# Shallow types?



## IAmMe2010 (Oct 8, 2011)

Alright, so I've been reading more and more into type descriptions and I ran across something that's kinda got me thinking.

In a few of the descriptions, particularly the INFP and INTP descriptions it lists an intense desire to just be real honest individual people. It got me thinking, don't most people want to be "themselves"? I mean, don't most human beings value truth and originality? Of course I realize that there are a lot of shallow people in the world but is there really a personality type that is more drawn to a shallow and selfish perception of themselves and the world?

...I guess what I'm trying to ask is, aren't we all trying to find truth in life? Aren't there individuals in all the personality types that seek the "truth" and "depth" or are there really other "types" that are drawn to selfish and shallow ideals?

...I'm not really sure if I'm making any sense here -_- but I think you get the idea


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)




----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> In a few of the descriptions, particularly the INFP and INTP descriptions it lists an intense desire to just be real honest individual people. It got me thinking, don't most people want to be "themselves"? I mean, don't most human beings value truth and depth? Of course I realize that there are a lot of shallow people in the world but is there really a personality type that is more drawn to a shallow and selfish perception of themselves and the world?


This is a _very_ dominant Fi (INFP/ISFP) mentality. A Fe type (EFJ/IFJ) would probably vehemently disagree with you and say the ultimate expression of value is through sacrifice of self-interests for some greater good (think the military which is the ultimate Fe organization). 

Fe types see Fi types as selfish and unsympathetic to greater ideals. Fi types see Fe types as superficial, shallow and too interested in the opinions of those around them.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

LiquidLight said:


> Fe types see Fi types as selfish and unsympathetic to greater ideals. Fi types see Fe types as superficial, shallow and too interested in the opinions of those around them.


This is pretty close. I have mostly INFJ friends, and I'm pretty sure whenever we experience conflict, this tends to be what is actually happening.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

snail said:


> This is pretty close. I have mostly INFJ friends, and I'm pretty sure whenever we experience conflict, this tends to be what is actually happening.


Yea I would think that differences dealing with extraverted judgment would probably be relationship killers as well (or at least really stressful). I know an ESFP who has an ESFJ mom and that household is basically World War III. They love each other but don't see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING. Mom's Fe/Si stands in direct opposition to daughters Se/Fi.


----------



## IAmMe2010 (Oct 8, 2011)

So basically what your saying is that there are no "selfish" types, but there are types with values that other types might interpret as Selfish...right?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

IAmMe2010 said:


> So basically what your saying is that there are no "selfish" types, but there are types with values that other types might interpret as Selfish...right?


Correct. It depends on the point of view of the person.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Honestly, I've never been very confident that dom/aux Fe is as shallow a function as compared to dominant Se. "Shallow" never quite struck me as the most accurate descriptor of Fe relative to Fi, although since my Fi is tertiary, it's very likely that I'm more oblivious to the motivations of Fe than I once believed. I can see where many of you in this post are coming from, but personally, the word "phony" seems more accurate when describing Fe at its worst than shallow, due to the more emotional nature of the word and the function. Perhaps Fi sees Fe as _emotionally_ shallow. Of course it can be used in shallow ways (just as any extroverted function can be shallow without enough aid from the introverted ones), but from my experiences, I've met less shallow people who are Fe users than Se users. From my perspective, shallow relates to Freud's "Id" concept, which sounds more Se than Fe to me (F in general being more ego-superego in focus - ironically, it seems like Fe would be the most superego in its focus on putting others and the "greater good" before the individual, though considering that the Fe user's ego depends on this, the function can surely be used selfishly). There are many fallacious stereotypes perpetuated around the internet that anyone who exhibits cliquish or conformist tendencies is an Fe dom or aux, yet in my life, I've met about an equal amount of Se doms or auxes that do this also. They tend to form "Se" cliques that can seem very similar to "Fe" cliques and are often the ones who call the shots on whether you are "cool/hip, etc." enough to be seen with them, and if you deviate too much from their expectations, they have few inhibitions about pointing it out and making it known to the rest of the world - if they can actually classify your distinction according to Se parameters, which, like shallow Fe parameters, are similarly limited. There's little doubt in my mind that most people who work for tabloid rags, etc. are Se doms (some auxes perhaps), and probably a close amount of Fe doms or auxes (they tend to be more moralistic, of course, which makes me suspect that less of them might occupy this position, although I could be wrong).


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

I have never run into ONE type that is as you said "drawn to selfish and shallow ideals". I have however noticed that a a few types are more selfish than others in their actions. But not in their ideals.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Any person can be "shallow" I've seen TJs (both STJ and NTJ) very concerned about social status, in terms of having huge houses, fast cars, and trophy wives...not for Fe reasons, but for reasons of Te dominance.

I've seen Fe types very concerned about acting "properly" or Si types very concerned about doing the "right" thing or else being excluded in both cases.

Se types might seem more visceral or changing, and therefore shallow, but it doesn't account for the development of Fi and/or Ni in certain Se types...which is why, in my opinion, F. Scott Fitzgerald seems to have more depth than Ernest Hemingway, and I think it's because Ernest Hemingway was a very obvious Se dom (who still had the ...er..depth? ...to write novels and commit suicide) and he thought that ISxP Fitzgerald was a weird man with "weird ideas" i.e. tertiary Ni, which Hemingway obviously rejected more. That's why I don't agree with anyone typing Fitzgerald as ESTP like Hemingway just because of the Fitzgerald's legendary parties and things. In some regards Fitzgerald was rather morally critical despite all things...and sometimes I think when I read _The Great Gatsby _that the character of Tom was loosely based on Hemingway (they were often at war with one another, though they hung out, like "frenemies") and then collectively the "careless" couple Tom and Daisy collectively were also based on the wealthy Gerald and Sara Murphy, and within the novel I think ISxP Fitzgerald critiques Hemingway via fiction for being a blustery ESTP, and simultaneously critiques the Murphys for being apparently somewhat shallow (?) people because of being born into wealth (while Fitzgerald was middle to upper middle class in upbringing, he was not truly wealthy until he published _This Side of Paradise_, and after leaving his parents home he actually wasn't doing very well financially, which is why there was some question *if* Zelda would marry him at all until he published). 

Point being...Scott Fitzgerald, obvious SP, made some pretty deep moral critiques of what he experienced and saw around him, and had some really obvious Ni.

So any type can be shallow, I think....I think it really depends on WHY they are shallow and WHAT they are shallow about, you see...and while Fe may look more shallow to Fi, perhaps Se looks more shallow to Ni, and so forth...a matter of perspective...and of course a matter of individual moral values, introspection and level of intelligence.

Extroverted functions will probably always look "shallow" to Introverted functions...


----------

