# Things you hate about Rationals



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

kittenmogu said:


> I would also like to point out that what has been described is Fe, not Feeling as in both Fe and Fi, the latter of which is not based around group unity.


 I'm unsure why that view persists. It turns Fe into something people-focused and Fi into something whimsical and emotional. My earlier point indicates that that view of Fi is not cognitive. Would you explain to me Fi in your own words?

As far as I'm concerned, Fi improvises its style of managing groups it's in. It will individualize strategies concerning keeping its groups inclusive. Fe prefers an unimprovised management style. It will use exact, replicatable strategies of keeping its groups inclusive.


----------



## kittenmogu (Jun 19, 2014)

Le9acyMuse said:


> I'm unsure why that view persists. It turns Fe into something people-focused and Fi into something whimsical and emotional. My earlier point indicates that that view of Fi is not cognitive. Would you explain to me Fi in your own words?
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, Fi improvises its style of managing groups it's in. It will individualize strategies concerning keeping its groups inclusive. Fe prefers an unimprovised management style. It will use exact, replicatable strategies of keeping its groups inclusive.


Why is this all about groups? Fi is not fundamentally about groups. If an individual happens to find their fulfillment with things related to groups, then indeed that would apply. But F is not entirely about group relationships. That is a very Fe way to view it. Nowhere did I indicate that Fi is merely whimsical and emotional, and even if I had done so mistakenly, I very much agree with you. That is not the case.

Fi is intensive (focused inward) rather than extensive (focused outward). When we encounter anything, a statement, an action, an object, an idea, a relationship, or perhaps, a group, we ask what it means to the self. How does this thing line up with *my values*? What does this thing mean to *me*? These internal judgments form an internal framework of values and meanings. You are right in that it is highly individualized, in not only that each person is unique (although this is also applicable to Fe) but that it's about the individual in the first place.

It's 5 am where I live so I am tired O(-< I'm going to supplement with an outside source.



> Unlike Fe, Fi is not overly concerned with cultivating positive feelings or good morale in a social environment (IFPs do like harmony, but this has more to do with their being uncomfortable with conflict than wanting to cultivate Fe rapport). Rather than focusing on general morale or interpersonal harmony, Fi is concerned with helping specific individuals who have personally moved or otherwise affected them.


(from here)

The implication also seems that Fi is more likely to forsake the concerns or goals of a group in favor of their own values. Not every Fi cares about groups.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

Spastic Origami said:


> INFPs/ISFPs: Explain validate. Explain vulnerability.
> 
> ... validation can be anything from acknowledgement to indulgence. I've seen too many people play this card in hopes of exploiting whatever emotional weakness the other person might have. Honest sympathy I can do. But, understand that it is not my obligation to indulge anybody. I've seen people play this card. And, I've had people use me as an emotional dumping ground because I showed them an ounce of compassion. Validate is ... well, quite vague for lack of better words. Vulnerability: The other thing I see reading these forums and fail to understand. I have no intention of being super stoic when it comes to my emotions. But why is it that bonding in weakness is a good thing? I've became friends with the wrong people and dated the wrong women because I was in an unhealthy state at the time. I would rather have someone show me their joy and happiness and I would be only happy if I could return the favour.


Why do you think it is a "card to play"? You already know that people need comfort, so why even bother to discuss word usages like validation or question the intent of a such request. You simply overthink something that is quite simple



> And why is a person quick to show their misery and never their happiness? Why is it that whenever emotions gets spoken of it's often the tragic? Why is it that whenever someone is genuinely passionate or excited about something their emotions get shut down? Why is it that often the killjoy who turns around and make demands of your feelings?


Today even misery isn't shown often enough. All that's left is just a cold outer shell. Psychologists believe that depression is going to be a major concern within ten years, and looking at the trend you talk of it's hard to argue with that. 
I guess that happiness is shut down because of our utopian conceptions of it. Happiness is not something you can ever have, it's something to strive for or work like a dog to maintain. You can never be content by being in the moment because you should really think about all your concerns instead and solve them before resting... which is never.


----------



## kittenmogu (Jun 19, 2014)

Spastic Origami said:


> INFPs/ISFPs: Explain validate. Explain vulnerability.
> 
> ... validation can be anything from acknowledgement to indulgence. I've seen too many people play this card in hopes of exploiting whatever emotional weakness the other person might have. Honest sympathy I can do. But, understand that it is not my obligation to indulge anybody. I've seen people play this card. And, I've had people use me as an emotional dumping ground because I showed them an ounce of compassion. Validate is ... well, quite vague for lack of better words. Vulnerability: The other thing I see reading these forums and fail to understand. I have no intention of being super stoic when it comes to my emotions. But why is it that bonding in weakness is a good thing? I've became friends with the wrong people and dated the wrong women because I was in an unhealthy state at the time. I would rather have someone show me their joy and happiness and I would be only happy if I could return the favour.
> 
> And why is a person quick to show their misery and never their happiness? Why is it that whenever emotions gets spoken of it's often the tragic? Why is it that whenever someone is genuinely passionate or excited about something their emotions get shut down? Why is it that often the killjoy who turns around and make demands of your feelings?


If you do not want to validate someone's emotions because you feel that it would be merely indulging them, that is your choice. It does genuinely bring relief, and ironically a big fear that we (and people in general have) in disclosing how we feel is that we don't have a right to feel bad and that the other side will judge us for an experience we don't have control over. That is why we risk that being confirmed by the listener in the hopes that the feeling will be validated. Of course, if something is unhealthy, it is helpful to point that out. 

If someone says "I am hurt because of this ____" they will be hurt further from hearing "you have no right to be hurt over that" in whatever form it comes in.

If someone has taken advantage of your compassion, *that is a flaw with that individual, not a problem with emotions in general.* I'm not sure how people who claim to be rational come to that conclusion. I'm sympathetic to your experience, and in fact I've also been drained of all compassion possible before, even though I feel that i possess a great deal of it. But know where the problem lies-- in the person you were dealing with and their own emotional immaturity.

Vulnerability is being able to show both the true good and bad sides of you. The happy and the sad. The whole truth of you. That you are imperfect but you will risk rejection in order to be known and accepted as a whole. In balance. If you are unhealthy, that just means you are unhealthy, and not that vulnerability itself is unhealthy. A healthy vulnerable person can cultivate healthy relationships. Indeed, share your joy and happiness. We Feelers that care for you will feel it with you. Vulnerability can indeed go wrong, but it is not indicative of a problem with vulnerability in general.

I'm not sure where your last generalization comes from. That's a highly varied experience. I don't identify with any of those things and I don't know what you're trying to prove-- that emotion is flawed because it is usually negative? Are you perhaps swayed by your own experiences?


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Elinathopie said:


> INTJs bottle up their emotions SO much that everything that should have gotten to them builds and builds until they explode


That was helpful, I'm more and more sure of my type.

Mine was another extremely cheeky comment (we seem to have trouble understanding each other's zingers) but I absolutely agree. The whole 'cold and unfeeling' NTs and 'warm, sensitive and feelsy' NFs stereotype is bologna. Both categories are equally capable to be rational and objective, as well as emotional and understanding. Feeling =/= emotions as other people have already explained, it's just a filtering of the world through inner (Fi) or exterior (Fe) morals.
INTPs can actually be quite the romantics, they just struggle to understand where it comes from but they can be very connected to people (tert Fe). INTJs do understand but will probably suppress all of that until it comes out at full force in their own idealized way (tert Fi).

If anything, I've met more 'robotic' XSTJs than NTs but then again I'm overly simplifying the issue.

A rename? Rationals is fine and idealists is fine.
The main problem is when people start dividing between 'feelers' and 'thinkers'.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

kittenmogu said:


> Why is this all about groups? Fi is not fundamentally about groups. If an individual happens to find their fulfillment with things related to groups, then indeed that would apply. But F is not entirely about group relationships. That is a very Fe way to view it. Nowhere did I indicate that Fi is merely whimsical and emotional, and even if I had done so mistakenly, I very much agree with you. That is not the case.
> 
> Fi is intensive (focused inward) rather than extensive (focused outward). When we encounter anything, a statement, an action, an object, an idea, a relationship, or perhaps, a group, we ask what it means to the self. How does this thing line up with *my values*? What does this thing mean to *me*? These internal judgments form an internal framework of values and meanings. You are right in that it is highly individualized, in not only that each person is unique (although this is also applicable to Fe) but that it's about the individual in the first place.


I agree, your description is more commonly used than his. I think, however, that Fi does quite often evaluate ethics according to each individual, which is sort of a byproduct of knowing how different everybody is and not wanting anyone to conform. 
I like to think of it in terms of where you get your values from. Fi is mainly concerned with their own emotions on a case, while Fe doesn't believe that ethics can be objectively constructed without looking at the real world and how others think and feel. That besides it also uses mirror neurons more both to understand and make the other person change in order to achieve realistic harmony


----------



## rawrmosher (Apr 22, 2013)

The hilarious lack of social skills


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Thank God I usually don't need my feelings addressed by them because usually I like SJs and other SPs but one time I liked a rational and frankly I thought he wanted to have sex with women he couldn't have and was cold, NFs are usually similar except not cold. Jesus I would rather be asked out on a proper Date (SJ) or made a sexual object (SP) because frankly all this neurosis bores me. INTJs used to fascinate me but made me feel bad about myself, I think this is why I am not supposed to date them.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

kittenmogu said:


> Why is this all about groups? Fi is not fundamentally about groups. If an individual happens to find their fulfillment with things related to groups, then indeed that would apply. But F is not entirely about group relationships. That is a very Fe way to view it.


 Is Feeling concerned with people that make the individual feel safe?



> Nowhere did I indicate that Fi is merely whimsical and emotional, and even if I had done so mistakenly, I very much agree with you. That is not the case.


 It's the tendency of Fi definitions not emphasizing a focus on people.



> Fi is intensive (focused inward) rather than extensive (focused outward).


 Right, like your introverted judging to my introverted perception, we both consult our intensive psyche, which is our fixation, and not the extensive external world.



> When we encounter anything, a statement, an action, an object, an idea, a relationship, or perhaps, a group, we ask what it means to the self. How does this thing line up with *my values*? What does this thing mean to *me*?


F or T would tell you if something lines up with what you accept, but alone would not tell you what it means to you. Let's say something did not line up with Fi's values. You could still make use of that something, but you wouldn't know until you develop thoughts and consider outcomes with all your functions. All you know up to the point of using Fi is whether it lines up or not.

F or T generally view content in reference to what standards of behavior they accept. Fe and Te people don't think with other people's ideas (they have their own minds and egos). They think with their own, and would regard them as their "own values."



> These internal judgments form an internal framework of values and meanings. You are right in that it is highly individualized, in not only that each person is unique (although this is also applicable to Fe) but that it's about the individual in the first place.


 Yeah, an ingrained sense of standards. How does that differ from Fe, in your view? It seems you're implying their judgments exist differently. All judgments are internal. They aren't physical and capable of being touched. Thus they're cognitive in this sense rather than Introverted.

Fe and Fi would access these inner judgments, and would reference themselves. Fe and Te don't go asking others what to think anymore than Fi and Ti. Feeling is the _same _judgments with different (Introverted/Extraverted) approaches.

It's always about the individual. Introversion asks "how would I reinvent this?" Extraversion asks "what is the best way?" It's deeper than inside-outside. Psyche has its methods, and the external world has its methods.



> Unlike Fe, Fi is not overly concerned with cultivating positive feelings or good morale in a social environment (IFPs do like harmony, but this has more to do with their being uncomfortable with conflict than wanting to cultivate Fe rapport).


 Fe isn't overly concerned with cultivating that. It benefits them to encourage that because it strengthens unity, but it's a means to an end. Why would they cultivate feelings and good morale as the end result? That's not logical in a cognitive sense. That's like saying "I'm hungry, so I'll buy food to spend money." Fe is aware of the reason they're cultivating, and are more concerned with the end result of it. Remember, emotions aren't cognitive.



> Rather than focusing on general morale or interpersonal harmony, Fi is concerned with helping specific individuals who have personally moved or otherwise affected them.


 It sounds emotional and whimsical. The bottom line is Feeling is concerned with people it feels safe around, and will seek to keep those people around using certain means to _that _end. You basically support, via sharing this quotation, that Fi users will go out of their way to socialize with others. Why go out of their way? Their ingrained sense of order, or internal judgments, lead them to caring about people they feel good being around.

Fe may use morale and interpersonal dynamics to achieve closeness, but your quotation shows that Fi does as well. Helping specific _individuals _(a plural word, not singular) is helping _people you care enough about to help_. This translates as your group.

"Specific" versus "general" seems to be the divisor you accept between Fe and Fi. Specific and general in what way? Focusing on individuals "specifically" versus "generally" seems vague. How do you focus on _people_ (again, plural) specifically rather than generally? There's only one way to focus on people, and that is face to face. Fe-doms are capable of _helping specific individuals who have personally moved or otherwise affected them._ They don't speak generally to people, or deal with them generally as if they're any different to what Fi-doms would view them as. It's their style of managing people they care for, not their view of people, that makes them different from Fi-doms.



> The implication also seems that Fi is more likely to forsake the concerns or goals of a group in favor of their own values. Not every Fi cares about groups.


 If people don't become somewhat sensitive to the needs of the various peoples they actually wish to keep around, then they risk not having people desire to be counted among them. In return, what you implied paints Fe as likely to forget it feels differently just so the group it's in can go on blissfully. Also, it makes Fi sound like loose cannons that are afraid of commitment, just because too many people agree on something (your values will differ from most people more often than not. you can't just flake every time this happens. you'd be seen as unreliable). Those are extremes of behavior that don't apply to cognitive types, but more to anyone's influences and circumstances.


----------



## kittenmogu (Jun 19, 2014)

Le9acyMuse said:


> Is Feeling concerned with people that make the individual feel safe?


That's possibly one way to put it. When values are in harmony, it can create a sense of safety. The difference is that Fe is concerned with the harmony of something outside itself, perhaps? The harmony of the world. Which in turn, creates an inner harmony (Fi).

People can use both Fi and Fe. Just because I'm Fi does not mean I ignore Fe completely. But Fi and Fe are two different things? My original point with my reply was that Fi is not fundamentally about group unity.



> It's the tendency of Fi definitions not emphasizing a focus on people.


It might be because it's 7 am where I am but this did not make sense to me grammatically  Fi focuses on the self. Introspection and all that, if you want to simplify it. Groups are not a fundamental part of its focus or goal. They are optional.



> Right, like your introverted judging to my introverted perception, we both consult our intensive psyche, which is our fixation, and not the extensive external world.


Indeed. You consult Ni to create action through Fe? I'm not sure about this, I'm not an INFJ.




> Can a judging function such as Feeling concern itself with content that the N or S is usually concerned with?


Well, yes? I can receive information through Se, and create a judgment from it using Fi, which I then extravert again through Se. I'm not sure how Fi would manifest the same way Se would. Fi must be expressed through other means than itself.




> Fe isn't overly concerned with cultivating that. It benefits them to encourage that because it strengthens unity, but it's a means to an end. Why would they cultivate feelings and good morale as the end result? That's not logical. That's like saying I want to buy food to spend money. Fe is aware of the reason they're cultivating, and are more concerned with the end result of it.


Your personal motivations for cultivating community and external harmony come from within. Would you say your Fe is motivated by your Ni? Or am I trying to understand a Judging type's Pi+Je process through my Perceiving type eyes? My guess was that Ni was the framework, feel free to correct me.



> It sounds emotional and whimsical. The bottom line is Feeling is concerned with people it feels safe around, and will seek to keep those people around using certain means to _that _end. You basically support, via sharing this quotation, that Fi users will go out of their way to socialize with others. Why go out of their way? Their ingrained sense of order, or internal judgments, lead them to caring about people they feel good being around.


Fi of course would desire to connect with others-- after all, you need other things in order to have something have a relationship with yourself. *Fi judges things in relation to the self.* It takes the input from an extraverted perceiving function and generates an introverted judgment related to the self. Fi does not perceive. Also, I am talking about Fi as a thing, not a person, which I probably should have clarified, because they can be used both ways. People use both Fi and Fe. I am talking about a function, not about people. The difference is that people can do more than one, while Fi is this _______ and covers more ground than it would alone by operating in conjunction with other functions.





> "Specific" versus "general" seems to be the divisor you accept between Fe and Fi. Specific and general in what way? Focusing on individuals "specifically" versus "generally" seems vague. How do you focus on _people_ (again, plural) specifically rather than generally? There's only one way to focus on people, and that is face to face. Fe-doms are capable of _helping specific individuals who have personally moved or otherwise affected them._ They don't speak generally to people, or deal with them generally as if they're any different to what Fi-doms would view them as. It's their style of managing people they care for, not their view of people, that makes them different from Fi-doms.


When I say Fe is about this, I'm not saying that Fe-doms are only capable of that and incapable of viewing people in relation to themselves and thus help people based on personal values. I'm talking about a function, not a person. Fe focuses on the relationship between you and the other person as its own thing. Relationships as something conceptually existing outside the self. Fi incorporates relationships into the self, and uses them to define the self.



> If people don't become somewhat sensitive to the needs of the various peoples they actually wish to keep around, then they risk not having people desire to be counted among them. In return, what you implied paints Fe as likely to forget it feels differently just so the group it's in can go on blissfully. Also, it makes Fi sound like loose cannons that are afraid of commitment, just because too many people agree on something. Those are extremes of behavior that don't apply to cognitive types, but more to anyone's influences and circumstances.


Fi can be sensitive to other people's needs if that's what they value or feel at the moment. 

That's extrapolating too far from what I said. I'm not sure what to respond to that other than that I feel those are exaggerations of the statement I made. I did not reference any extremes. You are the one who interpreted those extremes. Please read again:

"The implication also seems that Fi is more likely to forsake the concerns or goals of a group in favor of their own values. Not every Fi cares about groups."

Please point out where I implied any extremes?? I said "implication", not "fact"; "is more likely" not "will definitely"; and "not every Fi" not "no Fi."

You say certain things about Fi are whimsical and emotional. Do you mean to imply that you think the way I define it makes it sound frivolous? Is something only meaningful if it's about the outside world? I will acknowledge that I do not have a very good grasp of the definitions and deep inner workings of Fe, but I do know what Fi is not.


----------



## DisharmonizedIntellect (Jun 13, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @Elinathopie
> thank you for making this thread (NTs are overrated as hell lol)
> 
> - judging everyone who isn't like them (in my experience, NTs are far more judgmental than they are made out to be and SJs far less)
> ...


I'd also like to add a few points why we're kinda assholes. 

We're open to beliefs and opinions. We're not open minded about them, your beliefs and opinions will never have any bearing on ours whatsoever. We will continue to believe what we believe in, if your beliefs disagree with ours, we'll quietly inch away from you knowing that we have nothing to gain from you. We get neurotic if you know what you're talking about and you happen to be more logical than us...even if we don't show it, inside we're tearing our hair out.

To Unicorn. Then those people have some sort of psychological luggage that they need to sort out themselves. My father and a few others have this where they're in a completely emotional and irrational state. My dad conveys that emotion to abuse his family verbally for 6-7 hours. I agree there are people that may have that disposition, but I disagree its normal. Most people even when they're upset at least have the awareness to say, "Leave me alone, I need time." Those who don't usually have some psychological baggage that interferes with their handling of stress.


----------



## DisharmonizedIntellect (Jun 13, 2014)

Elinathopie said:


> *ENTJs *are like in between those two with either being extremely happy or *immensely* angry... Like as in mad over the simplest things (but they always try to add a reason for it). *INTPs* don't understand emotions and that's what causes them to be ironically sad. But since they don't know what sad is, they can't express their sadness. It's pretty sad, really. Probably one of the saddest things about them. But they seem to live perfectly fine with it xD


ENTJ father. He's exactly as you described.

As an INTP I actually understand my emotions. Though the only problem is it doesn't fit logically in to my design so I kind get frustrated between the inner conflict of interests.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

DisharmonizedIntellect said:


> To Unicorn. Then those people have some sort of psychological luggage that they need to sort out themselves. My father and a few others have this where they're in a completely emotional and irrational state. My dad conveys that emotion to abuse his family verbally for 6-7 hours. I agree there are people that may have that disposition, but I disagree its normal. Most people even when they're upset at least have the awareness to say, "Leave me alone, I need time." Those who don't usually have some psychological baggage that interferes with their handling of stress.


Oh wait, you study psychology, right? dammit, I have to be careful with wording then  A stress response is as such just a short burst of stress hormone, but it can continue for hours or days if one keeps thinking about one's problem. But you're right that you can have it for long periods and thus develop uncontrollable emotion, like what your dad is doing (I am sorry about that :/ ), but then simply comforting/validating/deep emotional unicorn butt sex/whatever doesn't do the job alone and you need therapy. 
And you're right that baggage also inhibits proper handling of stress, certainly


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

@kittenmogu I redid some things in my last post, so you may have to reread some of it if we're gonna be on the same page with our arguments.

I will say that cognitive functions cannot be used out of their order. Everything that comes to your awareness will be thru Fi-Se-Ni-Te. Se can't be the first. Always your Fi.

I'll have to return to this later, however.


----------



## Dalton (Jun 10, 2013)

SomeGirl20 said:


> The sad clinically depressed thinker can see the irony of his misfortune. Wheras the happy feeler reuniting with an old friend is time away from a "world ending" scenario that involves or involving said old friend into.


*Ahem...* _I'm _the one who's clinically depressed, and no, I don't see the irony. :dry:



UnicornRainbowLove said:


> Now, the long response to the ISTJ was a quite personal one aimed to give an understanding of how to approach feelers, and that's the primary reason I only talked about Te, albeit it of course tends to be more aggressive as well. I still think that my statements are generally true, but I will agree that there are many simplifiations, but they are mostly there to be pedagogical and make a point that my receiver would understand easily.


You may have said "Te", but you didn't actually explain anything about how not just Tx, but specifically _Te,_ fails in the given situation.



> I haven't thought about me being an ENFJ, (it's not a critique of my arguments, is it?  ), but I could certainly come across as a different type at times.


I believe that you're misrepresenting FPs when you argue on their behalf based upon your own self-conception as INFP, so yes.



UnicornRainbowLove said:


> Some people care about the point, some about the details, and we seem to be in different groups. Remember that words get meaning through context, so don't take them out of it. Not everything written is a research paper with academically defined terms and phrases.


My response continues here, because I didn't want to fill the thread with O/T content:
* *




In research papers, the details DO matter. Maybe in speaking a eulogy it might be more about the "feeling" than the details, but for something factual like a research paper, you _need_ clear definitions. Research papers ought not be subject to interpretation. It's YOUR job to provide interpretations of the source material, not the reader. For a Te user, "the point" requires the details to support itself. We want it plain, simple, and logically consistent. Without the details, I won't know if the point is logical.


> Ordinary language doesn't work like that, it's a standard of speech you'll never make people have and nor is it actually needed


It is very well needed. What happens when there is no context? Without knowing that many (if not most) of the USA's "Founding Fathers" were not Christian, modern Americans interpret the phrase "God-given rights" to mean rights that were given by God.

The problem is that the definition of "God" to thse people was a more global concept. It was not a specific "god", but instead a reference to the Origin of life, and has been used to describe a wide varieties of belief, from Christianity to naturalism. For example, Albert Einstein using the word "God" as a way to describe his wonder about the universe, not that God was a deity, but that God is the force which moves the universe, and that God _is_ the Universe.



> The "idea" I have about language I do, however, not think is function related. I just consider it proper language theory that even hints at Wittgenstein's ideas, and then I guess I use Te to say "you'll never make everyone conform and language is fine as it is anyway, so why even try?"


Te is extraverted logic, therefore, Te dictates that words have meaning inasmuch as they are mutually supported and understood by the communicator and receiver.

When people start to bastardize definitions, it decreases the effectiveness of communication. I hate the idea of context for definitions. Context is not enough. I only use religion because it's a clear example and I can't create other examples: the 1000s of pages context in the Bible were not enough to get the 'point'. Christians of different sects don't just disagree about the details -- they disagree about the _fundamentals_. I've asked people if they're Christian, and I've heard the answer, "No, I'm Catholic" on several occasions. I always thought that Catholics are Christian. Now we have a disagreement of meaning which context cannot fix. Unless you specifically mention that "Catholics are Christian" in a paper or speech about Christianity, some people are going to disagree about what the writer/speaker meant, or whether it applies to Catholics.






Chest said:


> 1. are obsessed with logic
> 2. get defensive when their girlfriends talk to me
> 3. are dicks for no good reason


1. correct.
2. Are feelers not capable of jealousy as well?
3. Many feelers are _much_ worse than I.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> (NTs are overrated as hell lol)


*raises eyebrow* I find it interesting how people try to devalue things/people by saying "that's soooo overrated." They try to compensate by reactively _under_rating the person/thing. Thus was born the concept of the "hipster".


> - judging everyone who isn't like them (in my experience, NTs are far more judgmental than they are made out to be and SJs far less)


Depends on the individual, but perhaps true by average.


> - love playing passive-aggressive mind games


Not I.


> - patronizing sense of humor (like, most of their jokes are either insulting your intelligence or condescendingly trying to test it).
> - see the price of everything and the value of nothing


Absolutely does not apply to me.


> lots of unprovoked biting sarcasm


It's friendly sarcasm that might be taken too seriously. Rarely is my sarcasm malicious.


> - geeky


Not ENTJs, and the rest don't have a monopoly on that. NFs can get pretty damn geeky.


> - sexually inept


Trollllllling.



DisharmonizedIntellect said:


> I'd also like to add a few points why we're kinda assholes.
> 
> We're open to beliefs and opinions. We're not open minded about them, your beliefs and opinions will never have any bearing on ours whatsoever. We will continue to believe what we believe in, if your beliefs disagree with ours, we'll quietly inch away from you knowing that we have nothing to gain from you.


In regards to beliefs, this is correct, but if you give me evidence that forces me to reconsider my worldview, I'll willing reconsider my worldview.



> We get neurotic if you know what you're talking about and you happen to be more logical than us...even if we don't show it, inside we're tearing our hair out.


Ummmmmm.....

I have no clue what you're talking about! If a feeler (or anybody) knows what they're talking about and is more logical, I am impressed, not frustrated. Why would I be frustrated? Jealousy? I'm not jealous. I might feel ashamed for not being the one who achieved whatever breakthrough they made, but never would I get frustrated out of that situation, except against myself.



UnicornRainbowLove said:


> I understand your confusion, but try to put more substance on the case. When some one has a serious problem they can at times be in a stress response which means that they don't function normally. Often the stress is actually a worse problem than the external problem at hand, and thus you must tackle that first. The external problem may or may not be the cause of the stress (stress often leads to new problems), but in order to fix it, you need a clear mind.
> For a feeler to get out of a stress response it is typically helpful to give a pat on the back, yes, just to calm them down. When they're calmed down and know that you don't see them as idiots, you can start discussing how to fix whatever external problem they may have.


Fixing the external problem will alleviate stress. Tackle what you _can_. This means that I usually give a little comfort, give advice, and then finish off the remaining stress.



Le9acyMuse said:


> Feeling is fueled by maintaining unity in groups they care about. Feeling _uses _emotions and feelings to foster groups, but Feeling isn't emotional and love-y dove-y in nature. It is logical, like Thinking, for the way it weeds out threats to group unification. It's for security purposes.


Although this could apply _loosely_ to Fi, this is specific to Fe. I believe that everything in our brain happens for a reason (avoiding threats, usually).



> "Rationals" is a misnomer of a temperament. People altogether are irrational. Let's keep NTs as "Intellects," no? The way this thread's going Feelers, or whatevers, are implied as "Irrationals."


Nope, we're just supercomputers in human bodies.  :tongue:



kittenmogu said:


> If you do not want to validate someone's emotions because you feel that it would be merely indulging them, that is your choice. It does genuinely bring relief, and ironically a big fear that we (and people in general have) in disclosing how we feel is that *we don't have a right to feel bad and that the other side will judge us for an experience we don't have control over. That is why we risk that being confirmed by the listener in the* hopes that the feeling will be validated. Of course, if something is unhealthy, it is helpful to point that out.


I'm similar, but for myself, I replace the bolded with "I fear that the other won't understand (which is very often) and that I'll just have a pity party on my hands, or pointless bothering by people who can't help me with my emotions, no matter how hard they try".


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

Dalton said:


> 3. Many feelers are much worse than I.


I agree with that, some feelers have unlimited passive agressiveness


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

@Dalton

I know that details and strict definitions are important in academic research papers. My point was that ordinary language didn't need such rigidness. 

Misunderstandings happen in language, sure, but the point is rather that our language skills are naturally made to use symbols or reuse words that have similarities in them, and there is no problem in it because in 99% of cases we still understand each other. Actually if you ever come across ancient languages you'll find that they often used the same word for tons of different things, but yet they still managed to communicate properly. (I have no proof of this, but) it is very conceivable that humans have a limited capacity for remembering words and thus we will instead simply put the same into different contexts. The English word "have" you could split up into many many different words to convey a more exact meaning, but there is really no reason because we still communicate perfectly with it, and then an ordinary person wouldn't need a vocabulary of 100.000 words. 
I am not to say that you're wrong in your examples of where it goes wrong, but I don't really share your concern, and isn't it just a proof that we don't need specific definitions for everything when you still understand what Einstein or the founding fathers meant by god, even though that word is usually attributed to a very specific thing? 
One of the incredibly strong aspects of language is exactly the ability to form new meanings even by using old terms, and that is typically done through symbolic or associative use of words. 
Of course I agree that _some_ phrases, especially of importance, should be clearly defined and also there should be dictionaries and all that, but just remember that language by its root isn't very definition based anyway but thrives with flexibility. 



> Fixing the external problem will alleviate stress. Tackle what you can. This means that I usually give a little comfort, give advice, and then finish off the remaining stress.


Sometimes that is the best solution, yes, sometimes it isn't though, it's situational and depends on the person


----------



## kittenmogu (Jun 19, 2014)

Le9acyMuse said:


> @kittenmogu I redid some things in my last post, so you may have to reread some of it if we're gonna be on the same page with our arguments.
> 
> I will say that cognitive functions cannot be used out of their order. Everything that comes to your awareness will be thru Fi-Se-Ni-Te. Se can't be the first. Always your Fi.
> 
> I'll have to return to this later, however.


I ended up going back and rereading the original post that I was responding to (the one that mentioned group unity), and in considering that post in conjunction with the subsequent posts you wrote, I see what you meant by group unity. I had interpreted it as the surface definition of groups as in, well, literally groups, and not groups conceptually and in the broad sense of the word. That was the key point that I was missing. Now we are probably on the same page. Sorry for missing it repeatedly-- I would have benefited from some sleep.

Feel free to correct anything else that I may have misinterpreted as well.

And I also agree with that the order of functions is fixed for a type. There's no point in being called Fi-dom, if Fi is not what you first use to engage with things. Or Ni-dom for Ni. For types this is a fixed theoretical point, and for people, who are much more complex and also not always operating at their best, this translates to a strong tendency and preference. If I do start using a sort of Fi-Se positive feedback cycle, it is definitely spurred on by Fi.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

Dalton said:


> Although this could apply _loosely_ to Fi, this is specific to Fe. I believe that everything in our brain happens for a reason (avoiding threats, usually).


 Every time someone describes Fi to me, it sounds weird. I think the terms "extroverted" and "introverted" are taken to mean something simplistic, like extroversion = real world, introversion = inner world. That's mumbo jumbo, especially when people back up their 'inner world' talk with mystic, magical, dreamy fantasies... How does it make sense that Fe are people herders while Fi are space cadets? How does one define Feeling at that point?



> Nope, we're just supercomputers in human bodies.  :tongue:


 I knew an ENTJ 1 once. Adrenaline junkie, and a supercomputer incarnate.


----------



## kittenmogu (Jun 19, 2014)

Dalton said:


> Fixing the external problem will alleviate stress. Tackle what you _can_. This means that I usually give a little comfort, give advice, and then finish off the remaining stress.


I find this statement interesting (and true). It would be good for illustrating the differences between the tendencies of T and the tendencies of F towards the same situation. Or at least Te (external problem) and Fi (stress), for sure.

Approach A: Primarily advise how to fix external *problem*, and the bad feelings + stress that *it* caused the person will go away as well.
Approach B: Soothe and relieve the emotional burden of the *person*, and *they* will be better able to go and face the problem.

Very simplified, but it's the same wonderful intentions carried out with different focuses. Each approach works better with different situations and different people, and we're always using both, but the focus of each is different. One is T first, then F. The other is F first, then T. I think it's about finding the right balance. When I go with approach B, it's because I feel that the people I associate in life can find their own way, that I trust their judgment and their resilience, and that they can come to me for emotional support but ultimately I may not feel it right to tell them what to do (unless I know 100% from my own experiences what is good to do, and I can see that it would apply to their situation. My Te is not as comfortable,,).



> I'm similar, but for myself, I replace the bolded with "I fear that the other won't understand (which is very often) and that I'll just have a pity party on my hands, or pointless bothering by people who can't help me with my emotions, no matter how hard they try".


Ah yes, this too. It feels alienating and isolating in addition to being pointless. Bad feels all around. (My type 4 also swoops in and says "this one doesn't understand you")


----------



## Dalton (Jun 10, 2013)

Le9acyMuse said:


> Every time someone describes Fi to me, it sounds weird. I think the terms "extroverted" and "introverted" are taken to mean something simplistic, like extroversion = real world, introversion = inner world. That's mumbo jumbo, especially when people back up their 'inner world' talk with mystic, magical, dreamy fantasies... How does it make sense that Fe are people herders while Fi are space cadets? How does one define Feeling at that point?


I guess something to remember is that extraversion spreads outward and introversion focuses inward.

Here's how I would put it:
Se: sensing outward (obtaining new experiences)
Si: sensing inward (valuing old experiences) 
Ne: intuiting outward (discovering more possibilities)
Ni: intuiting inward (focusing on fewer possibilities)
Fe: feeling outward (ethics in relation to the group)
Fi: feeling inward (ethics in relation to the self) 
Te: thinking outward (logic by external standards)
Ti: thinking inward (logic by one's personal standards)

I think your "space cadet" idea might be more xNFP than Fi in general, because of the Ne.
Fi dominants will generally be concerned with giving people the right to choose, freedom, etc. This is because they see things in relation to the self: "_*I*_ would want to choose for myself, so it's only fair that everybody be treated the same."
Fe dominants will generally be concerned with making everybody feel included, and strengthen the group. This is because they see things in relation to the group: "_*We*_ would be better-off as a whole if we did these things, made these sacrifices, treated each other in this way."
Fi is feisty and empathetic; Fe is concerned and sympathetic.



> I knew an ENTJ 1 once. Adrenaline junkie, and a supercomputer incarnate.


But can a computer experience adrenaline? Can a computer experience _luv_??? :blushed: 



kittenmogu said:


> I find this statement interesting (and true). It would be good for illustrating the differences between the tendencies of T and the tendencies of F towards the same situation. Or at least Te (external problem) and Fi (stress), for sure.


Yeah, I'm basically saying that we should learn to naturally alternate our thinking and feeling functions as we notice what our friends & loved ones need from us.


----------



## DisharmonizedIntellect (Jun 13, 2014)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> Oh wait, you study psychology, right? dammit, I have to be careful with wording then  A stress response is as such just a short burst of stress hormone, but it can continue for hours or days if one keeps thinking about one's problem. But you're right that you can have it for long periods and thus develop uncontrollable emotion, like what your dad is doing (I am sorry about that :/ ), but then simply comforting/validating/deep emotional unicorn butt sex/whatever doesn't do the job alone and you need therapy.
> And you're right that baggage also inhibits proper handling of stress, certainly


I study Psych, yes, but I'm not a Ph.D yet so don't assume I know it all just because I'm going for the undergrad degree (which is akin to toilet paper you wipe your butt with, i.e. WORTHLESS). Well unless you're implying sarcasm here which I totally missed and you get the last laugh. 

But for not as blown up cases. I'm pretty sure feelers would have the instinct to tell others to leave them be when they need to feel things out. Usually a mature rational would take heed and leave you be. Other mature feelers would be able to do the validating and comforting.


----------



## DisharmonizedIntellect (Jun 13, 2014)

Dalton said:


> Ummmmmm.....
> 
> I have no clue what you're talking about! If a feeler (or anybody) knows what they're talking about and is more logical, I am impressed, not frustrated. Why would I be frustrated? Jealousy? I'm not jealous. I might feel ashamed for not being the one who achieved whatever breakthrough they made, but never would I get frustrated out of that situation, except against myself.


I totally agree with you. I worded it wrong. What I meant is I beat myself up for making and oversight that I could have possibly known myself. I feel bad I'm not as intelligent as those who are more intelligent than me and that I need to push myself in order to match their level...or completely give into my inferior shadow function and turn blind sided to my faults.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

DisharmonizedIntellect said:


> I study Psych, yes, but I'm not a Ph.D yet so don't assume I know it all just because I'm going for the undergrad degree (which is akin to toilet paper you wipe your butt with, i.e. WORTHLESS). Well unless you're implying sarcasm here which I totally missed and you get the last laugh.
> 
> But for not as blown up cases. I'm pretty sure feelers would have the instinct to tell others to leave them be when they need to feel things out. Usually a mature rational would take heed and leave you be. Other mature feelers would be able to do the validating and comforting.


I wasn't sarcastic, I just got nervous because I am not trained in talking about such things so how to phrase something (and if it's even completely right) can be a hazardous game for me  I never had the grades to study psych, but I think it's cool 

I think that feelers (and everyone who might need it) should learn to ask for peace or whatever they need. Unfortunately many don't, and I am uncertain about whether it's just bad development of people or that our culture just hasn't endorsed it properly


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

kittenmogu said:


> If you do not want to validate someone's emotions because you feel that it would be merely indulging them, that is your choice. It does genuinely bring relief, and ironically a big fear that we (and people in general have) in disclosing how we feel is that we don't have a right to feel bad and that the other side will judge us for an experience we don't have control over. That is why we risk that being confirmed by the listener in the hopes that the feeling will be validated. Of course, if something is unhealthy, it is helpful to point that out.
> 
> If someone says *"I am hurt because of this ____"* they will be hurt further from hearing "you have no right to be hurt over that" in whatever form it comes in.


... thank you! this is exactly what I ask for. Understanding is something important to me, and I don't always read emotions well and I don't want to be drawing conclusions from the ether. Most of all, I don't want to be that heartless bastard who tells people they have no right to their emotions. Notable exception is when an abusive person feels hurt because their victim chose empowerment. 



> If someone has taken advantage of your compassion, *that is a flaw with that individual, not a problem with emotions in general.* I'm not sure how people who claim to be rational come to that conclusion. I'm sympathetic to your experience, and in fact I've also been drained of all compassion possible before, even though I feel that i possess a great deal of it. But know where the problem lies-- in the person you were dealing with and their own emotional immaturity.


True. 



> * Vulnerability is being able to show both the true good and bad sides of you.* The happy and the sad. The whole truth of you. That you are imperfect but you will risk rejection in order to be known and accepted as a whole. In balance. If you are unhealthy, that just means you are unhealthy, and not that vulnerability itself is unhealthy. A healthy vulnerable person can cultivate healthy relationships. Indeed, share your joy and happiness. We Feelers that care for you will feel it with you. Vulnerability can indeed go wrong, but it is not indicative of a problem with vulnerability in general.


This is really starting to make sense. When you put is this way, it's actually quite beautiful. I've only had a chance to quickly read the remainder of this thread, and I do believe it was @Dalton who put forth the importance of clarity in language and definition. I'm often guilty of cutting corners in my writing because I believe certain things are intuitively understood which is not always the case. I do share his sentiments for clarity, but in practice I'm often quite sloppy.

This new definition is truly mind expanding. I always understood vulnerability as means of cultivating weakness for the purpose of emotional bonding. I'm into relationships based on equality, on mutual understanding and on enjoying one another's company. Something that cannot happen with my previous understanding of this idea. Emotional honestly, I totally dig. Needless to say, I felt very perplexed in reading many IxFP posts in the past.



> I'm not sure where your last generalization comes from. That's a highly varied experience. I don't identify with any of those things and I don't know what you're trying to prove-- that emotion is flawed because it is usually negative? Are you perhaps swayed by your own experiences?


Mostly confusion.

I did enter the discussion with a completely different understanding of the fundamental concepts. I'm still continuing to remap my understanding of everything as I write this post. I'm not sure how much more there is to understand or how long until the idea fully clicks. Things are certainly much clearer than before. I'm still a little confused with the idea of validation. There were many instances when I felt angry and upset with somebody only to receive new information which would invalidate my feelings. Had I declared my feelings as being true I would have passed judgement on an innocent person.

To answer your question about my closing questions. Consider them a failed attempt to get people talking about the positive as well as the negative. Underneath all the garbage there's a lot of great things happening, things worth talking about, things worth being happy about and things that have incredible value.


----------



## DisharmonizedIntellect (Jun 13, 2014)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> I wasn't sarcastic, I just got nervous because I am not trained in talking about such things so how to phrase something (and if it's even completely right) can be a hazardous game for me  I never had the grades to study psych, but I think it's cool
> 
> I think that feelers (and everyone who might need it) should learn to ask for peace or whatever they need. Unfortunately many don't, and I am uncertain about whether it's just bad development of people or that our culture just hasn't endorsed it properly


Don't worry so much about it. Its mostly about expressing yourself in a non-hostile way. On top of this its good to keep in mind to avoid blanketing and stereotyping, that tends to offend peoples' individuality.

Often its the fact parents don't know how to properly raise their children. When young adults are going about life, having children is one of the last things on their mind and they really only see children as a biproduct of love (which from an emotional sense is fulfilling). However, they never usually realize that the child is his or her own person and independent mentally from the mother and father. Being of parent's flesh and blood and parents paying for the children's expenses nonstop, parents feel a sort of sense of self-entitlement to the way their kids grow and develop. It's a subconscious thing, because although consciously their actions (providing for their children) is reflective of their love, they unconsciously believe that it entitles them to act accordingly angry or happy with their kids based on measures such as grades or obedience. You see this when they get angry or sad and use it as psychological ammo against you. On top of the individual subconscious, you have the societal norms being pressed upon the parents and from the parents to their kids. Society is teaches us that only results, obedience, and brown-nosing will get us anywhere in life. This is why a lot of people feel so under-appreciated for their talents and end up building up inner resentment and regret and they attempt to live out their own lives through their children because they believed they themselves have failed.

Of course this doesn't apply to all parents, but society conditions young people in a way that makes them susceptible to the cycle. 

Learn yourself, break the cycle.


----------



## kittenmogu (Jun 19, 2014)

Spastic Origami said:


> Notable exception is when an abusive person feels hurt because their victim chose empowerment.


Ahh yes. It is good to be aware of something like that.



> This is really starting to make sense. When you put is this way, it's actually quite beautiful. I've only had a chance to quickly read the remainder of this thread, and I do believe it was @Dalton who put forth the importance of clarity in language and definition. I'm often guilty of cutting corners in my writing because I believe certain things are intuitively understood which is not always the case. I do share his sentiments for clarity, but in practice I'm often quite sloppy.
> 
> This new definition is truly mind expanding. I always understood vulnerability as means of cultivating weakness for the purpose of emotional bonding. I'm into relationships based on equality, on mutual understanding and on enjoying one another's company. Something that cannot happen with my previous understanding of this idea. Emotional honestly, I totally dig. Needless to say, I felt very perplexed in reading many IxFP posts in the past.


Ah. I'm really glad that the definition of vulnerability has expanded. I also identify strongly with you in that I also value relationships based on equality, on mutual understanding and on enjoying one another's company. (copy pasted that from you because you described it perfectly).

Mm I think IXFPs are equally capable of misunderstanding vulnerability. We are just as capable of misunderstanding emotion as any other type. I may have been a Fi-dom all my life but I've definitely had to grow in terms of emotional maturity like anyone else.



> Mostly confusion.
> 
> I did enter the discussion with a completely different understanding of the fundamental concepts. I'm still continuing to remap my understanding of everything as I write this post. I'm not sure how much more there is to understand or how long until the idea fully clicks. Things are certainly much clearer than before. I'm still a little confused with the idea of validation. There were many instances when I felt angry and upset with somebody only to receive new information which would invalidate my feelings. Had I declared my feelings as being true I would have passed judgement on an innocent person.


Ahh I see.

Yes, that can indeed be a problem. I try to make the distinction that feelings are not the same thing as fact (which does not invalidate them! Feelings are just not facts. They are just feelings. They are different and must be given different considerations.). This separation is important. When you were angry at someone, your anger was justified based on a false truth. The new information did not invalidate your feelings, only what you thought was fact. Your feelings changed to reflect this new truth.

That is indeed a difficult situation though. We can't always know what the truth is, or go through life doubting every single piece of information we encounter. I have definitely had misunderstandings in the past and will continue to. I'm still working out ways to prevent them. I generally withdraw when I'm upset, so I can have space to think and perhaps cool down before I act. Every time I encounter a new situation in which I feel upset, I try to give myself space and time to reflect: What ways have I dealt with this in the past? What worked, and what didn't? Why didn't it work? What is the best way to deal with this? What do I want to know/do? And I keep learning. The struggle continues.



> To answer your question about my closing questions. Consider them a failed attempt to get people talking about the positive as well as the negative. Underneath all the garbage there's a lot of great things happening, things worth talking about, things worth being happy about and things that have incredible value.


I'm sorry that I misunderstood.

Thank you for your response, btw. I apologize if this is really wordy, it takes a lot of energy for me to not be sloppy. And even then... O(-<


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

@DisharmonizedIntellect

I can only agree, beautiful paragraph. Individuation should happen in a completely different way than it does today, and parents are the most responsible in that matter.


----------



## DisharmonizedIntellect (Jun 13, 2014)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> @DisharmonizedIntellect
> 
> I can only agree, beautiful paragraph. Individuation should happen in a completely different way than it does today, and parents are the most responsible in that matter.


Parents should be responsible, but I blame society more. Society prevents parents from being nurturing because financial survival chunks out a lot of their time. Its why we send our kids to this really shitty excuse for an education system we have in America, they don't have the time to raise their own children because they're too busy making money to keep the food on the table. After I get my Ph.D and doing research, I'm going to settle down and home school my kids. The social norms and habits learned in schools from teachers and kids' peers is just extremely unhealthy.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

DisharmonizedIntellect said:


> Don't worry so much about it. Its mostly about expressing yourself in a non-hostile way. On top of this its good to keep in mind to avoid blanketing and stereotyping, that tends to offend peoples' individuality.
> 
> Often its the fact parents don't know how to properly raise their children. When young adults are going about life, having children is one of the last things on their mind and they really only see children as a biproduct of love (which from an emotional sense is fulfilling). However, they never usually realize that the child is his or her own person and independent mentally from the mother and father. Being of parent's flesh and blood and parents paying for the children's expenses nonstop, parents feel a sort of sense of self-entitlement to the way their kids grow and develop. It's a subconscious thing, because although consciously their actions (providing for their children) is reflective of their love, they unconsciously believe that it entitles them to act accordingly angry or happy with their kids based on measures such as grades or obedience. You see this when they get angry or sad and use it as psychological ammo against you. On top of the individual subconscious, you have the societal norms being pressed upon the parents and from the parents to their kids. Society is teaches us that only results, obedience, and brown-nosing will get us anywhere in life. This is why a lot of people feel so under-appreciated for their talents and end up building up inner resentment and regret and they attempt to live out their own lives through their children because they believed they themselves have failed.
> 
> ...


Actually, twin studies call into question a lot of the assumptions you're making here. Parental upbringing does have an impact on the development of a child, but it is quite small compared to non-parental environmental influences and genetics. Not even happiness has a significant link to one's upbringing. Self-reported levels of happiness from children from the same parents are significantly related, but that relationship is found to be consistent even when the children are separated at or shortly after birth, meaning the effects come from inherited traits rather than the particulars of the parent's childhood rearing style.

It's looking more and more like some people are more or less "born to be happy". Whether that's because they have a "happy gene", the absence of an "unhappy gene", or because some people inherit traits that allow them to succeed in certain ways in society that in turn allow them to be happy (e.g. good looking, smart, a natural at some marketable skill) is up for grabs, but there's definitely a major genetic component.


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> Why do you think it is a "card to play"? You already know that people need comfort, so why even bother to discuss word usages like validation or question the intent of a such request. You simply overthink something that is quite simple


... because I feel it's important to question definitions, to clarify definitions and to expand definitions. I'd like to digress for a moment and differentiate between vagueness and ambiguity. Vagueness is when you lack definition. It is when you lack clarity. Ambiguity is when you have a clear definition for the many meanings of a concept that may or may not be in conflict with one another. I'm comfortable with the idea of validation being ambiguous. This gives the idea both its potency and flexibility. What baffles me is when something that is multidimensional is stripped of its complexity. 

There are people who are lonely and want a friend. There are people who want to be accepted or to be understood after a difficult day. Then there are those who plant emotional hooks in hope of manipulating others. Moral judgements aside, all three are legitimate ways to understand validation. I do agree that people need comfort, but whether they receive sympathy is a question of circumstance. There's a world of a difference between someone who lost somebody in a car accident and a superficial diva chipping her fingernails. Or between sincerity and a card that is played.



> Today even misery isn't shown often enough. All that's left is just a cold outer shell. Psychologists believe that depression is going to be a major concern within ten years, and looking at the trend you talk of it's hard to argue with that.


... yes, I know and. it's very concerning.

Misery is something I learned from my ex-girlfriend. Leaving her was one of the most difficult and the most rewarding things I have ever done. It's something that I'm looking to unlearn and sincerely hope she will do the same. What if the same is true of misery as of happiness? It's something you have to work to maintain. The key difference is that the ideas perquisite for suffering are readily accessible in our culture and that we have unrealistic expectations for happiness.

What frightens me is that depression is often the most rational choice. Our consciousness is a product of our preconceived thoughts and emotions, the information we consume and our thoughts and emotions in response to that information. Of course the system is far more complicated than how I present it in its simplified model; but even within these three branches there are infinite possibilities. There's a world of a difference between somebody who lives off CNN/Fox News and somebody who knows the world from living with people who are for the most part, kind. I don't want to isolate those who are depressed or otherwise sick, but there is much talk about keeping a healthy physical diet, why not keep a healthy mental diet too? 



> I guess that happiness is shut down because of our utopian conceptions of it. Happiness is not something you can ever have, it's something to strive for or work like a dog to maintain. You can never be content by being in the moment because you should really think about all your concerns instead and solve them before resting... which is never.


... do you think living in utopia will make a person happy? A life of blissful dreams would get boring quick; maybe it's best they remain mere images and fantasies that occasionally get played out. I honestly believe that perfection will bring the most miserable of all possible lives. Think about how dreadfully boring perfection is. Happiness is a state of existence. Not an objective to work towards.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

First, the most important point: the "inner world" is not Introversion. One's inner world is one's mental perspective in reference to what it beholds. No-one leaves home without it.



Dalton said:


> I guess something to remember is that extraversion spreads outward and introversion focuses inward.
> 
> Here's how I would put it:
> Se: sensing outward (obtaining new experiences)
> ...


We'll start with a summation of your statement: spreading outward indicates E, and focusing inward indicates I. I will italicize pressing points.

I believe the ego is what people erroneously refer to when describing Fi.

Literally or metaphorically focusing inward (in an introverted sense) is incapable, on its own, of instilling someone's cognition with sufficient parts of information or thought. _Apart from the world around us_ there is _nothing within_ us that has a storage of meanings (or data). The "inner world," another title for anyone's ego, _requires the physical world to exist_. If this can be agreed to, then one admits that Introversion must rely on the physical world as much as Extraversion does.

The "inner world" and the physical world are necessities, _referenced equally by all people independent of cognitive functions_. Cognition is an unquantifiable concept overall possessing no intrinsic ties to the tangible. It only renders thoughts of what it observes. Extraverts, like Introverts, will say "_this is what I think_," rather than "_the inanimate objects told me to think this_." If this can be agreed to, then one admits that Extraversion must rely on the "inner world" as much as Introversion does.

Cognition observes the distinct functions of objects in the physical world. Cognition either chooses to depend on the functions with an improvised perspective (Introversion), or with an unimprovised perspective (Extraversion). 


Introversion: the role of a body's remedial psyche (how do I reinvent this to get a desired result?). _Not synonymous with inner world, or ego._ 
Extraversion: the role of a body's receptive observation (how do objects relate? what effect normally follows a certain cause?). _Equally aware of inner world, or ego. _ 



> Fi dominants will generally be concerned with giving people the right to choose, freedom, etc. This is because they see things in relation to the self: "_*I*_ would want to choose for myself, so it's only fair that everybody be treated the same."
> Fe dominants will generally be concerned with making everybody feel included, and strengthen the group. This is because they see things in relation to the group: "_*We*_ would be better-off as a whole if we did these things, made these sacrifices, treated each other in this way."
> Fi is feisty and empathetic; Fe is concerned and sympathetic.





> I think your "space cadet" idea might be more xNFP than Fi in general, because of the Ne.


 "Space cadet" is my description of popular Fi definitions not making sense to me. I don't see cognitive functions or types as resembling space cadets as I encounter them.

The "I/We" statements are biased too much by "inner world"-ego garb. Fis, Fes and everyone else cares about what they as individuals desire. No person with an ego simply wants to be ruled. My point is Fe doesn't seek to choose for people, and doesn't prefer people do so for them either. Fe is concerned with what gets the most results across the board, as is each Extraverted function.

Introversion doesn't make someone desire or treasure individualization. Introversion affects how someone develops its ideas. The "me, me, me" stuff is the ego. The ego is what these Fi descriptions are hyping up.

In fact, "_...it's only fair that everybody be treated the same_" is not true of them more than anyone else. It may be flattering to them, but they're just as capable of blowing a gasket if someone challenges the views they accept (views others would challenge because they _also _choose for themselves rather than pandering to others). So, why would the Fi-dom get upset (all Feeling preferrers get like this, but F-doms are notorious for it)? It's not simply the other person's fault for disagreeing. Feelers have their views of how things work, and they apply it to their relationships (_aka groups_) just like Fe-doms.



> But can a computer experience adrenaline? Can a computer experience _luv_??? :blushed:


 Apps make it easier. I'm currently downloading anti-humanism.


----------



## Elinathopie (May 23, 2014)

It appears that the biggest issue on this thread is determining the difference between Thinking and Feeling. If this is the case, please refer to this other thread to aide me in defeating this confusion. 

Either way, much appreciated for looking into this thread ^^


----------



## DisharmonizedIntellect (Jun 13, 2014)

Zamyatin said:


> Actually, twin studies call into question a lot of the assumptions you're making here. Parental upbringing does have an impact on the development of a child, but it is quite small compared to non-parental environmental influences and genetics. Not even happiness has a significant link to one's upbringing. Self-reported levels of happiness from children from the same parents are significantly related, but that relationship is found to be consistent even when the children are separated at or shortly after birth, meaning the effects come from inherited traits rather than the particulars of the parent's childhood rearing style.
> 
> It's looking more and more like some people are more or less "born to be happy". Whether that's because they have a "happy gene", the absence of an "unhappy gene", or because some people inherit traits that allow them to succeed in certain ways in society that in turn allow them to be happy (e.g. good looking, smart, a natural at some marketable skill) is up for grabs, but there's definitely a major genetic component.


Great. Its awesome to know now that abuse is not really a big deal and genetically I'm just a pessimist.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

Spastic Origami said:


> ... because I feel it's important to question definitions, to clarify definitions and to expand definitions...


That's all very nice, but if a friend or person is upset and needs your help, it would be silly to stop up and figure out what validation means in a general sense, just do whatever the person at hands needs and forget about which words to put on it. The fixation on "what does validation mean" is absurd when the intent is obviously just to make the upset person better. This seems especially obvious when it was just one user who said she wanted validation (and she could mean whatever by that) and then I and others go on with our ideas about what is meant by that word/wording and it all ended up being that "feelers need validation" as the general point of discussion. Back up a little and think, is _that_ actually interesting to discuss? and hasn't the meaning drowned in different usages? Isn't everybody just trying to solve this discussion by putting their own interpretation into the statement? Why not forget about that word and look more generally (and content-wise) at what feelers need from thinkers because it is most probably not possible to ever encapsulate it all in the word "validation". 




> ... yes, I know and. it's very concerning.
> 
> Misery is something I learned from my ex-girlfriend. Leaving her was one of the most difficult and the most rewarding things I have ever done. It's something that I'm looking to unlearn and sincerely hope she will do the same. What if the same is true of misery as of happiness? It's something you have to work to maintain. The key difference is that the ideas perquisite for suffering are readily accessible in our culture and that we have unrealistic expectations for happiness.
> 
> What frightens me is that depression is often the most rational choice. Our consciousness is a product of our preconceived thoughts and emotions, the information we consume and our thoughts and emotions in response to that information. Of course the system is far more complicated than how I present it in its simplified model; but even within these three branches there are infinite possibilities. There's a world of a difference between somebody who lives off CNN/Fox News and somebody who knows the world from living with people who are for the most part, kind. I don't want to isolate those who are depressed or otherwise sick, but there is much talk about keeping a healthy physical diet, why not keep a healthy mental diet too?


Sometimes I wonder if it actually could be a good idea to define happiness because often it just looks like a happiness-depriving buzz word  The mentally healthy diet is a wonderful way of thinking about this topic. Too many eat to attain what they think they want, but clearly their bodies want something quite different. This will make you hit a wall, and without a healthy mental diet it is hard to get the strength to stand up again. 



> ... do you think living in utopia will make a person happy? A life of blissful dreams would get boring quick; maybe it's best they remain mere images and fantasies that occasionally get played out. I honestly believe that perfection will bring the most miserable of all possible lives. Think about how dreadfully boring perfection is. Happiness is a state of existence. Not an objective to work towards.


I am always torn between whether happiness is a "stasis" or an "adventure". Both just seem so important but yet too contradicting to co-exist. Maybe that's why happiness is impossible?
If you by utopia mean a world of abundance, where no one would need to steal or starve, I am actually one of those people who think that people would be happier there. Even if people wouldn't need jobs, we could still spend your time on so many other things. Obviously you could be sitting on the couch alone withouth a purpose in life and that could make you think of suicide, but sitting on a job you can feel the same and you would still have to work! but maybe if we all lived in abundance, some one would have time and energy to talk and help whoever who didn't feel fulfilled.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> That's all very nice, but if a friend or person is upset and needs your help, it would be silly to stop up and figure out what validation means in a general sense, *just do whatever the person at hands needs and forget about which words to put on it.* The fixation on "what does validation mean" is absurd when the intent is obviously just to make the upset person better. This seems especially obvious when it was just one user who said she wanted validation (and she could mean whatever by that) and then I and others go on with our ideas about what is meant by that word/wording and it all ended up being that "feelers need validation" as the general point of discussion. Back up a little and think, is _that_ actually interesting to discuss? and hasn't the meaning drowned in different usages? Isn't everybody just trying to solve this discussion by putting their own interpretation into the statement? Why not forget about that word and look more generally (and content-wise) at what feelers need from thinkers because it is most probably not possible to ever encapsulate it all in the word "validation".[\QUOTE]
> 
> The problem is not knowing what needs to be done to console emotions. most thinkers have an immature understanding of feelings, including their own. We think 'by logic that thing will make the person upset or happy because of a previous reaction to the same or similar situation.' Is that not what feelers are looking for when they want support, validation? How do you validate someone else's feelings? Can feelings even be invalidated?
> 
> ...


----------



## IncoherentBabbler (Oct 21, 2013)

I'm so confused. I thought validating someone's feelings was about understanding. The very act of talking about feelings should, in my opinion, have one of two goals: "Please understand me and the situation I'm in" or "Could you give me some advice to fix the situation I'm in". If not one of those two, I'm merely a wall for the other person to talk to. What would be the point of that?!


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

Kavik said:


> The problem is not knowing what needs to be done to console emotions. most thinkers have an immature understanding of feelings, including their own. We think 'by logic that thing will make the person upset or happy because of a previous reaction to the same or similar situation.' Is that not what feelers are looking for when they want support, validation? How do you validate someone else's feelings? Can feelings even be invalidated?


Sure I want validation, but I want a lot of things and that is just one part of it and depending on the situation it can be many different things. Try not to focus on validation as the key to a feelers return to normality, but look at what the individual feeler gives as examples of its usage. That should be much more fruitful to talk about. 



> What causes happiness is subjective and not impossible. 100% happiness 24/7 is impossible.
> 
> A Utopia sounds like a stifling prison. Chaos is so much more fun and balanced. Ideals are important to have so you can push against the opposition and vise versa to create change.


Are you sure you're not just trying to justify this cruel world because you know you can never get out of it?  
You can still have purposes in an abundant world, or travel, do art, science, learn to dance Argentinian waltz, etc. Is that really less meaningful than the lives many live today?


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> Sure I want validation, but I want a lot of things and that is just one part of it and depending on the situation it can be many different things. Try not to focus on validation as the key to a feelers return to normality, but look at what the individual feeler gives as examples of its usage. That should be much more fruitful to talk about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But how do you validate feelings without feeling the same? saying 'examples of usage' just makes me default back to the logic of the problem and not the feelings themselves.

Nah, theres no reason to justify the world, though dimensional travel would be cool to see where it works elsewhere (the same, Probably) pursuit of knowledge and the arts requires just as much chaos.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

Kavik said:


> But how do you validate feelings without feeling the same? saying 'examples of usage' just makes me default back to the logic of the problem and not the feelings themselves.
> 
> Nah, theres no reason to justify the world, though dimensional travel would be cool to see where it works elsewhere (the same, Probably) pursuit of knowledge and the arts requires just as much chaos.


I don't understand. Why do you abstract from a concrete example I or some one wants you to understand and try to make a theory about it instead? If you have a friend who has some emotional disturbance, ask her what she wants/needs. Then you show that you acknowledge her and want to help. That alone tells her that she needs not fear judgment from you and it is thus easier to calm down, easen up, tell a secret, build courage, put herself together, etc. 

This world sucks. Just look at all the unemotional NTs out there. How did they ever pass kindergarten??


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> I don't understand. Why do you abstract from a concrete example I or some one wants you to understand and try to make a theory about it instead? If you have a friend who has some emotional disturbance, ask her what she wants/needs. Then you show that you acknowledge her and want to help. That alone tells her that she needs not fear judgment from you and it is thus easier to calm down, easen up, tell a secret, build courage, put herself together, etc.
> 
> This world sucks. Just look at all the unemotional NTs out there. How did they ever pass kindergarten??


Because I don't see feelings as concrete. I Don't know how someone emotional wants me to understand, I equate understanding feelings to empathy, something I don't feel unless I'm incredibly close to someone. I've never had an emotional friend, they've always appreciated cynical logic more than emotional support. I can ask what someone needs but not once have I understood how to give what they need despite realizing they need something (inferior Fe). I'm not judgmental of feelings, I can readily listen though I don't know what to do with it if I can't try to fix it. 

NTs aren't unemotional, nor other Ts, they have have filters to their emotions, usually thinking them through before letting them show, if at all. Coming from ST, My filters are so strong, that when my emotions break out when I'm at my most stressed, they're raw and I hate them because I no longer have control. I have to retreat for a while to work them out by myself.


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

Yes, it is interesting because its something completely foreign to me. I want to understand what something is, how it occurs in both its healthy and unhealthy forms, so that I can offer it to my family and friends without feeling immobilized for the remainder of the day. I have to distance myself from people who are demanding of my emotions; what saddens me is that those who exhaust me the most are also my parents. I had to end relationship because people would not respect my boundaries after I explained the situation repeatedly and what it does to me. This is a side of me many people don't see; I usually end up going to my room to listen to music, read a book or simply lie on my bed and stare at the ceiling.

You told me once that I over think something that is quite simple. The analysis comes easy, understanding another person's emotional needs does not. I don't always understand my own; I often look to the situation in question and study causal relationships relevant to the situation before I can begin to unravel what it is that I feel. This is foreign territory to me and I want to learn. Much of the questions I ask will be revealing. Many more will be irreverent.

... as a quick aside. I test ENFP but it was reading INFP/ISFP posts that helped me understand that I'm not. ENTP it is. The INTP/ISTPs are my long lost cousins. So, let's talk validations on your terms. No I will not turn a friend away for being emotional, and no I will not tell them to grow up. That's not being a thinker; that's being a jerk. Ideally I would like to crack a few jokes, or do something stupid to unwind and just talk things through. If they're going to be someone who brings me constant drama I will have to cut them out of my life. I don't have much emotional endurance to begin with. Having that emotional support is a privilege and not a right.

... I'll do a part 2 on happiness and utopia later. Maybe as another reply, article or blog post. Not sure yet. But something to think about until then. Why is it that many rich people suffer from depression. They have the material means to live a life of leisure. Contrariwise, why are there people who live in lower-middle class neighbourhoods, work at a coffee shop and can manage their finances and live a happy life. Also people often report feeling melancholic after experiencing something that is fulfilling. Is this depression? Or is it coming down to your natural state from a state of intense pleasure? Is a perpetual state of arousal healthy considering the physiological changes required to maintain an aroused state? There also the question of challenges? Every species that lacks a sufficiently challenging environment is susceptible to extinction at the first crisis. Likewise, lethargic people often lack the energy to live. 

yeah, I just spewed my Ne all over the place. My bad  Happiness is a state being. Something you have the power to define and choose.
*
A Utopia sounds like a stifling prison. Chaos is so much more fun and balanced. Ideals are important to have so you can push against the opposition and vise versa to create change.
*
^-- I love this so much!


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

Spastic Origami said:


> Yes, it is interesting because its something completely foreign to me. I want to understand what something is, how it occurs in both its healthy and unhealthy forms, so that I can offer it to my family and friends without feeling immobilized for the remainder of the day. I have to distance myself from people who are demanding of my emotions; what saddens me is that those who exhaust me the most are also my parents. I had to end relationship because people would not respect my boundaries after I explained the situation repeatedly and what it does to me. This is a side of me many people don't see; I usually end up going to my room to listen to music, read a book or simply lie on my bed and stare at the ceiling.


Understanding and handling other people and their emotions is an art form not mastered by many, not even feelers. It is especially tough for people below the age of 24 as their empathy brain parts aren't fully developed. There are ways to improve empathy though. One way is just to gain knowledge and understand people from a such context, i.e., read psychology, popular or text-book stuff. Meditation focused on compassion is often mentioned in this regard, and then there is simply the possibility of trying to figure out others emotions by looking at them. Look at their faces, see from their point of view, imagine how they must be feeling. 
It is also possible to think of people's behavior and emotions through MBTI. Start by guessing a type and act on what it then needs. In some ways you can even improve your Fe function by doing all these things, and that should make it all come more naturally without you having to "think" about an emotional situation.



> ... as a quick aside. I test ENFP but it was reading INFP/ISFP posts that helped me understand that I'm not. ENTP it is. The INTP/ISTPs are my long lost cousins. So, let's talk validations on your terms. No I will not turn a friend away for being emotional, and no I will not tell them to grow up. That's not being a thinker; that's being a jerk. Ideally I would like to crack a few jokes, or do something stupid to unwind and just talk things through. If they're going to be someone who brings me constant drama I will have to cut them out of my life. I don't have much emotional endurance to begin with. Having that emotional support is a privilege and not a right.


I am glad you don't just tell people off. Many cannot resist the temptation of referring to immaturity when some one is more emotional than what can be endured, and that alone I think is a great cause of disharmony in the world. 
I think an ENFP would often welcome a bit of drama, ENTPs not so much, so you're probably right about your type


----------



## NotAfraid (Jun 18, 2014)

I hate myself when I try to use logic to analyze my feeling. Because I find it difficult to conclude it, and I'll still want to understand it and then I get the headache.

And then I will feel bad that I do not solve my question in my brain. Sometimes, I just remain the question in my mind. However, I might sometimes start to think the world is so strange and I couldn't understand it and feel really frustrated.


----------



## Sparkling (Jul 12, 2013)

When I can't see their emotions, I automatically conclude that they don't care.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

Kavik said:


> Because I don't see feelings as concrete. I Don't know how someone emotional wants me to understand, I equate understanding feelings to empathy, something I don't feel unless I'm incredibly close to someone. I've never had an emotional friend, they've always appreciated cynical logic more than emotional support. I can ask what someone needs but not once have I understood how to give what they need despite realizing they need something (inferior Fe). I'm not judgmental of feelings, I can readily listen though I don't know what to do with it if I can't try to fix it.


If a friend of you feels bad and says he wants you to listen, that is quite concrete because it is part of the real world. Feelings as a concept aren't concrete, no, but when some one feels something, it is. 
I do, however, understand that when a friend does feel something that it is just so foreign to you that you start theorizing about it. Especially if all your friends are cynical and don't show their emotions, it is simply hard to get any experience with it, which is important to get a sense of what to do. Feelings do appear so exotic and untangible if they're never dealt with


----------



## Quercetin (Dec 5, 2012)

blue_moon said:


> When I can't see their emotions, I automatically conclude that they don't care.


If someone thinks about their emotions and decides not to show them they don't care 100% of the time?


----------



## Quercetin (Dec 5, 2012)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> Feelings do appear so exotic and untangible if they're never dealt with


Kavik already answered that. They are dealt with, in filtered form. Are you talking about having unfiltered feelings? It's difficult to do unless the individual's dominant function is stressed to capacity. Obviously when this happens a rational can see they are very much concrete (physical/emotional consequences in the real world). See Kavik's response below. 



Kavik said:


> NTs aren't unemotional, nor other Ts, they have have filters to their emotions, usually thinking them through before letting them show, if at all.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

blue_moon said:


> When I can't see their emotions, I automatically conclude that they don't care.


Ts have a hard time figuring out how to express their emotions, it doesn't come naturally. Emotions are dealt with internally. Its offensive when people say they don't care because they aren't reacting violently or immediately. Ts see loose or extreme emotional displays as a loss of control. When a T outwardly shows strong emotion, they are hyper stressed, the dom function is getting plowed into the ground and they no longer have adequate control of themselves.

Our emotions are kept in a pressure chamber that gets slowly filtered by the dom function. when stressed and the dom function is no longer working, cutting off the slow release valve. The pressure then builds until the chamber explodes.


----------



## Sparkling (Jul 12, 2013)

Quercetin said:


> If someone thinks about their emotions and decides not to show them they don't care 100% of the time?


I don't know. The point is that when I don't see any sign of emotions or when they don't display any action confirming their attitude then I have difficulties to read them. All I see is expressionless, stone face so my subconscious concludes they just don't care at all or as much as me.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

Quercetin said:


> Kavik already answered that. They are dealt with, in filtered form. Are you talking about having unfiltered feelings? It's difficult to do unless the individual's dominant function is stressed to capacity. Obviously when this happens a rational can see they are very much concrete (physical/emotional consequences in the real world). See Kavik's response below.


You are talking about internal feelings, aren't you? In that post I was talking about dealing with the feelings _of others_ because I answered someone who was talking about understanding others' emotions and talk about it.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> You are talking about internal feelings, aren't you? In that post I was talking about dealing with the feelings _of others_ because I answered someone who was talking about understanding others' emotions and talk about it.


The posts were meant to tell you where Ts are coming from and why they find it difficult to deal with emotional people. They see being emotional as not being in control. Because they deal with their emotions internally, they don't know how to deal with them externally. There is sort of a subconscious fear the emotional person is not in control so the T wants to get away from them so the person can sort themselves out on their own terms.


----------



## Quercetin (Dec 5, 2012)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> You are talking about internal feelings, aren't you? In that post I was talking about dealing with the feelings _of others_ because I answered someone who was talking about understanding others' emotions and talk about it.


You can't deal with feelings of others effectively without empathy. What is empathy in this situation? External feelings of others being *internalized* and 'felt' by the user. So yes, we are both talking about dealing with emotions and it requires internal reference to do so effectively. 

Hence, the filtration system utilized by those who prefer non-feeling functions would be unable to effectively "feel" what they are going through. Yet since many rationals are in permanent problem solving mode they start looking for solutions which is not what the feeler was asking for. The cycle continues.

Practical empathy in my opinion would enable the user to internalize (feel) external feelings of others without losing their shit (nobody hates that more then rationals). This is such a pain in the ass I understand why most rationals wouldn't want to subject themselves to negative feelings. I think it's just self-development because I have these feelings and want to learn how to accept and use them emphatically. Hopefully I can use them to motivate myself to do something productive as well 

Are there methods you would recommend for rationals to develop practical empathy?


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

Kavik said:


> The posts were meant to tell you where Ts are coming from and why they find it difficult to deal with emotional people. They see being emotional as not being in control. Because they deal with their emotions internally, they don't know how to deal with them externally. *There is sort of a subconscious fear the emotional person is not in control so the T wants to get away from them so the person can sort themselves out on their own terms.*


... that's one way to look at it. Being in control is not an issue for me.

I don't feel comfortable having someone's inner life in my hands. I feel responsible for their spiritual well being and I just can't handle that much responsibility. Some things are just too fragile for my likings and I know my words have the power to influence their future decisions. I know I have the power to mould them into anything I want in this state. Why is it that missionaries target the emotionally distressed? Why is meekness a positive attribute? I want a person's decision to be their own. And I hate exploitation of every sort. And it's just too personal in there to mess with.

There is also a selfish reason too. I'm not always able to tell the difference between someone in need of empathy and someone who is an emotional vulture. I don't always know how to express my empathy; I'm more comfortable with making somebody dinner or tea and offering a distraction than I am working the emotional sphere. When they're ready to talk about working things out, cool. But yeah, this is why I was asking so many redundant questions.

... maybe control does tie into this. I don't want to be in control of another person; ethically that just doesn't sit well with me. Of course, I can think of drastic cases when you actually DO have to take matters into your own hands but for the most part ...
@blue_moon ... thinkers can have vibrate, exuberant faces. David Cronenberg (INTP), Bill Gates (ENTJ), Richard Feynman (ENTP). Hemmingway (ESTP) has very telling eyes. I know many NTs have this intense look when they're concentrating, myself included. I don't know how things go down with the sensors. I haven't asked. But yeah, apathy sucks regardless of type.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Honestly with the feelers, if I'm not explicitly asked for help/advice/support/etc., or ask if there's anything I can do and they say "no", I tend to assume they want to be left alone. I don't really do "hinting." That's the aspect that makes me most uncomfortable. I get the sense that some feelers will resort to this odd "dropping hints" mindset at the worst possible time. Then if the person on the receiving end doesn't "get the hint" they're cold and self-centered. But to me this just seems passive-aggressive. Given that this is a repeating pattern in my life, I suppose I have something to do with this as well.  Either that or I end up entangled with immature feelers for some reason. Anyway, I'm really not one to force words out of someone else. I kind of expect people to say what they mean. I take emotions at face value & what is said; doing anything more feels like a lot of overreaching.


----------



## TheINFJ (Apr 12, 2014)

I think some of them are too concerned with being objective, and not being personal enough. When I'm looking for a friend, or even a girl to start a relationship with, I don't want a robot, I want a person who has actual feelings and isn't afraid of subjectivity. 

It's not that really rational people don't have feelings or lack any sort of subjectivity. Everyone has that. Everyone get's hurt, experiences joy, love, has an opinion, etc. But when they suppress these things enough, they're not pleasant to be around. 

Another annoyance I have with them is that, some I've talked to seem to think that logic is somehow objective, when it really isn't. What makes sense to one person is going to be completely asinine to another. If you need an example, just look at different cultures and their customs.


----------



## DisharmonizedIntellect (Jun 13, 2014)

TheINFJ said:


> It's not that really rational people don't have feelings or lack any sort of subjectivity. Everyone has that. Everyone get's hurt, experiences joy, love, has an opinion, etc. But when they suppress these things enough, they're not pleasant to be around.


Some Thinking types are naturally inclined to to that. Others are more so due to being conditioned to a certain environment. For me my parents would always create drama over things that they don't want to hear. They keep telling me "I want to hear about your life!" but then make such a big fuss over the most simple things, it's upsetting. Personally I don't like to be bothered and prefer drama-free environments. This is why I just feed them white lies or filter out things so the get a half truth of happiness and bubbles. That we they don't end up screaming into my face about something that doesn't float their boat and the try to use reality and their experiences as a way to leverage their arguements against the things they don't want to hear.

I agree on the last part, but don't hold it against us. Some of us really want to express ourselves, cry, and let it all out, but its very difficult for us to come around to. For me personally, it's cause I don't trust others with my feelings and know they're use them to hurt me again sometime in the near future.



TheINFJ said:


> Another annoyance I have with them is that, some I've talked to seem to think that logic is somehow objective, when it really isn't. What makes sense to one person is going to be completely asinine to another. If you need an example, just look at different cultures and their customs.


_Logic_ is objective. _Human logic_ isn't. Tbh our systems of thinking are sound and most of the time our theories work in practice for a good reason: they're logical. However, I limit this mostly to fields with straight forward problems that require answers (i.e. fixing cars of computers) to solve. Human issues, morals, and ethics are very out of our grasp simply because there technically isn't any right or wrong when you think about it.

The best way I approached this was to let everyone be entitled to their own opinions, just don't encroach on my opinions and beliefs nor convince me I should otherwise.


----------

