# O_O Not ENTP?



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

O_o said:


> Right, I do need to look further into it, but I do understand it's basics about subjective values/ common observations from my INFP and ISFP friend. I think you might have mistaken sympathy and empathy in this case though. "Putting oneself into another's shoes and understanding in a sympathetic way, rather than an empathetic way." = empathy : putting oneself in another's shoes. You can't "put yourself in another's shoes" un-empathetically. But anyways, I'm confused on the... "know how 'close' someone is to another/understand the connection with another person" part. What type of connections... so, basically dynamics? How similar two people are personality wise? I thought this was more... intuition combined with sensing based. I could be wrong/misunderstanding.
> 
> Anyways, I'm almost certain now that I can't relate to Fi. I think I might have thought I did because of low Fe (?).


You put yourself in another's shoes by first looking at yourself. Fe doesn't look at oneself, it focuses on others. That's the distinction. Either can use empathy and sympathy, that's not really that important, in my opinion, it's the way it works that's important.

Relationship dynamics, eh? Hm... I suppose you could think of it like that. It's just an unspoken understanding of the relationship they have with someone else, I think? Could be wrong. 

I have rather unused and abused Fi, being ENTP, meaning that I don't really distinguish much between relationships emotionally. There's no real 'connection' in the way other people do, and understand these 'emotional connections', their strength positively or negatively. At least in Socionics.

I connect with people in a very superficial way, and never really thought about the line between friend and stranger. If I met someone, and knew their name, they were my 'friend'. I got a bit more sophisticated as I grew older and wiser, but it's still very immature. Child-like and simple.

Strong Fi users tend to have a wise, deep understanding of these things. Tend to. :kitteh:

Again, I may be wrong. Just trying to give a different perspective on it. There's a lot of recycled words being thrown about.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

O_o said:


> You know... I'm not all that certain about this. That "self-filter" (if that makes sense) can almost be a barrier to understanding someone. What I've noticed with Fi dominants in my life that they can often paint a false picture of someone else because they're attempting to understand someone's motives/actions/etc through themselves. This can easily lead to false assumptions, maybe making them think that they can understand the other person in depth when really, the fact that the person's actions/whatever are being filtered through their empathy can lead to misleading assumptions.... if that makes sense.


Definitely. Especially if the Fi is young and hasn't developed their functions in the ego. I've always seen Fi as clouding understanding. I think, in time, Fi separates from the murk, but I wouldn't know. 

I'm fairly sure my mom is dominant Fi. She mellowed out.. A _​lot. _


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

O_o said:


> Do any of you know how to check the engine? If not we should call aid.


For what it is worth, you are the first one I've encountered to answer like this besides me. Granted, I dont read much here but I think it shows you are more grounded in reality than most people saying 'I'll check and try to fix it'. No, you wont, you dont know shit about engines, lets just call some pro before you make it worse.

I dont know what that implies though, Te somewhere in your function stack, maybe ?


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

crashbandicoot said:


> 'I'll check and try to fix it'. No, you wont, you dont know shit about engines, lets call some pro before you make it worse.


LOL! :laughing:
I'm not sure it implies Te, but I've considered Te for several other reasons.


----------



## mapperky (Mar 24, 2014)

Answer to your questions

2. Ways how to fix the car. 

3. Go to the party and don't drink. If i'm pressured I still say no.

4. I don't say anything on the matter. People have different beliefs and I'm fine with that. Just continue with the conversation. Though if they do ask for my opinion or do something similar I will express my opinion. though I will warn them before I do so.

5. Again I wouldn't be bothered. Well unless it was harming someone. Then I would speak up. It is a rather broad question so my answer may differ depending on the parameters.

6. The only value I can really think I hold close is tolerance. Though I don't hold it very close. I'm kinda neutral to everything. and I mean EVERYTHING.

7. a) Probably that I don't get upset easy. b) I would add more motivation, discipline, and confidence. Mainly something to stop me from procrastinating. (And also what you put down under what you would change is very fitting for me. Everything you put down there is also what I would change. well except for maybe the "Kill one to save the many" mentality. I feel like that aspect of me isn't that much of a bad thing. Though it probably is. People have told me that I'm a psychopath because of it. which doesn't bother me.)

8. I carefully analyze the feeling to see if it is logical to follow it.

9. a) Board games, Video Games, Learning, Movies, Television, Creating something, Presenting something that I have created that I am also confident about, Debate, Discussion, and humor. All of shows, movies, Video and board games must be of good quality. Most of the time it has to be fantastic quality. b) Anything repetitive, Anything boring, Lack of stimulation, having to censor myself to please others.

10. I don't really repress much. Though when I'm around people I kinda lose some my confidence. after interactions I often regret not saying or doing things. I am very indecisive around people.

So I hope that answered some of your questions


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

O_o said:


> You know... I'm not all that certain about this. That "self-filter" (if that makes sense) can almost be a barrier to understanding someone. What I've noticed with Fi dominants in my life that they can often paint a false picture of someone else because they're attempting to understand someone's motives/actions/etc through themselves. This can easily lead to false assumptions, maybe making them think that they can understand the other person in depth when really, the fact that the person's actions/whatever are being filtered through their empathy can lead to misleading assumptions.... if that makes sense.


I don't find NFPs particularly great at reading people. I think Se/Ni-Ni/Se is better at that. I think that Ne takes an entirely different approach, concerning which I'll cite A Poem for Dhzokhar, by Amanda Palmer. This is what happens when an Ne approaches a situation of nuanced empathy... Ne pushes all the details off the table and creates a new narrative, seemingly credulist to the point of madness, it actually more Not Applicable. The Ne has forgotten the details of the object, and plugged in archetypes instead. 

Makes for incredible writers, like Victor Hugo, this ability to see people through archetypal lenses that don't reflect the actual reality, but a greater sense of our nature divested from the banality of this moment. Does it make them any good at reading people? No. More like good at rewriting people into an ideal... and sometimes those people follow suit, and sometimes they don't.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Word Dispenser said:


> Strong Fi users tend to have a wise, deep understanding of these things.


Talking about me again I see :laughing:


----------



## pretense (Jan 2, 2013)

O_o said:


> You know... I'm not all that certain about this. That "self-filter" (if that makes sense) can almost be a barrier to understanding someone. What I've noticed with Fi dominants in my life that they can often paint a false picture of someone else because they're attempting to understand someone's motives/actions/etc through themselves. This can easily lead to false assumptions, maybe making them think that they can understand the other person in depth when really, the fact that the person's actions/whatever are being filtered through their empathy can lead to misleading assumptions.... if that makes sense.


This is an excerpt from Jung's book about types talking about Ne dominant types and I think it has a lot of relevance here:



> The unconscious of the intuitive has a certain similarity with that of the sensation-type. Thinking and feeling, being relatively repressed, produce infantile and archaic thoughts and feelings in the unconscious, which may be compared [p. 467] with those of the countertype. They likewise come to the surface in the form of intensive projections, and are just as absurd as those of the sensation-type, only to my mind they lack the other's mystical character; they are chiefly concerned with quasi-actual things, in the nature of sexual, financial, and other hazards, as, for instance, suspicions of approaching illness. This difference appears to be due to a repression of the sensations of actual things. These latter usually command attention in the shape of a sudden entanglement with a most unsuitable woman, or, in the case of a woman, with a thoroughly unsuitable man; and this is simply the result of their unwitting contact with the sphere of archaic sensations. But its consequence is an unconsciously compelling tie to an object of incontestable futility. Such an event is already a compulsive symptom, which is also thoroughly characteristic of this type. In common with the sensation-type, he claims a similar freedom and exemption from all restraint, since he suffers no submission of his decisions to rational judgment, relying entirely upon the perception of chance, possibilities. He rids himself of the restrictions of reason, only to fall a victim to unconscious neurotic compulsions in the form of oversubtle, negative reasoning, hair-splitting dialectics, and a compulsive tie to the sensation of the object. His conscious attitude, both to the sensation and the sensed object, is one of sovereign superiority and disregard. Not that he means to be inconsiderate or superior -- he simply does not see the object that everyone else sees; his oblivion is similar to that of the sensation-type -- only, with the latter, the soul of the object is missed. For this oblivion the object sooner or later takes revenge in the form of hypochondriacal, compulsive ideas, phobias, and every imaginable kind of absurd bodily sensation. [p. 468]


What you're describing might be Fi as well, I here that a lot. Or even a combination of Fi and Si, maybe...


----------



## Grain of Sugar (Sep 17, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I don't find NFPs particularly great at reading people. I think Se/Ni-Ni/Se is better at that. I think that Ne takes an entirely different approach, concerning which I'll cite A Poem for Dhzokhar, by Amanda Palmer. This is what happens when an Ne approaches a situation of nuanced empathy... Ne pushes all the details off the table and creates a new narrative, seemingly credulist to the point of madness, it actually more Not Applicable. The Ne has forgotten the details of the object, and plugged in archetypes instead.
> 
> Makes for incredible writers, like Victor Hugo, this ability to see people through archetypal lenses that don't reflect the actual reality, but a greater sense of our nature divested from the banality of this moment. Does it make them any good at reading people? No. More like good at rewriting people into an ideal... and sometimes those people follow suit, and sometimes they don't.


That's possible. I've always assumed someone who I think is xnfp is good at reading, understanding people. But since I don't know a lot about her, I think this could be because I thought somebody who seemsto see through my facade(Which I never lay down, impossible to do so) has to be good at that kind of stuff. Of course its stil possible that there are nfps who can read people well


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

BlueberryCupcake said:


> That's possible. I've always assumed someone who I think is xnfp is good at reading, understanding people. But since I don't know a lot about her, I think this could be because I thought somebody who seemsto see through my facade(Which I never lay down, impossible to do so) has to be good at that kind of stuff. Of course its stil possible that there are nfps who can read people well


Yeah, again I am not seeing why an INFP would be particularly good at seeing through someone's 'facade', though this may seem nitpicky. They don't really possess a function that would motivate that or supply it (or the perception of it). This is something better associated with Fe and Ni, I think. 

I believe I've heard from xNFPs that they feel they are able to appraise people pretty accurately/fairly. Even particularly so. Objectively, I think. Perhaps it is semantics, but that feels like a different thing to me, and above all not in the least subjective... not seeing the unseen, or any hidden truth, or tearing away any facade. Just a frank, objective and even insightful appraisal of people.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

arkigos said:


> This is something better associated with Fe and Ni, I think.


Ni-Se is very good at reading people. Se-Ni struggles; at least that's what I've observed with two ISFPs and an ISTP.

How does Fe read people? Surely it would have to use a perceiving function to do so? I've noticed my ISFJ sister can read people's motives quite well, but I don't understand which functions she uses to do it.


----------



## Grain of Sugar (Sep 17, 2013)

arkigos said:


> Yeah, again I am not seeing why an INFP would be particularly good at seeing through someone's 'facade', though this may seem nitpicky. They don't really possess a function that would motivate that or supply it (or the perception of it). This is something better associated with Fe and Ni, I think.
> 
> I believe I've heard from xNFPs that they feel they are able to appraise people pretty accurately/fairly. Even particularly so. Objectively, I think. Perhaps it is semantics, but that feels like a different thing to me, and above all not in the least subjective... not seeing the unseen, or any hidden truth, or tearing away any facade. Just a frank, objective and even insightful appraisal of people.


Haha, okay. Right, described Fe suggests to be better at that most of the time. 
Distant but warmhearted personalities are confusing...


----------



## Grain of Sugar (Sep 17, 2013)

Fried Eggz said:


> Ni-Se is very good at reading people. Se-Ni struggles; at least that's what I've observed with two ISFPs and an ISTP.
> 
> How does Fe read people? Surely it would have to use a perceiving function to do so? I've noticed my ISFJ sister can read people's motives quite well, but I don't understand which functions she uses to do it.


Also experienced that with two Se/Fi friends. Fi descriptions are always about gut feelings so what was up with theirs when it came to people lying so obviously ?


----------

