# Is Being A Chameleon A Trait of FPs In General Because of Fi?



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I realized just now in some other threads that I was apparently perceived as some Bible beating Christian by some atheists in another thread because of how staunchly I was defending the religious or theists against a very specific kind of atheist, that is, largely, the arrogant Internet atheist who imagines him or herself smarter than everyone else by virtue of being an atheist, and all religious people have the dumbz.

This position offends me deeply. I've always been bothered it. It doesn't mean I go to Westboro Baptist.

In fact, I haven't experienced what a lot of these people experience, because even when I identified as completely agnostic, I didn't go around IRL getting up in other people's faces telling them that their having religion bothered me. In fact, when I was more or less agnostic, I did not see much point to discussing "God" IRL, as it was something I was working out and contemplating for myself, that I might have revealed or discussed with a small handful of people.

In fact, I can sit with Latino Catholics and not offend them, and then go talk to a conservative 26 year old virgin Hindu, or hang out with an atheist...all easily within the past year of my life. I attended a yoga studio for about 6-8 months when I lived in the Valley where people had a myriad of spiritual beliefs. I talked to a Hare Krishna on the beach just the other day.

I tend to either stick with "my own kind" in close relationships (apparently when in my agnostic phase I was more attracted to other agnostics or spiritual atheists) or I simply tolerate other people's belief systems, even if they are very conservative.

In my experience, most people are sane, religious and atheist alike, and the ones who are strict or severe sometimes I just kind of tolerate because I figure why would I argue with this person anyway (unless they're being arrogant or violate one of my core values).

Are other FPs chameleons like this? Like it's quite alright for other people to have their views as long as they don't step on mine?

It's really only on-line, or with very particular individuals IRL that I feel free to air my strongest opinions, and in a harsher manner.

Maybe I exercise my Te on-line, I don't know.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

l can always tell when someone is really trying to gauge me *personally* and then form their reply based on the picture they think they have so l know what you mean. l like being intentionally obtuse sometimes, just depending on the subject :laughing:

But, l find it really obnoxious when someone forms their argument with psychological trolling/ad hominem attacks and not facts.

l'd say some FPs would be enigmatic this way, but some others would have strong Fi values and there'd be no mystery about where they stood.

TPs and FPs have the potential. Fe has the mimicking effect which is similar.


----------



## Wartime Consigliere (Feb 8, 2011)

Inb4 Fe-types are social chameleon types, not Fi.

From the sounds of it though, it seems more like that you dislike being overbearing and are not comfortable with preaching your beliefs to anyone uninterested, seeing it as inappropriate. I can see that type of attitude being common among (but not limited to) FP types.. Which would be a very chameleon-like trait for sure.

Anyone being unfairly being attacked via their beliefs being immaturely ridiculed would likely provoke the same type of response out of a lot of people I think. I think that's natural/healthy too. It's a practice of promoting acceptance through actions/example, really.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

My brother is an ESFP and he rolls with all kinds of people, from mobsters to average civilians to high society.

I think I'd rather stay away from mobsters :ninja:


----------



## QueenOfCats (Jan 28, 2011)

I'm actually the opposite. I'm accepting of other people's views and have no trouble getting along with people online but IRL, I can get perceived as aggressive and pushy quite a lot when it comes to my opinions. I take face-to-face interaction much more seriously than online interaction with others since it feels much more real.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I think the reason why I am much more frank and even harsh on-line is because this is the idea realm and people are discussing pure concepts, maybe.

I'm not sure, but IRL I completely gauge people who, for example, aren't the right person to share certain things with, and so I don't, and if I did do that and they reacted to it, it would be my fault, right, for being dumb enough you know to provoke them.

Like why would I even say things to certain people, you know?

But if someone really bugs me I will completely go off on them.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Merihim said:


> My brother is an ESFP and he rolls with all kinds of people, from mobsters to average civilians to high society.
> 
> I think I'd rather stay away from mobsters :ninja:


When I was younger I was WAAAAY too open minded. I would just be friends with anybody.

Bad idea. It's good to have boundaries. I have much firmer boundaries in my 30s than I had in my 20s, especially in my early 20s.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Optimist Mind said:


> Inb4 Fe-types are social chameleon types, not Fi.
> 
> From the sounds of it though, it seems more like that you dislike being overbearing and are not comfortable with preaching your beliefs to anyone uninterested, seeing it as inappropriate. I can see that type of attitude being common among (but not limited to) FP types.. Which would be a very chameleon-like trait for sure.
> 
> Anyone being unfairly being attacked via their beliefs being immaturely ridiculed would likely provoke the same type of response out of a lot of people I think. I think that's natural/healthy too. It's a practice of promoting acceptance through actions/example, really.


I think in real life it's much more clear to me that I might be insulting the very essence of someone's being by disrespecting their faith (or lack there of) even if I don't agree with them.

It may have something to do with my upbringing, in the South you are taught that you just don't say certain things around old people or children (I am generalizing, but more or less this is the culture there) ...and so I still kind of hold very conservative people or people who are wildly different than me in this light where I know it would be morally wrong to intrude upon their ...way of life. I guess.

I dunno. Like on-line I've expressed strong concerns about extremist Islam, but IRL I have had friends who are Muslim, including a woman who prayed several times a day and covered her head for prayer, it's not like I act any different either if I see women who cover their head 24/7 on the bus, I really don't care if they wear a scarf over their heads even if I'm a feminist, I'm not going to feel "offended" unless they're head to toe in a burqa, and I think even then my instinct would probably be "run away" rather than "confront" and "do something about it in a legal or political way."


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I think that I know what you're talking about.

I talk to a lot of people and can usually choose when/whether I will offend them (I mean, I don't always have to share my opposing views, or if I do I can share them in a non-aggressive way).

I've done some political and environmental work (canvassing, talking at booths, protesting) and I think that helped me develop the ability to talk about issues that I feel strongly about with others who feel strongly about them (but with the opposite stance).

When I see someone who holds a view that I am opposed to, I try to look past it and see them as a person (and to see what we have in common).


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

... apologies for going off topic.

Extremism is about psychology; there is little difference between the fanatical atheist and the frantic believer. One is obsessed with the idea that there is a god, and therefore you must succumb to the teachings of the scriptures. The other is obsessed with the idea there is no god, and therefore you must succumb to the teachings of the material world. 

As atheist I will discuss the scriptures as literature; as myth; and to a lesser extent historical document. I will also discuss science in its entirety with an understanding that even our most cherished big bang theory and the theory of evolution are incomplete. Evolution didn't account for epigenetics. Big bang doesn't explain the origin of gravity and the causes for its occurrence. I find the god versus no god discussions excruciatingly boring and I just don't bother going these.

... back on topic

I can be a chameleon through ambiguity; that is, I allow people form a perception of me with little interjection on my part. I also know their perception of me is false and might go so far as to foster it depending on my circumstances. When I'm feeling particularly creative I can improvise an identity complete with name and false history. I did this in my late teens through my mid twenties; usually to entertain myself parties where the conversation was absolutely dismal. I would play up certain traits and charm my way through a job interview. Everyone's a chameleon to a certain degree. The question is to what extent and if we care to admit it.

I definitely identify more with Ti/Fe then I do with Fi/Te; definite preference for Fe.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Are other FPs chameleons like this? Like it's quite alright for other people to have their views as long as they don't step on mine?
> 
> It's really only on-line, or with very particular individuals IRL that I feel free to air my strongest opinions, and in a harsher manner.
> 
> Maybe I exercise my Te on-line, I don't know.


Yes, yes and yes. ;-) In real life, I tend to not only be tolerant of people with differing beliefs, but also to accept some of what they are saying--it doesn't mean I agree with their outcomes, but I can see where they are coming from, and how they are getting there. 

Online, I find it easier to express my stronger opinions--not that I tend to do it, or at least do it in a confrontational manner--though I have gotten worse in doing that more in latter years, or at least I'm more aware of and sensitive to it than I used to be. But even when I do disagree, I tend to try to approach a debate carefully and respectfully--unless someone totally disrespects me. Then I may get really biting in a less direct way--I can push buttons in such a way that the other person feels it, but doesn't necessarily know how to respond. I have been known to be a thread killer. ;-) But I never, ever feel comfortable doing that, and I have vowed not to get into such things here on PerC. ;-) 

As to that Te being exercised, I think that's a large part of it. IRL, in person, with the spoken word, my Te is very weak and treacherous--I don't trust it. But online, I have time to write and rewrite, and better, sit on a draft post and reconsider, edit, and fix it. My rule of thumb for potentially volatile issues has been to way at least from morning to evening, but better, overnight, before hitting "send"--also to reread before doing it. But that is Te at its best. IRL, it tends to be it at its worst. 

BTW, I never thought of myself as being a chameleonic life form before, but I see what you mean.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

fourtines said:


> Are other FPs chameleons like this? Like it's quite alright for other people to have their views as long as they don't step on mine?


o.o yeah that is kind of it. Imo people are free to think or believe what they want as long as they aren't trying to shove it down other people's throats. I dislike fundamentalist crazy theists as much as I dislike the same kind of atheist, between the two only that damn tendency to shove their opinion down other people's throats is the problem.

I kind of adapt and am open to everyone else between the two extremes because they don't really violate any values of mine.

*Where chamelionic tendencies stop:*

^^; I can get assertive and pushy if something doesn't make any sense thou :S or if obviously values have been violated. My use of Te comes across rather harsh, but that doesn't mean I'm not right or illogical...:S I'm just not as nice as a Te dom when I'm using Te.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

For me there are a few different layers to this.

Above most anything else, I value empathy and compassion. Because of this, I despise when others ostracize, condemn, oppress or hurt others. Usually these behaviors occur out of ignorance and insecurity, so therefore, I strongly value acceptance of diversity. 

On the other hand I also value intellectual integrity and responsibility, analytic reasoning and self-education. So while I can still show someone unconditional positive regard as a human being, and view them as equally deserving of respectful treatment, I do noooot hold every belief system in equal esteem. I'm a non-believer, but I'm also not a fan of this dogmatic, abrasive brand of atheism you speak of. I find this is counterproductive to the cause of expanding religious and intellectual freedom for all (and religious freedom includes the right to not be religious). Annoying as this is, though, I find dogmatic or evangelical religious beliefs even more dangerous, in terms of the tangible consequences we see on society.

I guess the point is, I'm very much "live and let live" and "love your neighbor" (despite not being Christian, lol) on the whole, and I think individual worth is incalculable beyond things like religious belief. But I'm not going to condone intellectual laziness, either, which can take many different forms. I'm not going to go around confronting people on beliefs that I consider pretty ridiculous, unless they're actively hurting others, because I think that we need to reach a point of acceptance and love before anything else, but... eventually I'd like to reach a point where people actually talk and question themselves and others in a compassionate and mature environment. Seems unlikely to ever happen though.

Is this because of my Fi? Um... I don't know... lol. I know I'm not a big fan of uncreative or unproductive conflict, maybe that's part of Fi.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

I would roll with all sorts of people, too, and I have, including drug dealers, since I spent some time in federal prison for protesting. I don't know if I've ever met any mobsters, however. I'd have a tough time staying away from them because I'm always looking for good entertainment, lol.



Merihim said:


> My brother is an ESFP and he rolls with all kinds of people, from mobsters to average civilians to high society.
> 
> I think I'd rather stay away from mobsters :ninja:


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

No, I don't think this kind of gentle tolerance, if you will, is Fi related. I'm an INFP and I can get extremely upset, emotional, even arrogant about my own religious opinions during a discussion, regardless of whether it's online or in real life. On the flip side, I can be very tolerant about listening to other people's perspectives and lifestyles, especially face to face. Although for the most part, there's a part of me that's constantly craving to meet someone who shares my political and religious opinions, I almost never bring them up when socializing with people because it tends to feel very ... grave and tends to bring down people's moods, I've noticed. 

Idk, I feel like a general public tolerance for diverse lifestyles and opinions is more of a generational thing in the US, Canada and Western Europe. I'm sure if you actually went to like...India or Nigeria, you'd find people who fit every type who are also quite adamant about their political religious/judgments and who will be quick to express them if they feel the situation merits it.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

I don't have a prob with drugdealers unless they are dangerous. They are just people anyway. Mobsters though, hmm, I don't think so, since most of them wouldn't think twice about doing unethical things like murder and the like.


----------



## Drifloon (May 12, 2013)

spectralsparrow said:


> For me there are a few different layers to this.
> 
> Above most anything else, I value empathy and compassion. Because of this, I despise when others ostracize, condemn, oppress or hurt others. Usually these behaviors occur out of ignorance and insecurity, so therefore, I strongly value acceptance of diversity.
> 
> ...


...Are you sure you're not INFJ? That all sounds extremely like Fe-Ti as far as I can tell. The fact that you're more bothered by "intellectual laziness" rather than people going against your values definitely suggests Ti over Fi, and valuing empathy and compassion is practically the definition of Fe. "Love your neighbour" is an extremely Fe philosophy; there's a reason Jesus is so often classed as INFJ! Is there any possibility that you might be mistyped? I hate to say things like that to people based solely on first impressions, but absolutely everything you're saying here just sounds so INFJ to me.


----------



## Moss Icon (Mar 29, 2011)

A chameleon? 

For much of my life I wasn't sure who I was. I wasn't sure I even had an identity because I felt like I just reacted to people around me, or wanted to be something that I wasn't but had no idea why I wasn't it or what I actually was. It later occurred to me that the desires "to be" _were _a part of discover of who I was, and that developing one's personality and identity is just that: development. No one just _is _a fully-realised person. It's all part of growth, part of the decisions and choices we make, and how honest we are with ourselves and our feelings. 

It wasn't so much tolerance that guided my chameleonic ways early on though. It was not knowing who I was and simply being what I thought I should be around the appropriate people. Tolerance - I have two simple rules: tolerate anything except a) that which does objectively demonstrable and unsolicited harm/abuse to others, and b) intolerance itself. To tolerate intolerance is to allow tolerance itself to die, thus 100% tolerance is impossible. Just as 100% freedom is impossible to guarantee a truly "free" society, one must not adopt a dogmatic, black-and-white approach to tolerance. One must understand there are tolerable things and intolerable things; unjustifiable intolerance and justifiable intolerance, and one must always be willing to reevaluate and critique both. 

On a personal level, it may be my Fi that gets impassioned, but it's my Te which comes tearing out, fuelled by Fi indignation but harsh, very confrontational, and utterly willing to sacrifice the harmony of a situation for the sake of challenging a perceived value-dissonance. 

I have little tolerance for intellectual dishonesty, particularly the pretentious brand often wielded by college Freshman bring their years' worth of Philosophy 101 home to their country-dwelling parents. I dislike generic, faux-intellectual platitudes like "you can't judge other cultures", and "all knowledge is opinion", etc. etc. What I believe Daniel Dennett defined as a "Deepity": (a profound-sounding, but ultimately vacuous bit of sophistic pomposity.) 

Ultimately I wouldn't say I'm intolerant a person. I don't get in people's faces unless a) they're getting in faces themselves, or b) they are doing demonstrable harm and/or going against their own supposed values (I tend to hold others only to the standards they state themselves, not my own standards, unless they give me every reason to believe my standards and theirs are the same.) I wouldn't say I'm a tolerant person by nature, though. I definitely have an impatient streak, and it's been in identifying that that I've come to realise the importance of objective, demonstrable reasoning for one's prejudices. I aim to be tolerant when I have no reason not to be, and the only reasons not to be are stated above. 

But hey, I have pet peeves, like anyone. I can be irritable about them, but I readily admit to the silliness of it.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

Drifloon said:


> ...Are you sure you're not INFJ? That all sounds extremely like Fe-Ti as far as I can tell. The fact that you're more bothered by "intellectual laziness" rather than people going against your values definitely suggests Ti over Fi, and valuing empathy and compassion is practically the definition of Fe. "Love your neighbour" is an extremely Fe philosophy; there's a reason Jesus is so often classed as INFJ! Is there any possibility that you might be mistyped? I hate to say things like that to people based solely on first impressions, but absolutely everything you're saying here just sounds so INFJ to me.



HAHA. No, I'm SOOO INFP it hurts.

I have no Fe whatsoever and I'm extremeeeely Fi-dom. Ti is something I only envy. I am not J-Like at all, lol. 

For me, the disdain for intellectual laziness is mostly a disdain for the resulting pain that suffering that it causes. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that is an Fe trait, because I HIGHLY value love and compassion and it's a very personal matter for me. But yeah. Interesting question though.


----------



## Aelthwyn (Oct 27, 2010)

It seems to me that FPs would be particularly interested in, and grow adept at, navegating through social interactions without 'pressing buttons' or triggering hot topics. Focusing on what they do have in common rather than points of contention allows them to blend in, but could also cause others to perceive them as wishy-washy or putting on disguises. 

I think PeJi people generally opperate on the idea that evaluations (oppinions/beliefs) are each individual's personal matter, not something to be actively meddled with by others, nor something to push onto others. The Perceiver aspect makes us more interested in just taking in the various oppinions around us while processing and evaluating of these happens internally and is nobody's business but our own - a right naturally granted to others as well. Whatever _I_ think about someone's belief is really rather irrelevant to anyone but me. With Ji you have what I'd call the quietly stubborn person, who says 'do or think whatever you will, but I will always decide for myself.' I think in addition we are likely to feel uncomfortable if others seem to be basing their oppinions on ours without appearing to have done the processing for themselves. We are happy to share our knowlege, impressions, oppinions, and experiences, but feel uncomfortable with directly influencing others. Even when expressing our oppinions vehemently, it's often more of a self-revelation than it is an active assult to make others agree with us. 

As Feelers we are particularly concerned with harmonious interactions and maintaining a comfortable emotional environment which acts as a further filter on our tongues even when we may feel strongly about something. The aspect of empathy also encourages the perciever's openness to accept others, allowing us to focus on and identify with how others _feel_, regardless of the specific topic or beliefs evoking those feelings.


----------



## Monsieur Melancholy (Nov 16, 2012)

Aelthwyn said:


> It seems to me that FPs would be particularly interested in, and grow adept at, navegating through social interactions without 'pressing buttons' or triggering hot topics. Focusing on what they do have in common rather than points of contention allows them to blend in, but could also cause others to perceive them as wishy-washy or putting on disguises.
> 
> I think PeJi people generally opperate on the idea that evaluations (oppinions/beliefs) are each individual's personal matter, not something to be actively meddled with by others, nor something to push onto others. The Perceiver aspect makes us more interested in just taking in the various oppinions around us while processing and evaluating of these happens internally and is nobody's business but our own - a right naturally granted to others as well. Whatever _I_ think about someone's belief is really rather irrelevant to anyone but me. With Ji you have what I'd call the quietly stubborn person, who says 'do or think whatever you will, but I will always decide for myself.' I think in addition we are likely to feel uncomfortable if others seem to be basing their oppinions on ours without appearing to have done the processing for themselves. We are happy to share our knowlege, impressions, oppinions, and experiences, but feel uncomfortable with directly influencing others. Even when expressing our oppinions vehemently, it's often more of a self-revelation than it is an active assult to make others agree with us.
> 
> As Feelers we are particularly concerned with harmonious interactions and maintaining a comfortable emotional environment which acts as a further filter on our tongues even when we may feel strongly about something. The aspect of empathy also encourages the perciever's openness to accept others, allowing us to focus on and identify with how others _feel_, regardless of the specific topic or beliefs evoking those feelings.


Now this, this is right on the money.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Inferior Fi types are kind of the opposite of this (refuse not to have their say). I think the premise of this thread is true in my experiences.


----------



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

No, I'm very frank about my opinions. I have no problems saying "no" to people or treading over their feelings (but never for the intention of treading over their feelings), and can be very stubborn. In fact, I would have thought an Fi user would find it easier to be themselves than an Fe user would, who would be much more concerned with fitting in.

But here's my opinion on Fi users being chameleons. In this case, instead of the scenario the OP posited about being tactful, chameleon means a lack of connection between the external self being broadcast to the world with the internal self hidden behind this external self.

Both Fi and Fe users can be this kind of chameleon, except the difference is that Fe users blend into the social values and expectations of other people. They act like the kind of person the world expects them to act.

Fi users, on the other hand, have a lot of choice in which part of themselves they display to the world. An Fi user's personality has multiple sides and aspects, and this causes the Fi to show the part of themselves they want to show to the world or to other people, since they have personal aspects to their psyche they want to hide from the world. Add to the fact Fi users feel emotions really deeply, and this can lead to a lot of personal conflict in an Fi user between the internal and external selves since the external self is restraining the intensity of their emotions.

For instance, an Fi user might throw up a wall of fake emotion by appearing to be happy to hide their inner depression, or they might act pissed-off at the world so the world doesn't hurt them again. But this is often counter-productive, since it not only does not solve the situation at hand but also makes them feel frustrated at not being "comfortable in their own skins". The Fi user would end up feeling alienated from their own sense of being.

This also makes the personality of an Fi user seem chaotic, and they're harder to predict than Fe users in how they'd react in a situation.

I should also mention that xxFP types tend towards bipolar-typed disorders moreso than other types seem to.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Wuthering In The Willows said:


> No, I'm very frank about my opinions. I have no problems saying "no" to people or treading over their feelings (but never for the intention of treading over their feelings), and can be very stubborn. In fact, I would have thought an Fi user would find it easier to be themselves than an Fe user would, who would be much more concerned with fitting in.


I suspect that this is probably an area where INFPs and ISFPs would differ. I suspect that the Se in the ISFP would cause the ISFP to be more aware of others, and thus less apt to speak out. The tertiary Ni, together with the non-verbal Se and Fi would conspire together to discourage the ISFP from speaking out, but that inferior Te is where it all falls apart--push the ISFP too far, and he attempts to express himself via that inferior function. If other ISFPs are like me, though, once the outburst is over, the realization of what I've just done would just cause me to retreat further into my Fi shell... But at that point, I can't speak for other ISFPs, but it seems the other points seem to be valid for many ISFPs. (as this thread illustrates: http://personalitycafe.com/isfp-forum-artists/152447-why-talking-so-difficult.html )


----------



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> If other ISFPs are like me, though, once the outburst is over, the realization of what I've just done would just cause me to retreat further into my Fi shell... But at that point, I can't speak for other ISFPs, but it seems the other points seem to be valid for many ISFPs. (as this thread illustrates: Why is talking so difficult? )


This is another difference between INFPs and ISFPs, with the thread pointing out stumbling blocks in ISFP communication.

I don't always talk on the same wavelength as another person and can too have problems staying with other people's train of thought. But INFPs tend to be very verbally fluid, and I usually find the eloquent words I seek tumble out with little effort. This would be due to functional differences in Intuition, such as INFPs using Fi with Ne while ISFPs would use Fi with Ni, and the Ne function is more fluid in its Intuition. But like you said, this does have the side effect of not thinking my words through as carefully as an ISFP might, and I usually find myself second guessing what I'm saying. Sometimes I'd make an absolute statement, and then think it through later and see its limitations in its absolution. And also, sometimes my words would get me in trouble or I'd unintentionally offend someone.

But this is starting to get off topic. I'd be interested to see what people have to say about my idea of chameleonism (yeah, I coined a word; deal with it!), and maybe I just happen to be a particularly outspoken INFP?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Wuthering In The Willows said:


> But this is starting to get off topic. I'd be interested to see what people have to say about my idea of chameleonism (yeah, I coined a word; deal with it!), and maybe I just happen to be a particularly outspoken INFP?


I'm not sure it's too far off-topic. In the case of the ISFP, it seems that we tend to act "chameleonic" as a function of the interaction between our Fi and Se, with a little interplay with the Ni to boot. I suspect that INFPs would probably more likely speak out than ISFPs, but that both probably have this issue. I wonder if ESFPs and ENFPs also tend to be this way.


----------



## like hella days (May 15, 2013)

meltedsorbet said:


> I think that I know what you're talking about.
> 
> I talk to a lot of people and can usually choose when/whether I will offend them (I mean, I don't always have to share my opposing views, or if I do I can share them in a non-aggressive way).


I thought that was called common sense


----------



## Mostly Harmless (Oct 16, 2011)

I'm with you on this. I have never felt the need to assault people based on their religious beliefs or thought that their believing something different invalidates my own ideas and values in any way. I respect their right to believe what they choose. I might disagree with it, but as long as they're not forcing it on me in an unpleasant and aggressive way, I'm not going to go out of my way to argue with them.

I remember answering the door to Jehovah's witnesses when I was about 16 and inviting them in for a drink of water because it was a hot day and they were in uncomfortable looking suits and I took their pamphlets and magazines and they talked to me about their beliefs and that was all good. I still talk to them when they come by and I've never had a "These people are nuts" moment. Maybe it's because I'm not religious enough to feel like they're threatening my beliefs and I've never encountered anyone who's been rude and mean. I don't know.

Another time, I ran into some Jews for Jesus in Chicago, and while I find their ideological stance very unpleasant, the people I encountered were polite and not too pushy so I saw no need to be rude to them.

Then this one Turkish guy on the internet tried to convert me to Tengri'ism. I was a little disturbed that he called most other religions shit and said that all the harm in the world came from books, but I had never heard of Tengri'ism before and that was interesting to learn about. It's an interesting animistic belief system and I could understand why it was important to him, even get behind a lot of it.

I have many friends from a variety of faiths and religious backgrounds and I've attended a lot of different kinds of religious services. I frequently find them interesting and beautiful. I've never dealt with formal religion well myself because I don't like worshipping in a community or sticking to hard and fast rules, but I derive a lot of pleasure from seeing how much solace it gives others. A lot of religious rituals, especially the ones that are steeped in history and long tradition, are very aesthetically appealing to me as well.


----------



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

@*ferroequinologist* I was referring to my discussion about the difference of fluidity of communication between INFP and ISFP, which was off-topic. Fluidity of communication doesn't necessarily tie in with how low-key you are. A good example of this is INFJs, who usually try not to draw attention to themselves but on average tend to be very verbally fluid.

Judging by what I've seen of this thread, there do seem to be some not-outspoken INFPs as well. There's a chance I might be an exception. But otherwise, the Se-Ni interplay would leave ISFPs more self-conscious.

ENFPs and ESFPs aren't represented as much in this discussion as the IxFPs are. I wonder how outspoken or passive these two types would be?


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

I'm with @* Mostly Harmless* in this discussion. I've never really thought of it being a chameleon, in the respect that I'm not changing who I am or what I believe. But I am accomodating the differences in people in any given situation. How will I learn about people otherwise? This world is full of all sorts of knowledge and possibilities that I haven't been exposed to yet. How will I absorb any of it if I'm busy writing people off because they grew up with different ideas than me? If I can sit and make them feel comfortable with themselves, their beliefs, and their thoughts, then they'll share that with me. I have a chance to learn something new, and in the process, they may also learn something new from me. It's symbiotic. But the fastest way to kill that is to march around proclaiming how "right" you are on anything. That's no longer a dialogue, it's a monologue. I prefer dialogues.
*
*Perhaps my definition of "chameleon" is where I shy away. A chameleon, in my eyes, sacrifices who he is for something trivial, such as social standing. He changes his ideals and beliefs rather quickly, and not because he's thought about it and made a conscious decision, but because it's the whim of others he seeks to please. Am I perhaps not carrying the correct definition for chameleon in this case?


----------



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

On second thought, I might not be Dominant-Fi after all. I'm still gauging my functions, but I made a thread where I was deciding whether or not I was an INFP (INFP - Confirm/Deny?). The discussion with other members made me reconsider things about how I was typing myself, and I decided I was a pretty logical person. My process of trying to identify what function stack I had was a very T-based (potentially Ti) way of approaching it through elimination. And my outspoken, critical nature seems at odds with the general consensus on behaviour among Fi users.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Wuthering In The Willows said:


> And my outspoken, critical nature seems at odds with the general consensus on behaviour among Fi users.


I wouldn't be so quick on that. Read the many posts of ISFP folk here. You will see some outspoken, critical things said. That's our inferior Te showing up, expressing our strong Fi values. An ISFP can be quite calm, accommodating, etc., but cross the line of the values, and the strong speaking can commence. I don't know if INFPs have this (difference between Se and Si?) And then, there's always the issue of being in the grip of the inferior, as has been said... Just food for thought...


----------



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

Maybe Fi-users can be outspoken, but I do think I might be more of a thinker in general. Being outspoken seems to be more likely in T-users.


----------



## Moss Icon (Mar 29, 2011)

Wuthering In The Willows said:


> Maybe Fi-users can be outspoken, but I do think I might be more of a thinker in general. Being outspoken seems to be more likely in T-users.


I would guess that strong Te would make one more outspoken. An INFP with well-developed Te will become very outspoken on issues of personal concern (Fi channeled externally through Te). 

I think the degree to which any Ti or Fi Dom/Aux is outspoken may depend on how well-developed their Tertiary or Inferior Extroverted Judging function is. Personally speaking, I've become much more outspoken in recent years as I've practiced Te approaches over my go-to, natural Fi preference. I still have this angst about creating a confrontational environment, but most of the time my Te confrontations are a direct reaction to another person getting confrontational or opinionated in the first place. 

T users definitely have less of a problem upsetting the "mood" to state their opinion and speak their mind. But is that something that occurs naturally in you, or is your first reaction still to worry over the feelings and social harmonics of the situation? An F user can be outspoken, but they will do so rather like a pacifist drawing a sword to defend someone or something. A T will speak their mind because, to them, why shouldn't they?


----------



## Wuthering In The Willows (Jul 2, 2013)

It's more the latter for me, in terms of the T user speaking their mind as they consider themselves ought to doing so. I think that political correctness is dangerous and one should have the right to speak what's on their mind. I'm a strong advocate of freedom of speech. When freedom of speech is removed, this allows lies to spread and things to be censored and is a step towards controlling peoples' thoughts. A politically correct climate is one that allows conformity to fester.

I'd seldom insult someone but would have no problems with nitpicking their logic or motives. Sometimes the person in question would think I was insulting them indirectly and would be offended. I have offended a few people by accident, and usually feel guilty about this. But then again, to quote Christopher Hitchens, "those who are determined to be offended will discover a provocation somewhere". So long as I know I haven't nitpicked an actual person, I see no reason why I should feel guilty.


----------



## milti (Feb 8, 2012)

fourtines said:


> I realized just now in some other threads that I was apparently perceived as some Bible beating Christian by some atheists in another thread because of how staunchly I was defending the religious or theists against a very specific kind of atheist, that is, largely, the arrogant Internet atheist who imagines him or herself smarter than everyone else by virtue of being an atheist, and all religious people have the dumbz.
> 
> This position offends me deeply. I've always been bothered it. It doesn't mean I go to Westboro Baptist.
> 
> ...


I'm like this. I often appear indecisive about my personal beliefs because of this. People think I'm "wishy-washy" because of this, and my father has told me on more than one occasion not to be SO open minded that my brains fall out. But I just see it aas - believe in what you want, lead the life that you think suits you best, I'm no one to try and change or convince people otherwise... BUT don't turn around and question the way I live my life.

It might be an FP thing because our core beliefs are ones that only we know the rationale for (or are trying to work out, as you suggested) and to have them put on the spot AFTER we've figured them out will piss us off like mad.

I personally don't care about a person's religious beliefs, even if i seems to be a large part of his/her life. To me religion ranks somewhat low on the scale of "will I like you?" and I make it apparent in my relationships with friends and people that while I do respect their religious sentiments (or sexual or whatever) it's not the reason I like or dislike them.

As for my Te, I think mine is channelled somewhat inwards. By that I mean that while I do see the flaws in logic and disregard the feels and moods, it most often bounces back onto me. This is why I can't think seriously (emotionally) about having sex with someone, and why I am overly critical towards myself and am always telling myself off all the time - not in a pity-party "boo hoo my life sucks" way, just in a "oops, you shouldn't have said that, you idiot" way.


----------

