyway, a lot of the self-analysis coming from the OP really doesn't sound like Fi or F, until you break down the rationalization process behind it, which often isn't there enough to determine Fi from it. For instance, this mostly sounds unrelated to being an F dominant:



> The reason why I have the "feelings" I do is because I don't feel like I need to hide behind a shell when I am in public like I used to do. I say I love humanity in general because humanity can't stop me from being me in public. If I want to dance in the mall because my favorite song is on, I will. No one should tell me that it's unacceptable behavior. In fact, people should join in on my fun I am having inside of my head (you don't have to actually dance with me, but don't give me those weird looks that say "she doesn't know how to behave in social situations ...she should remain still and act like everyone is an ugly creeper who's out for their own good"). Also, if I can sense that you're in a good mood (like if a random lady is sitting quietly next to me and she "feels" happy), then I will do my best to not disturb that. I won't talk to her or anything ....I just like her energy state. Usually, I get very judgmental if someone is around me acting like a douche (without actually saying or doing anything douchey ...he just has to "look" douchey in my opinion). And I try to rationalize my "strong" feelings by associating him with everything I dislike about humans.


So, nothing she straight-out *SAID* points to Fi dominance (any Fi type might feel this way - some Fe types might even unconsciously feel this way, but would otherwise consider the idea of taking themselves seriously there inappropriate toward how they want to represent themselves toward the world), but I really think the way she rationalizes Fi points to it (function dominance/inferiority has to do with how one rationalizes function motivations toward the ego, so if you feel threatened, you will probably defend yourself from the perspective of the dominant first-and-foremost, and you're the least likely to defend yourself from the perspective of the inferior - it's not about the mere experiences of the functions, nor is it about operating with a particular "function order," which MBTI is downright misleading with (you can't operate in a consistent order anyway -that's circumstantially impossible to quantify amid all the complexities of this stuff and, let alone, the human mind in general), in the fact that she makes this issue and her feelings such a big issue towards her own sense of personal freedom. I kind of think the fact that the dominant (Fi for her?) gets mixed into her personal beliefs (why she considers it appropriate to "love humanity") and sense of defensiveness (freedom to make the most of her favorite music) is what stands out as a giveaway for dominant Fi. It's interacting heavily with her personal psychology and is pretty much a #1 priority for her in terms of how she seems to want to be seen by the outside world (believe me, I share a lot of the same sentiments as the OP, but I don't think I'd ever play this up like this to the point that my personal freedom and sense of identity exists so strongly around this - Ni takes care of that for me in terms of self-defense, although if Ni doesn't, I'll surely go to any other function if I find it appropriate - generally, I don't take myself all that seriously around Fi to the point that personal freedom in a public setting would really matter that much to me - I definitely don't take it seriously enough to make personal judgments about humanity as a whole because of it, although this might happen from time to time not under the greatest consciousness of awareness) - it sounds like what Jung would call a "psychological type" to me.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

@pandamiga

Okay, shit. I was busier than I expected to be, and now I'm lost. Can you give me an idea of what's going on here, so I can tell you what I think after getting a broad view of what everyone is saying? Or should I comment only on the first post?


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

Amaterasu said:


> @_pandamiga_
> 
> Okay, shit. I was busier than I expected to be, and now I'm lost. Can you give me an idea of what's going on here, so I can tell you what I think after getting a broad view of what everyone is saying? Or should I comment only on the first post?


Lol Yeah... there was a bit going on.

So basically, I thought I was using Fi a lot. Everyone else except for two people I was using Fi. The two people who don't agree withe everyone else and me is just saying that they are not convinced that I use Fi. 

This is why I might not use Fi



> I didn't notice anything in your post that came across as Fi.
> You seem very much people orientated, which Fi isn't. Perhaps more so with enfp's, but I can only speak from my infp perspective.
> 
> Wanting to love everybody isn't something I relate to at all. Everything I feel goes very deep so I limit who and what I allow myself to develop any kind of feeling about. I certainly don't want to see the best in people. I divide everything into good and bad. Then I make my judgements based on weighing them up.
> From my pov, which is obviously biased, I see Fe types judging good vs bad much more. They seem to push the bad side of something from their thoughts, until it all goes wrong and all their negative thoughts about the situation spill out.


and another:



> Jungs Extraverted Feeling description discusses the contrasting opinions of the Fe type from one moment to another regarding the same object. He talks of Ti eruptions of the Fe types as a result of the subject assimilating too much to the object.
> 
> "Only a very slight alteration in the situation is needed to provoke forthwith an entirely contrary estimation of the selfsame object. The result of such an experience is that the observer is unable to take either judgment at all seriously. He begins to reserve his own opinion. But since, with this type, it is a matter of the greatest moment to establish an intensive feeling rapport with his environment, redoubled efforts are now required to overcome this reserve. Thus, in the manner of the circulus vitiosus, the situation goes from bad to worse. The more the feeling relation with the object becomes overstressed, the nearer the unconscious opposition approaches the surface."
> 
> ...


So I guess my question is do I use Fi more than Fe or the other way around.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

pandamiga said:


> ........
> So I guess my question is do I use Fi more than Fe or the other way around.


Welllll, I'd say that is a question you can focus on and answer. The simple one is - do you care what other people think? 

There is more to it than that, but there resources you can use to answer it.

YOU are the only one who knows what is true about you. I found it very, very useful to answer questions as though each were asking me "are you happiest/truest to yourself when...." instead of "Do you most often....?" Because the two aren't necessarily the same.


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

William I am said:


> Welllll, I'd say that is a question you can focus on and answer. The simple one is - do you care what other people think?
> 
> There is more to it than that, but there resources you can use to answer it.
> 
> YOU are the only one who knows what is true about you. I found it very, very useful to answer questions as though each were asking me "are you happiest/truest to yourself when...." instead of "Do you most often....?" Because the two aren't necessarily the same.


I understand but that could still lead to stereotypes, right? For example, I don't care what other people think as long as it's not something that will harm me and my ideas in anyway. I mean, you can be racist if you're reasoning for being racist is something I'd agree with. I mean, I am "racist" ...just not in the way everyone else uses the term.

For example: If you said that girls should go around nude because it's fun, wild and free and girls should do whatever the hell they want then I won't agree and I wouldn't want girls to be nude. I don't believe that anyone should do what they want. Also, I don't agree with the feminist idea that girls should roam naked (or at least where scanty clothes) because our bodies are natural and we shouldn't be afraid of our bodies. ...That's a stupid reason because that's not how I think.


--I do believe that girls should be naked, but for my own reasons. If you said that girls should go around nude (or wear scanty clothes), not for the sake of going crazy or for stupid feminist/activist reasons, but because it shows how we can transcend the human experience and not focus on our "humanness", if that makes sense.

So basically, it's not really what I believe but why I believe something. Also, I am very critical of other what other people think. I don't like it when other people have the same "reasonings" as me for the important stuff. Edit:: For example, I don't really like it when people like the same music as me ...for the exact same reason. It just devalues everything.

And isn't this something a lot of people can do? You can correct me if I have misunderstood you.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

pandamiga said:


> I understand but that could still lead to stereotypes, right? For example, I don't care what other people think as long as it's not something that will harm me and my ideas in anyway. I mean, you can be racist if you're reasoning for being racist is something I'd agree with. I mean, I am "racist" ...just not in the way everyone else uses the term.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmm. I was thinking more of where does your moral compass come from? Where do your justifications for doing something come from? Yourself? Or the interaction between yourself and other people?
If the world suddenly changed and most people disappeared, would you stop doing a lot of things, or continue doing most everything you do now the same way. Do you do things(or not do things - like not want to have the same reasoning as others) because of how others feel about you doing it, or because of how you feel?
If nobody were around to care, would you act much differently?

Ok, so a lot of those were redundant, but I think you should hammer away at this question internally for a day or two before answering this directly, and keep mulling it over after that. 

Also, I know I didn't respond to your comment earlier, but I'm pretty funny when I'm intoxicated, and fairly fun to be around (though, I get all touchy-feely and looooove everyone when I'm really drunk). I've been preoccupied recently, and I was bored and frustrated when I got home, so I got on PerC for a while to do something fun and productive.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> For example: If you said that girls should go around nude because it's fun, wild and free and girls should do whatever the hell they want then I won't agree and I wouldn't want girls to be nude. I don't believe that anyone should do what they want. Also, I don't agree with the feminist idea that girls should roam naked (or at least where scanty clothes) because our bodies are natural and we shouldn't be afraid of our bodies. ...*That's a stupid reason because that's not how I think.*


How about you give us the logic behind this? To see how you think.


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

Amaterasu said:


> How about you give us the logic behind this? To see how you think.


Well, there is no real logic behind this particular idea, exactly. It almost just happened over time, I guess. I've been surrounded by a ton of activists living where I am and I've been kind of bothered by all of the "yelling at everyone's face so humanity won't be oppressed by stupid rules". I mean, I really don't know what bothers me about it, but even at my work (a feminist center) I always have to try to understand why I am so critical of everyone's ideas on social justice and activism. I feel like being a part of this work environment makes me seem like a big skeptic since I never really agree with people. It makes me feel bad because I know they are right on some level, but I can never feel comfortable just "going with the flow". So one day I was browsing the Internet (I was trying to understand my feelings against activism) and I found a group of nudists who seemed really calm. They did what they did and there was nothing to it (except that there were some health benefits to not wearing clothes ...some were radical activists). I didn't feel like they were doing anything radical, though. It's kind of like when you see someone walking barefoot for almost no reason (except maybe because their feet hurt), but then you do the rationalization of their behavior inside of your own head because you feel like walking around barefoot would be something you would do anyway (but for a more "philosophical" reason). So yes, I would love to go around almost naked (I like my underwear a lot ...and socks) ...but I had space to think of my own logic for why I'd do that (even though I really don't go nude). It's not for health benefits, but it's because I've been wanting to be as "me" as possible. I just want to know how I am so I can be comfortable with it. I don't want to feel the need to go around actively changing my clothing (or anything about me) because it simply just makes me feel weird . Like I am unstable. I'll still wear something, it just will be the same things over and over ...and over again xD ...Unless I have a special item of clothing that I treasure dearly. I'll only wear that when I am actively being myself (meaning I am doing something that I want to do in the outside world, and not going to some stupid chemistry class).

....But I mean, I do wear clothes. I am not a real nudist ...I just like what I think it represents.


....I guess thinking that it's okay to be naked can be seen as a reaction against an environment that I don't like. This isn't just limited to feminist or "I do what I want" behavior. Like, I hate the fact that I have to be tied down to a family without a reason; so if my parents say "Hey! Let's go down and visit your sister who's now living eight states away" I'll be very annoyed. I don't see the reason why I have to visit her. Being my sister is not enough of a reason for me to visit her. I couldn't stay home by myself anyway (I kind of had to go because when my dad decides for us to do something... you better do your best not to argue with him xD). Anyway, I kept thinking to myself that "the whole world is my family", and then I'll say something stupid like "isn't the idea that everyone in the world is family how adoption works?" ...But yeah, I get grumpy for almost no reason ...but I always find a way to rationalize it xD

...So yeah... I see your point. I don't actually have a logic to anything. I just get this tense feeling inside of me when I feel that something is wrong ...and somehow ...some stupid idea comes along and I find a way to rationalize that feeling.


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

William I am said:


> Hmmm. I was thinking more of where does your moral compass come from? Where do your justifications for doing something come from? Yourself? Or the interaction between yourself and other people?
> If the world suddenly changed and most people disappeared, would you stop doing a lot of things, or continue doing most everything you do now the same way. Do you do things(or not do things - like not want to have the same reasoning as others) because of how others feel about you doing it, or because of how you feel?
> If nobody were around to care, would you act much differently?
> 
> Ok, so a lot of those were redundant, but I think you should hammer away at this question internally for a day or two before answering this directly, and keep mulling it over after that.


Yeah, I'll do that, yo.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

@pandamiga

Do I see overwhelming Ne in that post or am I just tired? :tongue:


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

Amaterasu said:


> @_pandamiga_
> 
> Do I see overwhelming Ne in that post or am I just tired? :tongue:


....I am very sorry. I really want to say that you do see overwhelming Ne in the post you just read. I never used to believe that I sued Ne at all... but everyone just keeps saying it. ....And now I am starting to see it myself. When I lacked knowledge, I used to think that Ne meant that you're good at brainstorming. But now I see how it really likes to connect random shit together ...in all. situations... ever. xD 

...It's so bad... yet so good ....so good xD


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> ....I am very sorry. I really want to say that you do see overwhelming Ne in the post you just read. I never used to believe that I sued Ne at all... but everyone just keeps saying it. ....And now I am starting to see it myself. When I lacked knowledge, I used to think that Ne meant that you're good at brainstorming. But now I see how it really likes to connect random shit together ...in all. situations... ever. xD
> 
> ...It's so bad... yet so good ....so good xD


Don't be sorry, and learn to embrace your Ne. It might be very rewarding.


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

Amaterasu said:


> Don't be sorry, and learn to embrace your Ne. It might be very rewarding.


No, I am not really sorry xDD I was just trying to be like those telephone people that always say sorry whenever a person is confused =PPPPP

I love my Ne (or whatever it is... it could be proteins randomly clumping together inside my neurons ...causing them to work super hard and abnormal... who knows???). It really helps me pull ideas from other random ideas so I can come up with useless theories =)

Edit:: Also, can Ne mimick any other function if it is combined with something else?

And another thing, I didn't realize this before, but you've typed me once already and you came up with Ne too, so this kind of data is hard to argue against xDDDDD ...not that I want to ... uuuhhh ... I'll shut up now. xD


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> No, I am not really sorry xDD I was just trying to be like those telephone people that always say sorry whenever a person is confused =PPPPP
> 
> I love my Ne (or whatever it is... it could be proteins randomly clumping together inside my neurons ...causing them to work super hard and abnormal... who knows???). It really helps me pull ideas from other random ideas so I can come up with useless theories =)
> 
> ...


Yes, a mature Ne, when used in tandem with an Introverted Judging function, can appear to be Ni. However, deeper exploration reveals the objectivity of Ne as opposed to the subjectivity of Ni.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

meltedsorbet said:


> I remember when I asked for help typing myself--I seriously threw a tantrum with the answers. It was very dramatic. I think, after I seemed good and dead, I lifted my bloody hand and clutched the knees of the people who had typed me--and screamed, "Wwhhyyyyyyyy...yyy...?" And then a gurgling noise escaped my throat and I laid down forever.
> 
> I am still embarrassed by my performance, as it was pretty uncharacteristic. But i think it's pretty hard to lay yourself bare to strangers--to explain all kinds of things you don't usually want people to know (like exactly what you were thinking) in as objective of a manner as you can.
> 
> ...


I can really relate to that in bold. I remember I was once arguing with a person I believe was a thinking sensor why I don't see why pedophiles should be condemned solely because they are pedophiles. They are just human, for god's sake. They have friends and family who love them too and they have a desire to be loved. Yes, even Hitler (sorry, Godwin's law, but it was unavoidable). His desires and his motivations may be different, but he's just trying to survive like anyone else. We can condemn the way he does that, but it doesn't change that he was just human, and sometimes being human is hard and when we have a hard time, we might hurt people. It doesn't make him less human though. If antyhing I think it makes him very human. That's how I see it. 

And I agree about fake smiles too. It irks me to no end. Usually I just kind of shrug and do a half-assed result because I don't know what else to do in response, really. I don't know what they want or expect from me. I am definitely not going to do the same in return. Seems indeed so superficial and lacks some kind of genuine effort.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> I was going to respond to @_reckful_ posty-thing about love, but I forgot =(
> 
> ...All I know is that I don't want to be dependent on someone's love. I wouldn't want to be the kind of person who needs to have "loved ones" by my bedside crying over my rotting body if I was on my deathbed. It just scares me for some reason. It reminds me of the time I got annoyed at a girl who decided to do a good deed for me. I didn't trust her to be authentic (she could just be doing it while harboring ill will towards me). However, if I was the one who did a good deed for the girl then I would feel better because I know my intentions. I don't know the other person's. ..So maybe I don't want to be the one who offered the cheek??? I want to be in more control than that. I'd love the way I want to love another and the other person can do their own thing as long as I am comfortable with it.


I second this too. When I'm dead and gone, I don't want people to spend plenty of time mourning me, I want them to simply let go and remember the good times but mostly just move on with their lives. What's the point of clinging to the past? I think my ESFJ grandmother would do something like you describe (clinging to my potential deathbed, that is), and yes, I agree, it would scare me. 

I second saffron's post too (when did you retire? (((( and I already quoted reckless so), but yeah, I can relate a lot to you folks. I just love NFPs sometimes. You're so beautiful people  I love your Fi when it's used in a good and nice way like this. I love the sense of magic and wonder you direct towards the world, it's just so amazing. You just make me feel so good. I don't know why you have that effect on me (and not all NFPs do, but NFPs have it more than other types for sure), but it's great. I suppose mostly the combination of strong Ne and Fi, less Si. Fe folks don't seem to really have this result on me for some reason. I can't understand the NFJ or their particular brand of magic (yet). NFPs yes though, definitely, with the right people.


----------



## petitpèlerin (Apr 23, 2012)

@pandamiga: How did I miss this thread for so long? Y'all must alert me to these things. 

My INFP friend crushes my ribs when she hugs me. Even though she's my puny height and weighs 10 lbs less than me, which makes her little more than ribs with clothes herself. So, therefore, you must be an INFP, too.


----------



## pandamiga (Aug 11, 2012)

ltldslwmn said:


> @_pandamiga_: How did I miss this thread for so long? Y'all must alert me to these things.
> 
> My INFP friend crushes my ribs when she hugs me. Even though she's my puny height and weighs 10 lbs less than me, which makes her little more than ribs with clothes herself. So, therefore, you must be an INFP, too.


...aaaahhahahahahahahababahahajfoijfklsfj. I see what you did there 

and @LeaT ...A lot of the times I consider myself a pedophile in my own way. I don't feel like the people I know really understand the value that children have. Children R' Us. If we keep on saying "they're too young" we'll keep on sending them to cheap ballet classes where they don't teach them how to REALLY dance just because their bodies are too small. Not trying to offend anyone, but what you say is something I've always thought about. I know pedos are kind of creepy, but it's really easy for me to see past that and I naturally understand it from a different perspective. 

And for those who REALLY love stupid shit as a rational ...you're welcome.

I Throw My Hands Up In The Air Sometimes... - Meme Center


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> ...aaaahhahahahahahahababahahajfoijfklsfj. I see what you did there
> 
> and @_LeaT_ ...A lot of the times I consider myself a pedophile in my own way. I don't feel like the people I know really understand the value that children have. Children R' Us. If we keep on saying "they're too young" we'll keep on sending them to cheap ballet classes where they don't teach them how to REALLY dance just because their bodies are too small. Not trying to offend anyone, but what you say is something I've always thought about. I know pedos are kind of creepy, but it's really easy for me to see past that and I naturally understand it from a different perspective.
> 
> ...


What I dislike the most though, is this idea of sacred innocence when it comes to children, when I've witnessed their cruelty first hand :/ They might not understand that they are being cruel, but they are cruel nonetheless. You could blame it on bad parenting I suppose, but without daring to tell children what's allowed or not allowed, how are they supposed to know? As much as I think children should be able to choose their own path in life, there are still some rules that need to be passed on because it makes life easier. It doesn't mean the child has to accept these rules at face value though. That's a different matter.


----------



## petitpèlerin (Apr 23, 2012)

pandamiga said:


> ...aaaahhahahahahahahababahahajfoijfklsfj. I see what you did there


I did, too. After I wrote it!! <rib-crushing hug may be appropriate here>


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Ne and Ni primarily differ on the premises of objectivity (extraversion) or subjectivity (introversion). Ni is self-referencing intuition, so it's going to bring one's archetypal impressions into the picture in order to intuit on matters that cannot be proven or disproven at face value - it's a more convergent and synthetic intuition (more of the type of intuitive reasoning that works to compensate for and "fill-in-the-blanks" for what a person cannot deduce from experiential data - it will certainly work more in the realm of world-view, and being intuition, hunches will get derived from Se data, but they subtract from this (hence *inferior *Se) and fill it in with archetypal impressions rooted in a person's world-view and personal factors of their comprehension, etc.). It involves mainly perspective-shifting (very much unlike Ne) and due to the repression to whatever extent of Se, it can work in the realm of underlying meaning and generate new possibilities from comparing/contrasting (usually in a flash) different perspectives.

Ne is the intuition that is removed from factors of a person's individualism and instead, it's more of the "read between the lines" intuition, as it references the outer world and face-value observations made about the outer world that a person might see potential for growth/exploration in. It's more about advancing the moment, like all of the extraverted functions, but in terms of "sniffing out" possibilities for action on hunches and thwarting the inevitabilities of reality at face value by focusing on the metaphysical aspects of the situation and what overlap this may have with the reality in order to have hunches or feelings of "just knowing" from an objective recognition of the situation. Also unlike Ni, it operates more with reference to actions, rather than any sense of the underlying motives of individuals or the collective (any sense of the underlying motives of the "collective" it gets will come from experience, not just sitting back and intuiting from universal premises). It's less people-oriented inherently, but more people-oriented in how it gets charged (since obviously, it's extraverted).


----------

