# NF arrogance



## Protagoras

It is sometimes said that NTs are often arrogant about their intellectual life and although I can definitely understand why this is such a complaint for other types, I have also been somewhat frustrated by the arrogance of certain NFs myself, both that I know in real life as well as on PerC, regarding MY emotions and MY life. I often find that their arrogance is better concealed and more accepted by their peers though. As if they can get away with it through their constant appeal to the other's Feeling side.

I often find that some NFs tend to think they know more about my emotional life than I do myself. I'll give you a few examples:

-After telling my INFP friend that I thought putting hearts in one's messenger name if you're in a relationship is a really empty and useless sign of affection. She told me that I would think differently about it when I'd finally get into a meaningful relationship myself. She spoke with an air of confidence, as if she just knew what was best for me and as if I was just a stupid schoolboy who didn't know the first thing about my OWN feelings.
-Similarly, an ENFJ acquaintance told me that my "lack of feelings" could be ascribed to my "weak sense of autonomy", because I had "never been in contact with my inner self". Once again an arrogant NF who presumes to know everything about me just because I shared one or two of my many ideas and feelings with him, which he then completely misrepresented in his arguments.
-Then there was also this INFJ who constantly thought that I was sending all kind of signals in my speech that I wasn't sending (probably due to an over-active Ni or something), simply because she herself spoke in metaphors. Even though I was actually quite literal and blunt.

So, my questions to you NFs are:
-Do you recognize this kind of behaviour in yourself and/or other NFs?
-What do you think is the reason or the explanation for this kind of behaviour?
-Do you think this has something to do with me being an INTP and NFs being weak at understanding and meeting the INTP's emotional needs and/or motivations? 


Thanks for reading! I hope that you'll find the time to share your thoughts. :wink:


----------



## Hastings

Elwood92 said:


> So, my questions to you NFs are:
> -Do you recognize this kind of behaviour in yourself and/or other NFs?


Not in myself, though I've come across it on-line. I might add that I am _very _introverted, so even though I make a lot of assumptions, I keep most of them to myself.




> -What do you think is the reason or the explanation for this kind of behaviour?


Depends on the case. The examples you gave with ENFJ and the INFJ are quite different, to me at least.




> -Do you think this has something to do with me being an INTP and NFs being weak at understanding and meeting the INTP's emotional needs and/or motivations?


Not being weak per se, but misjudging the way you function certainly.


----------



## Istbkleta

I second the OP as an ENTP.

I have also noticed this and have tried to raise the issue without success. Their arrogance is widely accepted as OK even here and even by most NTs.

I would like to hear more thoughts about this.
After all, emotional intelligence is a widely used term.


----------



## susurration

Nf's may spend a lot of their time understanding the motivations behind peoples actions and behaviours. The same mechanism used to assess that, is the same mechanism that probably fosters the good dealings you may have had with nf's and further what the nf would use to answer your questions even in this thread. 

For example, I might read the OP and think to myself, hmmm... what is it that is motivating this person to make this particular thread and word things the way they do? I might infer some things about your life experiences, compare them with my own and what i've read, what i've seen of you or any data at all I have of you, to try and understand where you are coming from. I guess the end product of this process, and even the process itself (of reading into motivation or subtext rather than focussing explicitly on your words) is what may bother you. The nf may understand each person is unique, but has developed a system of understanding human nature and may be trying to apply it to common place situations. From my point of view- people are different, but there are many common threads. Am I certain about that? no. But I interrelate concepts and info i've learned from psychology and my own experiences to attempt to understand others, and yes that can sometimes lead to coming to conclusions about people. Empathy can backfire. 

I never really divulge what I see in people, because I do appreciate it can come off as rude, intrusive and too presumptive and certainly it can be inappropriate for a situation and I can be wrong. I personally don't like people attempting to 'mind read' me either, not because I think people come to wrong conclusions, but that i'd rather have someone ask me a question than use their powers of deduction! I treat people in the same manner, where I try not to make baseless assumptions without evidence for the motivation, and prefer to ask than assume. It is hard to be confronted by something about you, that you don't recognise as a part of you at that point in time, to have words put into your mouth, or for the other person to look like they are taking the moral highground. It's something I think that makes most people angry if not, down right furious. But I have to wonder why certain things touch a nerve? 

Perhaps some of these nf's don't realise they are coming off to you as arrogant, or intrusive. I have read that ntps' dislike when somebody introduces values into their thinking, whereas to the nf in their experience, it might not seem like such an intrusion. It may not be a deliberate attempt to suggest they know you better than you do. Then again, I can be arrogant myself; the few times I am certain of something, I am likely to be wrong. 

*Perhaps a real issue is that the nt just wants to have a conversation based on solely the content of that conversation, and doesn't want to be seemingly "psychoanalysed" (particularly ntps' I have noticed). Regardless of whether the nf is right about their assessment or not, to the nt, the conversation is not about their values or life story, but solely about the words they have just uttered. The nt doesn't want to be judged or believe their statements warrant judgement about their character, it's about the meaning explicitly inherent and expressed in their words. Nf's may not compartmentalise people and conversations so much, and may think something like, "just because we're focused on <x> topic, doesn't mean people aren't excused from moral behaviour or a 'moral status' (meaning, people in personal conversations aren't separated from their words, and that both of these can be evaluated)". An example of this is a thread about how to get away with cheating on the entp board.* Sometimes this works vice versa, and it's not a rule of thumb... nf isn't going to be psychoanalysing everyone or attempting to figure everyone out, and can consider words as they are without ascribing additional meaning and nt's can infer certain things etc. 

Perhaps the nf may need to be prompted to try to see things from another's point of view when it comes to people who are very different from them (or alternatively may need to be shown how the other persons unique POV or to hear an explation concerning how others communicate), so that their empathy can expand and they can recognise what they are doing can be inappropriate or inaccurate. It may be a matter of the nf swapping their attention from "understanding the person" to "comprehending the words" if you know what i'm saying.


----------



## susurration

susurration said:


> Perhaps the nf may need to be prompted to try to see things from another's point of view when it comes to people who are very different from them (or alternatively may need to be shown how the other persons unique POV or to hear an explation concerning how others communicate), so that their empathy can expand and they can recognise what they are doing can be inappropriate or inaccurate. It may be a matter of the nf swapping their attention from "understanding the person" to "comprehending the words" if you know what i'm saying.


Also you may want to read;

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/24735-understanding-archetypes-involving-eight-functions-type-beebe-model.html

It is said that the auxiliary function has a sort of parenting role. This unsolicited advice giving (i.e. what i'm trying not to do right now) can be a manifestation of that second function attitude; enfps may "parent" others with a fi attitude, just like intjs' may parent others with a Te attitude. Perhaps what engages the parenting quality of the nf is the perception that a person has a 'problem' and needs help, advice, or the nf has an insight that can bring the person to proper health (physical, mental or even to ethical congruence!- a nice way of saying what nt's may deem "taking the moral highground").
Perhaps what is to be assessed is what actions of yours triggered them to want to 'steer you in the right direction' (as belittling and annoying as that might be for others).


----------



## Up and Away

I bet you and the other people involved had different definitions for words used such as:

Self
Feelings
Mainstream
Maturity

In terms of MBTI, maturity is for F's to learn T, T's to learn F, N's to learn S, E's to learn I, P's to learn J, vice versa, etc.

But as Neitzche would put it, those in power will consider themselves superior via evidence of success, and those not in power will consider themselves morally superior via no evidence of corruptive power, but really they are both just snobs, lol.

To answer your question though, yes F's can sometimes not understand T's, lazily stereotype T's, bandwagon with other F's, etc.. just like any group.

Personally, I'm starting to understand T's but not completely, but I'm getting there.


----------



## Protagoras

cactus_waltz said:


> Depends on the case. The examples you gave with ENFJ and the INFJ are quite different, to me at least.


Not to me, they both involve the inability to understand my most basic ideas and my intended meanings. They both think of me as a completely different person than I actually am. Only because they identify the announcer of an idea with the idea itself to such a ridiculous extend and, in doing so, misconstrue the intended meanings of the ideas. Moreover, they both presume to know about certain aspects of my life that they couldn't possibly know about. They use classic over generalizations and ad hominems.



susurration said:


> *Perhaps a real issue is that the nt just wants to have a conversation based on solely the content of that conversation, and doesn't want to be seemingly "psychoanalysed" (particularly ntps' I have noticed). Regardless of whether the nf is right about their assessment or not, to the nt, the conversation is not about their values or life story, but solely about the words they have just uttered. The nt doesn't want to be judged or believe their statements warrant judgement about their character, it's about the meaning explicitly inherent and expressed in their words. Nf's may not compartmentalise people and conversations so much, and may think something like, "just because we're focused on <x> topic, doesn't mean people aren't excused from moral behaviour or a 'moral status' (meaning, people in personal conversations aren't separated from their words, and that both of these can be evaluated)". An example of this is a thread about how to get away with cheating on the entp board.* Sometimes this works vice versa, and it's not a rule of thumb... nf isn't going to be psychoanalysing everyone or attempting to figure everyone out, and can consider words as they are without ascribing additional meaning and nt's can infer certain things etc.


I think this is a very good explanation of the NFs' behaviours. It does seem that the NFs that I have encountered seem to think of my ideas as relevant to my identity. They usually don't think it's a bad thing at all to randomly address the, at times far-fetched, connections between my ideas and my identity as they perceive them. A great example of this would be the INFP girl I spoke of, who systematically misinterprets my need for clarity as attempts on my part to undermine her ideas. She accuses me of being obsessed with my intellectual status, while she's usually far more feeble if her own intellectual status is at stake. I actually accept the possibility that I could be wrong, while she can't stand even the slightest critique (no matter how logical or obvious the critique is, she'll just say that I don't understand her and that she can't find the right words). This frustrates me a great deal, because I only want to explore all options and make sure that the best ideas are the only remaining ideas at the end of the conversation. However, she identifies so much with her ideas that she can't let go of the ideas that are proven inferior or downright disproved during the discussion. This makes it difficult for me to take our conversations to a higher level if we disagree, because she'll just doesn't want to concede to anything, not even reason. Another fine example is when I try to play devil's advocate, NFs just don't get that it's all about the ideas and they'll think that I actually mean what I say. Or they just get angry because I'm "not constructive", while the whole idea behind my critiques is that only the good ideas and the valid ideas remain... to me, a good critique is far more constructive than an easy consensus. But this doesn't seem to be the case for NFs; it is as though they are so obsessed with social harmony that they can't even begin to debate the meaningful ideas. It seems that an NF just never gets to the point where he or she has to make real concessions, they only seem to debate to avoid concessions and to find people who agree with them. 

btw No offence to any of you NFs who feel differently; this is just my personal impression of NFs.


----------



## Hastings

I wrote an appreciated post a few months ago, about how Feelers talk in two channels and Thinkers talk in one -- for many feelers, there is no such thing as only speaking by the word's simplest meaning, but there is always the additional interpersonal insinuations that the phrasings carry. The NFs you speak of assume you to function this way as well, which is why they read stuff into what you are saying that isn't there, as (I assume) you go by logic and reason alone. 

It's a bit difficult to explain how "feel speak" works. When you know it, you know it. I do think you have a proper way of handling arguments though, good ideas _should _stand the test.


----------



## lirulin

I see this all the time.


----------



## Istbkleta

susurration said:


> the nt just wants to have a conversation based on solely the content of that conversation, and doesn't want to be seemingly "psychoanalysed" (particularly ntps' I have noticed). Regardless of whether the nf is right about their assessment or not, to the nt, the conversation is not about their values or life story, but solely about the words they have just uttered. The nt doesn't want to be judged or believe their statements warrant judgement about their character, it's about the meaning explicitly inherent and expressed in their words.


I would like to stress how true this is. Some ENTPs have reported this. It goes both ways:

1. NT - I am criticizing your ideas/words, *not* you. Why do you hate* me* now  
2. At least ENTPs seem to avoid judging people based on their words, but rather long-term actions.
3. Most NTs appear not to take it personally when our words or ideas are criticized *constructively*. But hate it when moral judgement is passed based on mere words. At least to me (I don't know for other NTs) words are meaningless, cheap and easy to use. What you say is of little importance compared to what you do. Everybody can lie with words, I want to see you stand behind what you are saying. 

This observation is very accurate and important.

Also - morals are subjective or an oppressive social construct from my POV. If you have another opinion that's perfectly fine, but if you try to use brute force (because I said so! type of thing, no logical reasons as to Why?) to impose your opinion on my free thought - that's not acceptable. 

If you want to argue - argue about my words. Do not attack my personality.

I hope this provides some clarity. I wish we had an article about What words mean to NTs 





cactus_waltz said:


> It's a bit difficult to explain how "feel speak" works.


Look at my signature.





Souled In said:


> Personally, I'm starting to understand T's but not completely, but I'm getting there.


I do not understand why it would be difficult. Just suspend your judgement regarding personality, do not engage emotions and limit yourself to the exact meaning of the words. As a Fe user I know what you mean, but once you realize what needs to be done (which is rather simple as explained above) it's really a piece of cake. Of course, I might be wrong. Feel free to correct my words, not try to "correct" me and make me into a "normal person".


----------



## Protagoras

cactus_waltz said:


> I wrote an appreciated post a few months ago, about how Feelers talk in two channels and Thinkers talk in one -- for many feelers, there is no such thing as only speaking by the word's simplest meaning, but there is always the additional interpersonal insinuations that the phrasings carry. The NFs you speak of assume you to function this way as well, which is why they read stuff into what you are saying that isn't there, as (I assume) you go by logic and reason alone.
> 
> It's a bit difficult to explain how "feel speak" works. When you know it, you know it. I do think you have a proper way of handling arguments though, good ideas _should _stand the test.


That indeed appears to be the problem. However, it's not like I don't understand the insinuations that are made, they are usually just irrelevant to me. It's not like I disconnect the ideas completely from the people who have them, but it is often not really important to the discussion. NFs do seem to think that it is important, even if they're engaged in a tremendously stoic activity such as a philosophical debate or any other kind of serious discussion. It's wonderful to understand the other's insinuations when you're flirting or when you're speaking with friends about delicate emotional issues, but it's not okay when you are discussing ideas. It actually leads to a lot of misrepresentations and fallacies if you don't take the other's words as literal as possible in such a discussion. The main problem that NFs have with me is probably born out of my perspective on the world: I almost always think in terms of ideas and almost never in terms of insinuations and feelings, and NFs find that an impossible way to deal with reality. They need to think in terms of feelings and insinuations, it's what they do. So, in conclusion: I think you are right, although it's not like Thinkers can't talk in two channels, it's often just utterly irrelevant to them. They just choose not to speak in two channels, because it's confusing, unclear and troublesome.


----------



## Istbkleta

Elwood92 said:


> It's wonderful to understand the other's insinuations when you're flirting or when you're speaking with friends about delicate emotional issues, but it's not okay when you are discussing ideas. It actually leads to a lot of misrepresentations and fallacies if you don't take the other's words as literal as possible in such a discussion.


I second this as an ENTP. I tried to point to the ENFJs on their forum that they had a full-blown argument about a subjective relative term. While they could have avoided that by simply clarifying what they were arguing about. Misunderstandings indeed.

I would like to stress that *not all NTs are the same*!

I as an ENTP have many communication issues:

1. With INTJ - I think they are stuck in their POV and are dogmatic. They think my thought flows too much and as one INTJ said it, "on LSD".

2. With INTPs - they hate my jumping Ne and argue about the precise meaning of every word. I don't like it but I know it's important both for them and for my own precision, so I stop and take the time to do it their way. It's very good for the precision of my ideas. 

3. With Fe - I am polite and at least try to take into consideration proper manners.

After communicating my ideas to the above mentioned functions (Te, Ti and Fe), they are attacked and changed and as a result become "better". This motivates me to continue to do so even if it means having my ideas attacked. They are more important to me than my ego.

4. With Fi - I fail completely. I want to develop some understanding of Fi but it is very alien to me.


----------



## Protagoras

Istbkleta said:


> 4. With Fi - I fail completely. I want to develop some understanding of Fi but it is very alien to me.


Indeed, I can't wrap my head around Fi either. I don't think I really have a strong Fi and it's very much alien to me too. It's not only that I don't really have it, it's also that I can't understand it. When I read a description of what Fi is and/or does, I find myself completely bewildered... I just don't get it. It seems kinda useless to me though.


----------



## Emerson

NF's have a "holier than thou" feel to them. -not all of them of course- QUIT IT.


----------



## My Sweet Stalin

Elwood92 said:


> That indeed appears to be the problem. However, it's not like I don't understand the insinuations that are made, they are usually just irrelevant to me. It's not like I disconnect the ideas completely from the people who have them, but it is often not really important to the discussion. NFs do seem to think that it is important, even if they're engaged in a tremendously stoic activity such as a philosophical debate or any other kind of serious discussion. It's wonderful to understand the other's insinuations when you're flirting or when you're speaking with friends about delicate emotional issues, but it's not okay when you are discussing ideas. It actually leads to a lot of misrepresentations and fallacies if you don't take the other's words as literal as possible in such a discussion.


This is completely wrong. The problem here isn't a personality difference, it's a philosophical difference. You're a logical positivist (whether you know it or not) and you're trying to argue with postmodernists who insist on deconstructing your arguments (whether they know it or not) and who know that meaning absolutely does not exist in a vacuum, but depends crucially on context, and you simply cannot get away from analyzing ideas and people together. The latter is the more modern view and you're just not on that page. You can't deal with it, so you're trying to blame it on personality types and put down people who are different from you in the process.

Edit to add: I am specifically saying that MBTI personality types have nothing to do with the matter expressed in the post I quoted, and that it is wrong to try to blame these differences on personality types.


----------



## Istbkleta

Elwood92 said:


> When I read a description of what Fi is and/or does, I find myself completely bewildered... I just *don't get it.* It seems kinda useless to me though.


Wonder how many NTPs have this very same reaction 

But I believe it is incredibly useful and much needed. It was suggested to me by an ENFP and ENTP to get into a relationship with a Fi user to "get it", so I am working on this now. Though I have no idea how that is supposed to help me.


----------



## lirulin

Istbkleta said:


> 1. With INTJ - I think they are stuck in their POV and are dogmatic.


Since you have no problem with your ideas being attacked...:tongue:

I recognise the source of this impression, but it is very much what an outsider sees - so I offer my perspective as to what is going on when I act in such a way as to appear 'stubborn.' INTJs have Ni, after all, which is hugely flexible in terms of meaning. Thing is, this flexibility relies on a flexibility of definition that Ti hates. So Ni tries to use its flexibility in thought through looking at all sorts of meanings through words, perspectives and associations, and finds Ti, even secondary, very limiting when it insists on a definition, a particular mental construct. Ni isn't at its strongest when taking Ti into account - so, for instance, your desire to clarify terms can really put the brakes on Ni and you won't be likely to see its full strength. Te wants the certainty to be in data since it keeps flexibility in definition/meaning, which can pull against Ne's love of (often rather unrealistic) possibilities but precise meaning.

The other thing is, I admit, if we have an idea, we don't consider other ones just for the sake of it. We like some argument that they are better than ours, or at least offer something ours doesn't. Ne doesn't seem to need to have a reason to consider anything - and so isn't always keen on offering one, but rather considers someone narrow-minded because they don't make a reasonless jump. Ne considers the jump reason enough in itself - Ni is willing to make it, but wants there to be a point. I think a lot of it is tension in terms of perceiving functions.

I hope that might come in useful in warding off misunderstandings and that I don't come off as officious in this explanation.

As for Fi...perhaps using Ti analogously might help. Both are relatively self-sufficient systems, intensely personal. Fe is one half situation one half person - like Te - Fi and Ti are pretty much all personal. They just consider different things. Fe and Te involve adapting to what is outside you - Fi is more about deciding on your external actions based on what is inside you - and adaptation is accomplished through another function. There are probably a bunch more threads on it in the INFP forum, for one.


----------



## Istbkleta

My Sweet Stalin said:


> This is completely wrong. The problem here isn't a personality difference, it's a philosophical difference. You're a logical positivist (whether you know it or not) and you're trying to argue with postmodernists who insist on deconstructing your arguments (whether they know it or not) and who know that meaning absolutely does not exist in a vacuum, but depends crucially on context, and you simply cannot get away from analyzing ideas and people together. The latter is the more modern view and you're just not on that page. You can't deal with it, so you're trying to blame it on personality types and put down people who are different from you in the process.


Did you just use a lot of words to say we are inferior to NFs? LOL

And used existing theories to make it sound believable? You basically said:

There are 2 ways to do things. 
Ours is better.
Thus the people (not the way!) who use the other way are inferior to us.

LOL

Am I reading too much into the words here?


@lirulin
Thank you for the INTJ explanation. Hope you are OK providing clarifications later on after I get it through my Ti and don't understand something 

Fi and Ti - I am trying to use it like this, but so far it's not "working"


----------



## My Sweet Stalin

Istbkleta said:


> Did you just use a lot of words to say we are inferior to NFs? LOL
> 
> And used existing theories to make it sound believable? You basically said:
> 
> There are 2 ways to do things.
> I believe ours is better.
> Thus the people (not the way!) who use the other way are inferior to us.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Am I reading too much into the words here?


No, you aren't reading the words at all. I said nothing like that. I said it's a philosophical difference, not a personality difference. MBTI has nothing to do with the problems expressed by the person I quoted. *Look at the literal meaning of the words like you claim to do, and you will see that.*


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

My Sweet Stalin said:


> This is completely wrong. The problem here isn't a personality difference, it's a philosophical difference. You're a logical positivist (whether you know it or not) and you're trying to argue with postmodernists who insist on deconstructing your arguments (whether they know it or not) and who know that meaning absolutely does not exist in a vacuum, but depends crucially on context, and you simply cannot get away from analyzing ideas and people together. The latter is the more modern view and you're just not on that page. You can't deal with it, so you're trying to blame it on personality types and put down people who are different from you in the process.


Its all good, we're at least 9 steps ahead most of the time anyways, so i've been told  Damn folks who skip pages. Get on the same page already ;-)


----------



## Istbkleta

Truth is not absolute, but relative and subjective?

To claim otherwise translates into arrogance?


----------



## IcarusDreams

Istbkleta said:


> I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately I don't believe I can express this in any other way than logic. Please bear with me.
> 
> 1. As you have noticed from RL avoidong to discuss is *not* helping you solidify relations with NTs. Even if there is a surface relationship, it does not run very deep.
> 
> You are imposing yourself on other people, assuming the world is populated by IcarusDreams. They would react the same way as you. That is of course not true. An NT will probably not react the same way.
> 
> As you can see by striving to promote good relations the *Fi way*, you are in effect destroying relations with NTs.
> 
> Isn't the most logical thing to try to establish relations with NTs the NT way and with Fi the Fi way?
> 
> 2. Regarding the second bold in the quote:
> 
> It is not who is wrong. It is about which idea is more valid. You or the other person can then both adapt the valid idea and discard the old one.
> 
> It is not a clash of people. It is a clash of ideas. They are not you. They are just tools that do not have anything to do with you.* I know you understand it because an ISFP here literally reached into my head and said exactly that in a far better way than me *(see sig).
> 
> For example: I understand that for Fe being polite and conscientious is important. The logical thing to do when talking to an ExTJ is to avoid too much politeness and I do so (which is rather liberating and efficient btw
> 
> The logical thing to do with a Fe user is to be polite.
> 
> In both cases I say the same thing but in different ways so that effective communication can be achieved.
> 
> Now the difficulty though is: what is the proper way to communicate with Fi? That is the question.
> 
> I am far from the idea of lumping NFs together. I'd rather go Fe and Fi because you guys seem very different.


Mmm, it never fails me to just not discuss it further, but I have a few caveats. My closest friends are, in all probability, not NTs, and most of them SEEM to be NFs. I am also super nice and gracious, so I won't dismiss what you say, but just avoid the confrontation (unless you are going against an ideal of mine, trying to justify it with "logic", etc. But do not fear, most of my ideals are eminently backed up by some sort of logic. ) So, usually what works for me is "hey, friend, I see we are seeing things here differently, and we should just agree to disagree and forget about the issue." I had to do that recently, and with an issue that went against my ideals, but I just felt like avoiding the issue was better than losing my dear friend over our huge disagreement-and no, that's not common, as it's the first real argument I had with a friend in my life. Granted, the friend was not NT, and an NT might have wanted to cut the friendship (or wouldn't have had the argument in the first place, come to think of it, because I feel the way I feel about the particular issue is actually quite rational.) Even on these and many other forums, when people want to argue/debate away, I just politely back off, especially when I perceive nobody's opinion's going to be changed (believe it or not, I am open to a logical argument, and I do accept when I am "wrong", but on certain issues, I just won't yield.)

Sometimes we take the clash of ideas personally, because we do get attached emotionally to those ideas. Which in your case happens much less often, I surmise. For you, it's about ideas, for me, it's about avoiding hurting feelings. I often follow the "how would he/she feel if I said/did that?" modus operandi. After all, all personality types DO have feelings, so it's a rather safer route for me to tread in. So what for you is a healthy exchange of ideas I might see, depending on the discussion at hand, as a precarious, possible conflict-in-the-making, to avoid at all costs. But I do appreciate openness in expressing yourself, and how you really feel (or think) about an issue (in other words, although some people stereotype INFPs as individuals who would never word their true feelings just to avoid conflict, I just let you know how I DO actually feel, and deal with it peacefully). Don't think you cannot rationalize with many of us, though. Just be open to accept that we might just not process your ideas the same way-as I am sure you already do, by your statements.

The first thing I thought when you said about dealing with NTs, the NT way, and with Fis, the Fi way, is: it goes backwards as well. I do try to have a logical side to my statements, although it won't be readily evident to those accustomed to logical arguments, as I am a very messy writer (for papers, I used to endlessly edit). The OP himself claimed to lack understanding in how to relate to Fis, which of course, disqualifies him (IMHO) of EXPECTING to be understood the NT way by a non-NT. I mean, he should be understood by non-NTs, but given his lack of understanding of Fis, should he be surprised as to why he's not understood himself? (Basically, I am all for understanding each other, but he's apparently not open yet to understand that Fi does feel differently.) To be fair, it's probably not easy, to say the least, to understand individual Fis. I do deal with logical people the logical way, but I will usually come at a crossroads where I will explain my position very emotionally, and they won't understand it, hahaha! I never fight though, but just back off at that point, for I care not about winning/losing arguments (even if the proper definition is a healthy exchange of ideas). I know myself and what I believe in, and logical discussions can be a draining affair for me-it involves my heart, more than my brain, and I know you probably know what I am talking about, but find it hard to appreciate-and I mean no offense by this.

As for dealing with Fis, just be yourself, be genuine, don't be afraid to express what you think.  We'll tell you how we feel; some of us like to argue more than others, and certainly this man doesn't enjoy it one bit. Most Fis tend to be open minded, for many of us do not care that much about your ideas... at least, I care for YOU more than what you believe in (I love talking about what you believe, though! As long as you don't push your ideas on me, I always love to learn new things). The only hard part is dealing with the hidden minefield of unknown values you might tread on. Apart from that, I don't think there's a proven way to relate with Fis other than being open to people having a very emotional side, and "arguments" backed by strength of passion and belief, rather than sheer "reason" (never be surprised or alarmed by that: you just have to accept that, which of course defies logic.) Don't be afraid of expressing feelings, as everybody has feelings (despite your lacking butterflies, LOL). Although, IMHO, you should not attempt to be and think (feel) like a Fi: just be an understanding NT. 

I do think politeness works for everything, and every personality type, but then again, I am just a dreamer, and an INFP.  Also, I certainly don't expect IcarusDreams on others... I usually can't find myself anywhere on others, not even on my best friends (I have no INFP NYC friends, only online!) I just tend to love people too much to be too debate-happy about things (remember, all of this in my strange world, as I know for you it wouldn't be a problem). 

I hope I am not coming across as argumentative, as all I wanted to do is to express myself, and find no wrong in your reasoning, even if I don't completely concur with you. I do not deem it a fault to process things the way I feel, nor do I believe it's a fault for you to think the way you do. Of course, there's no final answer to your questions, for I did not offer much in the way of help to alleviate your legitimate concerns. But at least I hope I made this particular NF way of seeing things a bit clearer, even if the writing itself is not as clear/clean as I would have liked it to be.


----------



## susurration

Istbkleta said:


> I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately I don't believe I can express this in any other way than logic. Please bear with me.
> 
> 1. As you have noticed from RL avoidong to discuss is *not* helping you solidify relations with NTs. Even if there is a surface relationship, it does not run very deep.
> 
> You are imposing yourself on other people, assuming the world is populated by IcarusDreams. They would react the same way as you. That is of course not true. An NT will probably not react the same way.
> 
> As you can see by striving to promote good relations the *Fi way*, you are in effect destroying relations with NTs.
> 
> Isn't the most logical thing to try to establish relations with NTs the NT way and with Fi the Fi way?
> 
> 2. Regarding the second bold in the quote:
> 
> It is not who is wrong. It is about which idea is more valid. You or the other person can then both adapt the valid idea and discard the old one.
> 
> It is not a clash of people. It is a clash of ideas. They are not you. They are just tools that do not have anything to do with you.* I know you understand it because an ISFP here literally reached into my head and said exactly that in a far better way than me *(see sig).
> 
> For example: I understand that for Fe being polite and conscientious is important. The logical thing to do when talking to an ExTJ is to avoid too much politeness and I do so (which is rather liberating and efficient btw
> 
> The logical thing to do with a Fe user is to be polite.
> 
> In both cases I say the same thing but in different ways so that effective communication can be achieved.
> 
> Now the difficulty though is: what is the proper way to communicate with Fi? That is the question.
> 
> I am far from the idea of lumping NFs together. I'd rather go Fe and Fi because you guys seem very different.


The thing is though, you are interpreting Icarus' posts through your perspective as well. You look like you are telling him how he should see things, but really you are just demonstrating how you would do it and how you see it. See how we're all guilty of this? 

The operative word is 'debate' and not 'conversation'.
To most nf's and I daresay some nts' (particularly intjs' and a lot of mature people, in my experience) realise that it's sometimes necessary to concede a point and agree to disagree in relations with people because it would not be constructive to debate about certain points, whether they are an NT who likes to debate or not. It is about picking your battles; Iccarus said he'd rather "avoid debates that won't help solidify relationships", not *all* debates. My sisters are entj and intj and the entj will constantly start debates over small issues and semantics that actually hinder relations between them. It promotes instability because unnecessary debates focused on winning or losing, to the intj (and also in my view), is immature. The intj doesn't want to debate furiously over every small issue. 

I live with thinking types who don't appreciate constant, aggressive debating over small things so it doesn't destroy relations in all scenarios. If anything, the "agree to disagree" principal can save relations between people who see things very differently by encouraging respect on issues where people have strong views (i.e. it's unlikely anyone will budge from their position and therefore what's the point of debating?). I think the desire not to engage in non constructive debating doesn't stem from Iccarus wanting to impose himself on others, but on the contrary, it's about not wanting to impose himself on others. 

Constructive conversations on the other hand, are a different story to debating. I don't think Iccarus objects to that, though I may be wrong (feel free to correct me, Iccarus). taken to the extreme, excessive peace keeping (avoiding issues) can be detrimental, I agree. That's something I have an issue with. But I don't think that's what Iccarus means.


----------



## Berdudget

This has possibly already been said, but I think there's too much generalizing and personalizing being done on both sides of the "argument." The fact is, arrogant NFs do exist. Perhaps the OP has come across them. Are NFs, as a rule, arrogant? No. No type is - as I know has been said. Is every NF that senses or guesses at the emotions of another human being necessarily arrogant because of it? No. Is it annoying to some unhealthy individuals? Yes, I'm sure. Are all people who are annoyed by it unhealthy? No. Nuff said. And I'm not answering the original questions simply because what I would have answered has been covered already.


----------



## Roudy79

Ah, the battle of the temperaments. Let me just try and clarify something about the hearts in the on-screen nickname. You are right: they are empty and without meaning... in themselves. However, they do mean something to the girl who incorporated them. That's because of the NF thing: we see (feel) things that may or may not be actually there.

Her reaction to your comment was also very NF, because NFs dislike being criticized and they tend to take any comment way too personally. Moreover, most NFs are not that great at handling conflict. Therefore, the girl lashed out at you. She felt she had to defend herself. All very NF.

Next time, if you want to help your NF grow, try and make her see that you objected to the hearts on the screen, not to her love of the person she was close to then. If you really want to make friends with an NF, try and see things from their perspective and just say something like: "I like how you find ways to express your feelings - for instance the hearts you use on-screen". You can still consider the hearts themselves to be empty and useless, but you will have won another NF's heart. And those hearts are never empty or useless.

So proud and arrogant at my (stab at) a poetic finish to my reasoning. Again, and again: so NF.


----------



## MissJordan

God,_ some of these posters..._
_*Why do some people get so over-the-top when slightly criticised?*_

http://personalitycafe.com/venting/6652-intjs-too.html
^ That's the most recent INTJ-hate discussion (and then there are the trolls who pop in), and in it is people criticising INTJs, but more importanty, _INTJs having a laugh_.

So, could it possibly be, that -- counter to LoyalGirl's thread on the matter -- NFs are overly sensitive?
Or, could it be evidence of the self-righteousness/arrogance that the OP talks of?

[If you're going to respond to this, I probably won't read it because it's likely either it'll be an overdrawn and tedious explanation/justification or an amazingly drawn out rant with potentially typist elements.]


----------



## Istbkleta

@susurration

I see. But it's so ... alien to me. 
I mean, I think (not sure) what Fe are saying. But not what Fi. Why do they lash out, why do they attack the people they are talking to? Of course this is my logical perspective. I thought there is some underlying logic behind all types peculiarities. Since I think I kind of understand the other judging functions, the fact that I seem to completely not understand Fi is bothering me.

Thus I suspect there must be a mental block in me, that is not logical and I myself do not realize. Now I think it's because what Fi are doing is considered "lying" by NTs in general. Thus it is possible we are unable to apply sound logic here because we hit our own illogical POVs when trying. Just a hypothesis. Thus far when I engage in what appears to me to be lying, the Fi reaction is much more positive than any other approach I have tried so far.

Since truth and lying are subjective of course! I find it a convenient explanation why NTs seem unable *in general* to switch to Fi talk?

When I deconstruct what Fe (INFJ) are saying, it's pretty much the same as mine but with a lot of nice soothing words in between.

Fi on the other hand seem very arbitrary and ... factually incorrect. 

This so far lead me to my latest hypothesis. NTs hit our own irrational arrogant mental block - the claim to knowing what truth is and the idea that truth is absolute. And needs to be said to what is considered a "friend". 

There was a thread (I believe in the ENFP forum) called Pathological Liers?. I think this might be a clash of the vision of the truth of Fi in general and Ti&Te in general.

Does that make sense? Can anybody correct/support/reject that?


----------



## lirulin

Istbkleta said:


> Truth is not absolute, but relative and subjective?
> 
> To claim otherwise translates into arrogance?


So Te is arrogant and Ti isn't? No wonder we get so much flak. :tongue:

A Theory - suggestions welcomed:
Te "arrogance": The reality is _right there_, of course I know what it is. Why can't _you _understand it? It's so obvious. I don't get it. (Maybe you're stupid.)
Fe "arrogance": Your feelings are right there in front of me in your tone/body language, of course I know what they are. Why can't you admit it? (You must be in denial. Let me psychoanalyze you.)
Ti "arrogance": I know what my reality is, it's perfectly logical: I don't need to prove it with any external measures because it's so logical. (You are an illogical, emotional fool!)
Fi "arrogance": I know what my feelings are and you can never understand them fully: I don't need to prove it. (No one will ever understand me.)


----------



## Protagoras

I decided to respond to these fragments from the posts by @OrangeAppled and @IcarusDreams, because there are just too many posts for me to reply to and because their posts were the most encapsulating of all. However, before I do that I just want to say "Thank you." to all those people who have posted here since my last visit. Most of your posts were enlightening and civil, I like that.



OrangeAppled said:


> *-Do you think this has something to do with me being an INTP and NFs being weak at understanding and meeting the INTP's emotional needs and/or motivations? *
> No, I think it's the INTP's inferior Fe projecting judgment of their feeling where there is none or far less than they are taking offense at. I think it's their own blindspot causing hypersensitivity. Naomi Quenk's book details that Fe blindspot well.


Ah yes, the Fe blindspot. I think it's interesting that you brought it up since it does factor into INTPs being unable to correctly communicating their emotions most of the time. In fact, this is what the ENFJ and I were discussing when he started to rant about me "never having been in contact with my inner self" (as I've mentioned in my original post). I brought up my inability to communicate my emotions to those people who meant a lot to me and I thought he might be able to offer some insight into my situation. However, he completely went of in the wrong direction by making huge statements and assumptions about my emotional life, that I felt were unfair to me and only served to put me down. He literally stated that it was due to me "never having had to fall back on myself and being all alone.", as if he knew my life's story. Now, you can of course argue that I was not open-minded and that my upset inferior Fe was blocking my usually sound judgement in this particular case, but nonetheless I think that there was definitely some arrogance on his part. Why would he otherwise make such absurd statements?

Furthermore, the Fe blindspot is not a constant, it only occurs if the INTP is under stress or if the INTP is otherwise emotionally strained. Normally, an introverted thinker should be able to function with relative ease in the kind social situations I have described. It's not like we are constantly running around misrepresenting and misinterpreting feelings. The INTP's use of Fe is very much like the INFP's use of Te: you are perhaps not very good at logically ordering your environment, but you can do it if you put your mind to it and if you're not stressed. It's the same for INTPs, they are perhaps not very good at showing their emotions and correctly interpreting the emotions of others, but they can definitely do it under normal circumstances. That being said, I do think that the Fe blindspot does need to be taken into account and I haven't done that until now, so: thank you for bringing it up.



OrangeAppled said:


> Something NFs often do is try and help a person _clarify_ their own feelings. I notice some NTs (especially NTPs) will take this as NFs _telling them how_ they feel. HUGE difference though. Helping someone identify a feeling is not telling them what they are feeling; it's making suggestions to open up an _exploration process_ so they can _articulate_ their feeling. I have a feeling NTPs get their feathers ruffled in these explorations because, as noted above, they don't know how to describe a feeling & are not as familiar with many emotions, and they project their hypersensitivity onto others, writing them off as out of control and illogical.


That's true, we NTPs definitely have a tendency to marginalize feelings. However, don't forget that feelings usually are illogical and can get out of control very easily. That's not to say that feelings aren't important or that they aren't valuable, but you are implying that they are logical, while they mostly aren't. The only types of logic that can be applied to feelings are instrumental types of logic like: evolutionary logic or social logic. And a lot of people often use these instrumental types of logic to "prove" that feelings are indeed logical. However, the simple fact that feelings can be logically explained doesn't mean that there is an intrinsic logic to them. Now, that is where the INTP's problem with feelings originates, the realisation that there is almost never an intrinsic logic to them, which is kind of disappointing and unnatural in the eyes of a type that values logic above anything. So, there is a conflict between NFs quest for emotional exploration and the INTPs quest for logical clarification and discovery. It's not only that the INTP is bad at the kind of emotional exploration you're describing, they actually think it's useless. The INTP's way of dealing with emotions is by burying it in logic and finding 'solutions' for them, while the NFs way of dealing with emotions is by accepting them for what they are: illogical and elementary. So, I think you are on to something here, but I also think that you are wrong in implying that feelings are logical, because they usually aren't.



OrangeAppled said:


> I suspect because INTPs are also poor at displaying emotions in a nuanced way, they appear differently than how they feel emotionally (ie. "angry" instead of just frustrated), and they blame the misunderstanding on others, not realizing their appearance is more consistent with the emotion others ascribe to them than what they feel.


I think that this happens a lot. It does seem like something an INTP would do. We are very oblivious to our physical surroundings and also to our bodies, so we might not even notice what kind of signals we are giving of. It's kinda like how I explained my interactions with the INFJ I mentioned to My Sweet Stalin:



Elwood92 said:


> I meant that I wasn't consciously sending these signals. I'm not saying that there weren't signals for others to pick up, I simply meant that I didn't send them if they actually were there, then they just happened.


So, for an INTP: emotions and non-verbal signals just happen.



IcarusDreams said:


> Since I similarly avoid debates that won't help solidify relationships (INFP thing), I can clearly see where your friends are coming from. Basically, if we don't believe similarly, I rather not deal with the issue, as opposed to debate to see who's logically right or wrong. It's just not the way we process things, and I DO use reasoning as needed (remember that for many of us, logic is optional, which of course might boggle your mind). But feelings are all-important to me, especially, hurt-feelings. If I am going to hurt you, I rather not discuss it further-also, it's not easy, if even possible, for us to yield on some of our ideals.


This is indeed a problem, because we INTPs believe the exact opposite of what you're describing here. To us, not discussing an idea and seeing who or what is right is the most insulting thing you could do, both to the idea as to the originator of that idea. We are truth-seekers and if we are thwarted in our quest for truth and clarity by social niceties, traditions, "silly" ideals or even our own limitations, we'll be frustrated or insulted. So, it might not be so easy to "agree to disagree", because that can actually be an insult in the eyes of an INTP if it's done too early and if that agreement to disagree stands in the way of logically discovering all possibilities. So, I think it's good to agree to disagree at times, but it's not the solution to everything, especially not if it forms a barrier for the INTP's need for evaluation and open discussion.


----------



## Istbkleta

@Elwood92

Pretty much like what you did to me by choosing your own need to explain yourself (and in the process possibly alienate the people I am trying to understand), rather than disregard your ego and make the logical thing - listen?  

Shame on you for choosing ego over understanding 
That's why that post is the only one I didn't thank in the thread. 

You proud INTPs and INTJs 


When I said "My logic has concluded that it is wrong and is not enough to find a solution. Thus I have chosen to do an illogical thing." an INTJ laughed at me 

That statement still sounds logical to me. Dunno why people say it's not, cause they are not providing any logic for their claim


----------



## Protagoras

@Istbkleta:

Ego FTW! =D
No, you know I am sorry about that.
Don't hold grudges, man. Not cool. ;p


----------



## Istbkleta

lirulin said:


> So Te is arrogant and Ti isn't? No wonder we get so much flak. :tongue: Hey, come on! You know that's not what I said. Don't tease me, cause many might not see it as teasing
> 
> A Theory - suggestions welcomed:
> Te "arrogance": The reality is _right there_, of course I know what it is. Why can't _you _understand it? It's so obvious. I don't get it. (Maybe you're stupid.) - and stops trying to understand. But ENTJs here seem different - "I don't understand but it works, so it is right". And many INTJs are "yeah, the data you provided seems to be correct, might be right". But sometimes INTJs are like "No. Because I say so. I don't care for more data/research/logic. I have decided what is right and I am sticking with it."
> 
> Fe "arrogance": Your feelings are right there in front of me in your tone/body language, of course I know what they are. Why can't you admit it? (You must be in denial. Let me psychoanalyze you.) - I kind of agree with you. But as an ENTP I welcome such analysis, cause well ... I don't know my feelings  Do you?
> 
> Ti "arrogance": I know what my reality is, it's perfectly logical: I don't need to prove it with any external measures because it's so logical. (You are an illogical, emotional fool!) - Yes  But a Ti user who's been roughed up by life in general constantly doubts and waits for more outside data to immediately reject their own logic and adopt a more valid one. Backed by empirical evidence. I *love* research. Just don't accept it at face value, especially when it's sloppy - a sample of 14, I kid you not. WTF?! And it got published?!
> 
> Fi "arrogance": I know what my feelings are and you can never understand them fully: I don't need to prove it. (No one will ever understand me.) - Interesting. I don't know. Can any Fi comment on this one please?


Thanks for the post. Regarding my comments about Te (INTJ and ENTJ) - would you say I get it and where would you correct me? Thank you.





Elwood92 said:


> @Istbkleta:
> 
> Ego FTW! =D
> No, you know I am sorry about that.
> Don't hold grudges, man. Not cool. ;p


What is this thing "grudge"? I don't believe I have thorough understanding of this state  I guess I'll learn but it seems rather illogical to me.

I was JK, u know that 

Understanding FTW!  Ego makes me weak and hampers my logic  I will crush my ego cause it's in my way! LOL Ego is an irrational emotion thus it makes me weak. Ego does not compute LOL

I wish


----------



## Protagoras

Istbkleta said:


> Understanding FTW! * Ego makes me weak and hampers my logic  I will crush my ego cause it's in my way! LOL Ego is an irrational emotion thus it makes me weak.* Ego does not compute LOL


lol, such irony! xD
Was that intentional or not?
Because, I've gotta tell you: if that's the case, then I really like your sense of humour!


----------



## lirulin

Istbkleta said:


> Thanks for the post. Regarding my comments about Te (INTJ and ENTJ) - would you say I get it and where would you correct me? Thank you.


So Te is arrogant and Ti isn't? No wonder we get so much flak. 
_Hey, come on! You know that's not what I said. Don't tease me, cause many might not see it as teasing _
I thought the smiley was a giveaway...

Te "arrogance": The reality is right there, of course I know what it is. Why can't you understand it? It's so obvious. I don't get it. (Maybe you're stupid.) - _and stops trying to understand. But ENTJs here seem different - "I don't understand but it works, so it is right". And many INTJs are "yeah, the data you provided seems to be correct, might be right". But sometimes INTJs are like "No. Because I say so. I don't care for more data/research/logic. I have decided what is right and I am sticking with it."_
Mostly yes. Emphasis on stops trying to understand the_ person_, not the idea - if a person is making no sense and/or not providing evidence recognised as valid then you aren't learning much. I agree Ni can block out some ideas though - and it is not always healthy. Sometimes it is "stop pestering me with suggestions you haven't thought through - I don't need to post-facto deconstruct every decision I make because I did the analysis before making the decision" and sometimes it is that damn Ni sense of knowing that you can't yet justify so you don't want to get in an awkward conversation about that, sometimes stubborness, sometimes the person is just not justifying their idea with something Te recognises as, you know, evidence...Ni can be prone to confirmation bias though and with it dominant it is quicker to cut off the fire hose of data in order to cope since too much data is overwhelming - you need time to process it or it just goes right through you.

Fe "arrogance": Your feelings are right there in front of me in your tone/body language, of course I know what they are. Why can't you admit it? (You must be in denial. Let me psychoanalyze you.) _- I kind of agree with you. But as an ENTP I welcome such analysis, cause well ... I don't know my feelings  Do you? _
I've never understood the idea of not knowing your own feelings. I always know what they are, unless I deliberately ignore them, but I still _know_ I just don't pay _attention_. I don't necessarily care what they are, but I know. Fi is introspective, and I has it. :happy: Since it is tertiary for our type, I am sure some of us pay even less attention than I and don't always know immediately - but that someone else would know better? Nah. They can offer evidence of how we are acting that we can consider though, if it is done with respect. Fi is also prone to the narrowing and refining of categories that Ti does with logic, so the more, hm, general approach of Fe is not really that helpful, since Fi is more precise in the first place. If you are trying to refine your Ti understanding of something, some Te going 'yeah, but this works generally, so that's good enough' is more moving you backwards than forwards, right, since your goal is different than theirs? It is much the same with Fe trying to help Fi - they think they have the answer before you really started and then can nag you for not accepting it, some of them. And to avoid another angry outburst (not referring to you Is), though I think this should be clear - I am obviously not saying this is deliberate sabotage, just as it isn't with Te&Ti - indeed it can be very well meant. And for those of us Fi who don't mind talking out our emotions a bit, it may offer an opportunity to think out loud with a sounding board. It's just...odd when it is treated as the whole answer and insisted upon or anything.

Ti "arrogance": I know what my reality is, it's perfectly logical: I don't need to prove it with any external measures because it's so logical. (You are an illogical, emotional fool!) - Yes  _But a Ti user who's been roughed up by life in general constantly doubts and waits for more outside data to immediately reject their own logic and adopt a more valid one. Backed by empirical evidence. I love research. Just don't accept it at face value, especially when it's sloppy - a sample of 14, I kid you not. WTF?! And it got published?! _
I _totally_ agree with you about sample sizes. 
But on topic: I guess to Te the refusal to move on with the conclusion when there is enough data for Te standards but not Ti (like with Fe and Fi) is seen as stubborn and irritating. It isn't something I find all that arrogant myself, although the occasional "it makes sense to me, so it's right" can be irritating. And I know I'm logical enough so I don't read into it "you are so illogical" or any of that. I guess it can seem really dismissive sometimes? That and if it gets in a mood, Ne can be very servile to Ti - just as Ni can be prone to confirmation bias, Ne can cherry-pick to support previous ideas and blithely skip over conflicting evidence sometimes.

Fi "arrogance": I know what my feelings are and you can never understand them fully: I don't need to prove it. (No one will ever understand me.) _- Interesting. I don't know. Can any Fi comment on this one please?_
I have some trouble with this one too, as I find it hard to see as arrogant. But it may seem dismissive, as with Ti, and I have heard more than once - indeed you see it in this thread - people attack others for saying they are difficult to understand. As if somehow this is arrogant? They seem to automatically assume you think you are _better_ for being incomprehensible.  I think the best analogy I can make for my own understanding is how I can find people's claims of some info being "essentially unknowable." It's like, psht, like it's not that special, we might figure it out when we have more research and better technology. Perhaps Fe is similar in that it sees others' emotions as essentially knowable and doesn't agree that the subjective aspect that makes them all slightly, inherently different, is all that important, doesn't think that the truth that matters is impossible to tell completely from the outside. Both Te and Fe don't so much like closed doors, as it were and Fi and Ti don't necessarily like it when you think you have a right to wander through them.

I hope this all makes sense - I don't have all these functions, so where I am off, I welcome constructive criticism.


----------



## heartturnedtoporcelain

lirulin said:


> Fi "arrogance": I know what my feelings are and you can never understand them fully: I don't need to prove it. (No one will ever understand me.) _- Interesting. I don't know. Can any Fi comment on this one please?_
> I have some trouble with this one too, as I find it hard to see as arrogant. But it may seem dismissive, as with Ti, and I have heard more than once - indeed you see it in this thread - people attack others for saying they are difficult to understand. As if somehow this is arrogant? They seem to automatically assume you think you are _better_ for being incomprehensible.  I think the best analogy I can make for my own understanding is how I can find people's claims of some info being "essentially unknowable." It's like, psht, like it's that special, we might figure it out when we have more research and better technology. Of course, that it helps that the topic is usually a human/soul/fluffy wankfest...perhaps Fe is similar in that it sees others' emotions as essentially knowable and doesn't agree that the subjective aspect that makes them all slightly, inherently different, is all that important, that the truth that matters is impossible to tell. Both Te and Fe don't so much like closed doors, as it were.
> 
> I hope this all makes sense - I don't have all these functions, so where I am off, I welcome constructive criticism.


I find that feeling 'unknowability' - generally associated with 4 - to be annoying/ultimately frustrating. It feels like no matter how much I try, I can't figure it all out argh. Do all Fi-doms (and other Fi users) have this though? I'm not sure.

I would say that Fi arrogance is more about this is (morally) right / this is (morally) wrong full stop. It doesn't fit in nicely with your model, but yeah.


----------



## lirulin

heartturnedtoporcelain said:


> I would say that Fi arrogance is more about this is (morally) right / this is (morally) wrong full stop. It doesn't fit in nicely with your model, but yeah.


I suppose it does in a way, yeah, thanks for bringing that up.
Ti: this is true because it is logical full stop (Ne/Se can collect data)
Fi: this is wrong because this is how I feel about it/this is what I believe full stop (Ne/Se can collect data)
I guess because it is more internal there can be more certainty. If you are applying your values externally to other people and to groups, you need to adapt to the groups(Fe), or you apply it to external reality, you need to adapt to what is there (Te). Fi and Ti aren't trying to adapt because they aren't trying to apply it externally in the same way - any compromise/adaptation comes more from combos with the other functions and isn't built into Fi/Ti themselves?


----------



## Istbkleta

@heartturnedtoporcelain

OMG! I se it now! Exactly! Thank you!

I think this is what rubs Ti the wrong way - moral is not logical and is subjective at the same time. I can deal with another Ti, but Fi? But it also is passing judgement on others. One thing I absolutely hate is people passing judgement *on me*. I can change an idea, but me is me. How dare you say I am not a good person and you are? It is so dismissive of people, not the ideas (that are not the person). It is so ... wrong to me LOL!

Why? Why would you judge people if you don't want to be judged yourself? Why? It's just ... wrong (Fe)? LOL Don't you dare judge me cause I will lash out (see OP and me react to ENFP doing that . It's like trying to *break* me to fit into *your box*, but you do not want this done to you? Well, then you are a "bad" person (Fe again?).

I mean, Ti is like "well, if you insist, go ahead and be whatever you want. Just don't impose it on me. You are a murderer? Well, I am certain there is something there, it's not like your actions define you, you is you. Period." Are we judged as immoral because of that? Many NTPs report being libertarian.

@lirulin
Thank you.
Regarding your smiley - I get it, just fearful somebody else might not 

I don't have Fi (according to theory) - it's a shadow function.

Is it actually possible that INTJs Fi (3d was it?) makes you appear more head-strong and arrogant t6o other Ts. Not your Ni and Te? I mean, my xp with ENTJs is very very different from INTJs.

What do you think about that? 

At least for ENTPs my observations so far lead me to believe Fe shapes us as people in a more profound way most ENTPs realize. Is it possible the same is true for INTJs? Your opinion?





Elwood92 said:


> lol, such irony! xD
> Was that intentional or not?
> Because, I've gotta tell you: if that's the case, then I really like your sense of humour!


Self-irony LOL 

@Nonconsensus

For now I have chosen to make a distinction between Fe and Fi. I do not like the NF thing. It seems logical at the moment. If more data is presented I am open to reevaluating my position.

I guess I am learning a lot here. This makes me happy.

@lirulin
My values - whatever works is right. If my values do not work, they are my enemy. Isn't that an NT thing?
If parts of me do not work, I will try to change them or discard them. Does that make sense? I am not sure. Constant change is my value. Worst nightmare is to wake one day and realize the believes and values I chose to keep were "wrong" (read non-functional) and I didn't challenge them cause I was too afraid to 

That can also change. Dunno.

Like, how can I see the Fi POV if I am not willing to challenge my own?!


----------



## lirulin

Istbkleta said:


> Is it actually possible that INTJs Fi (3d was it?) makes you appear more head-strong and arrogant t6o other Ts. Not your Ni and Te? I mean, my xp with ENTJs is very very different from INTJs.


We shut people out easier - too much data to process - Ni. That is often associated with arrogance - or the occasional fangirling mysterious stuff. Headstrong is the Ni vision, I think. But Fi can play a role. ENTJs can be more practical in adapting than we sometimes, though it is not always themselves they adapt :wink: - we adapt by finding places we needn't adapt sometimes.
But Fi doesn't always help. I refuse to lie and manipulate because of my values, and this rules out a lot of what others consider tact.

The other part would be the Fe seeing Fi as more, hm, wide-ranging than it is? I don't lie myself, at all, if possible, and it often is - _so I must judge and despise all liars._ I try to manipulate as little as possible and be direct _- so I must hate contempt for everyone with tact._ Those latter parts tend to be added by others - to be fair, not just Fe, though I see it more often there. And indeed it seems a little silly, since you are judging me for judging the outside according to my standards, and so no better than me in this (indeed worse if you make it personal) - we're both seeing according to our values. We both have ideals and you don't need to get offended that others _have _them - though I understand getting offended based on what they _are._

To me, it's assumed everyone has their own values. What pisses me off most often in other people is inconsistency and hypocrisy - Fi is a decent bullshit meter. You don't have to have _my _values, but if you don't live up to your own, to the ones you claim to have - then I might despise you. But mostly it is good at hating in the abstract. I despise acts - people, that is awfully personal for me. I may well avoid them because I consider us incompatible if our values _really_ conflict, and I may well argue with them, but...on a certain level, their values are none of my business and most definitely vice versa. I think they are wrong, but still it's...doesn't Ti have something like that in terms of your personal reality/perspective? My reality versus the reality? This is Fi in a T, mark you, so Fs might make it so personal and I can't speak for them.

But we get judged a lot on inflexibility and the least flexible part really is Fi as far as I can tell. As much as Ni can be stubborn on occasion, its essence is seeing different perspectives. Te adapts to the world outside. Fi - doesn't give a crap. And since we tend to come off with such certainty and confidence, apparently, things that are Fi-related, anything that either is a value judgement or is assumed to be one, seem perhaps stronger or more harsh than they are meant?

It plays a role, yes, but I think all functions and their interactions are part of it



Istbkleta said:


> At least for ENTPs my observations so far lead me to believe Fe shapes us as people in a more profound way most ENTPs realize. Is it possible the same is true for INTJs? Your opinion?


Than some realise, perhaps, and more than many are interested in talking about since it seems to invite a lot of judgement to speak of our values in many contexts, but I for one have considered it very important a long time now. I was always annoyingly idealistic with annoyingly high standards.


----------



## Nonconsensus

A few thoughts occurred to me while reading this thread. These are some observations, so they are by no means accurate. I have some difficulties digesting everything, so apologies in advance for any possible incoherence in the post.

Some, if not already most, of the NF posters were constructive with their posts, and although they were individual posters, they collectively contributed to a positive image, one that I think OP (or NTs in general I believe) is open to reading.

Which is why I'm currently curious and confused as to why some NFs felt threatened and attacked by the OP. I don't claim to know what went on in their minds when they read, but what seems like the case is that there were some assumptions made, and if I'm comprehending correctly, the assumptions were negative.

I don't know if this has ever been mentioned anywhere, but I think it's perfectly fine for readers to assume negatively. What I don't understand is why the assumption is acted upon instead of brought out for clarification. Is there an expectation that the OP or anyone else would attack them for having such assumptions? I cringe almost every time I sense an upset NF who seems to think that there's an ulterior motive. I don't really want to speak for another NT, but I'm often left wondering what to respond when the "suspicion" is treated as "fact." I don't know what they're expecting to see, because this is the impression I'm getting, "Guilty until proven guilty."

I went ahead to read up on "arrogance", because this word has been tossed around so much that it seems to have lost its meaning altogether. After reading, I came across three states: Arrogance, humility and pride.

Arrogance: To qualify as arrogance, the sense of superiority needs to be offensive.
Humility: To be moderate, to conform to propriety.
Pride: To be positive, re-assured about the self.

To be honest, I usually see other NT posts as characterized by "pride." The posts by NFs who contributed to this thread were characterized by "humility." When there's either poor delivery or misinterpretation, the conclusion becomes that the other party is "offensive." This, to me, I see the problem as poor delivery or misinterpretation, and that's that.

Does the above make sense? It made sense to me in my head, but I thought I'd just throw it out there.

@Istbkleta

My apologies. A lot of discussion has been going on while I was typing this, and I haven't gotten down to reading them yet. I can only do it tomorrow. I'd probably reevaluate what I've said here after that.


----------



## lirulin

You added this.


Istbkleta said:


> My values - whatever works is right. If my values do not work, they are my enemy. Isn't that an NT thing?
> If parts of me do not work, I will try to change them or discard them. Does that make sense? I am not sure. Constant change is my value. Worst nightmare is to wake one day and realize the believes and values I chose to keep were "wrong" (read non-functional) and I didn't challenge them cause I was too afraid to


And gah. Values as one's enemy? Emotions I will discard but values are the only solid internal thing I have in me. Everything else is external or all...meta.
I cannot imagine discarding a part of myself - and it isn't really a choice to have them, I just do. I adapt my actions and needs to fit my values, I don't adapt my values to fit my needs. Indeed, my values are part of my needs. That is something I instinctively associate with psychopathy - ends justifying means and all sorts of things like that. It's like a major red flag. They're not _supposed_ to be functional, values, they are an end not a means, you don't become racist to get along with racists even if that would help you get a job because it's wrongwrongwrong to be racist so you give up the idea of getting along with them and possibly the job because racism is so wrong. I am not saying this to imply _you_ are either racist or psychopathic or that this is part of Fe or NTs or whatever, moreso to emphasise how much I cannot relate to that idea of values - these are the associations that come up. So no, it is not an NT thing.

I guess the idea is - values are inherently subjective. It's not like reality. Empiricism cannot tell you what they should be, the entire concept of objective truth is irrelevant to this. You can't wake up and find out your values are 'wrong' because if they are your values they are right to you and there _is_ no other source to determine if they are right or not. There is nothing else out there that can tell you, so the only wrong you can do is fail to be true to yourself. Authenticity and all that. It's not that you can't learn and grow, it is more that, whatever you consider better and growth will also be based on your values, it is all ultimately subjective anyways. You still spend time thinking about them, considering how better to deal with clashes, dom-fis more than I do by far, but they aren't disposable or interchangeable based on convenience or externally-based ideas of improvement.


----------



## chances2468

I think not all NF's are like that.

I'm INFP and I would not have reacted that way to your comment about the hearts. In fact, I find it cheesy. But hey, if someone else wants to do that, that's their choice.

I am very open and supportive of people having different thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc. When I get riled up, it is because someone is trying to insist that s/he is right and everyone else is wrong. I also don't like when people try to take away the rights and freedoms of others.

I think you are generalizing that behavior to be NF type behavior, but I don't think it is. I've had similar experiences with NTs and SFs, and I'm sure you'll find individuals of other types who may or may not have this "arrogance," as you call it. Please remember to look at the individual and not just type.


----------



## Protagoras

1251 said:


> Hmm, I don't think all NFs act or think like that, nor the things you said about NFs concern just to them, I have even known some NTs that made the same things that you said NFs do in the examples you put, so I believe generalize here is as wrong and "arrogant" as the things you complain about.


First of all, I have never said nor implied that this kind of behaviour is monopolized by NFs in an absolute manner. Certainly every person is capable of these behaviours, no matter what their type. However, that is not the point of the types, the point is that certain types have certain preferences and tendencies. What I have been describing in this thread is a tendency that is predominant among NFs, that is not to say that the other types don't have this tendency at all. So, to say that I'm speaking in absolutes by relating these behaviours to the NF types is pretty much a misrepresentation of not only my ideas, but of the MBTI theory in general too. You should realize that when we're discussing the MBTI types, we are ALWAYS generalizing. That's the whole idea behind the types, that they are handy generalizations which can be used as tools to understand each other.



1251 said:


> I think most of the people like or tend to infer things about others with just a few words or things, and there's nothing wrong about it, taking the theories out of the infereces as facts without having proved them, on the other hand, it is. But like I said, it's not just a thing of NFs, many people do that too.


That is correct. However, my argument was that NFs have a certain kind of problem with "feeling arrogance", which manifests itself in the kind of behaviours I've descirbed. NTs have other ways of rushing to conclusions in their own fields of operating, I do not doubt that. Actually, I started this thread by acknowledging that NTs are usually seen as "intellectually arrogant". So, once again, you are misrepresenting my ideas, since you _falsely_ accuse me of saying that NFs are the only types to be arrogant. And thus, you are also falsely accusing me of hypocrisy by saying that I am as arrogant as the people I criticised, while that is not exactly the case.



1251 said:


> Mostly because of the prejudices they could have, probably. And about interpreting when discussing ideas, that depends on how the ideas are expressed, because a too literal interpretation of an idea could sometimes lead to misunderstandings and fallacies as well. In other words, one have to learn how to talk and interpret depending on the context and ideas. Being too logical or too feeler, it's always wrong at the end, one have to seek the balance, I believe.


This is true. It's a shame that you're not quite as good at interpreting my words as you think you ought to be. Maybe you should heed your own advice. Also, wasn't it clear that I was aware of the benefits of a feeler's interpretation? I even literally named contexts in which a feeling interpretation is superior to a logical one (when flirting, in emotionally loaded conversations, etc.). So, it would seem that you are preaching to the choir without even noticing it.

@chances2468: I think you'll find the rebuttal to your critique in this reaction to 1251 as well. Given that your critique is nearly identical to some parts of 1251's critique.


----------



## 1251

Elwood92 said:


> First of all, I have never said nor implied that this kind of behaviour is monopolized by NFs in an absolute manner. Certainly every person is capable of these behaviours, no matter what their type. However, that is not the point of the types, the point is that certain types have certain preferences and tendencies. What I have been describing in this thread is a tendency that is predominant among NFs, that is not to say that the other types don't have this tendency at all. So, to say that I'm speaking in absolutes by relating these behaviours to the NF types is pretty much a misrepresentation of not only my ideas, but of the MBTI theory in general too. You should realize that when we're discussing the MBTI types, we are ALWAYS generalizing. That's the whole idea behind the types, that they are handy generalizations which can be used as tools to understand each other.


Oh, sorry if get you wrong, maybe I went a little too literal. I was just talking about what I just saw, and I didn't saw in any of your post that you explicitly said that the arrogant behavior wasn't something only of NFs. In fact, if we read again the post that I quoted before, it looks like you were saying the opposite, exactly in these parts:



Elwood92 said:


> That indeed appears to be the problem. However, it's not like I don't understand the insinuations that are made, they are usually just irrelevant to me. It's not like I disconnect the ideas completely from the people who have them, but it is often not really important to the discussion. *NFs do seem to think that it is important, even if they're engaged in a tremendously stoic activity such as a philosophical debate or any other kind of serious discussion.* It's wonderful to understand the other's insinuations when you're flirting or when you're speaking with friends about delicate emotional issues, but it's not okay when you are discussing ideas. It actually leads to a lot of misrepresentations and fallacies if you don't take the other's words as literal as possible in such a discussion. The main problem that NFs have with me is probably born out of my perspective on the world: I almost always think in terms of ideas and almost never in terms of insinuations and feelings, *and NFs find that an impossible way to deal with reality. They need to think in terms of feelings and insinuations, it's what they do.* So, in conclusion: I think you are right, although it's not like Thinkers can't talk in two channels, it's often just utterly irrelevant to them. They just choose not to speak in two channels, because it's confusing, unclear and troublesome.


Maybe I am wrong, but that doesn't seem like you weren't talking in absolutes. But in any case, I don't really think either that the arrogant tendency is something predominant in NFs, if you were saying that. And talking about the MBTI theory, you now brought back something I was thinking after my last post... doesn't this generalizations about the types, blind a little our judgement and make us fall sometimes in the arrogance you speak about? not always, but maybe sometimes it make us believe we know things about a person that we don't really know. And that's something I don't like much about the MBTI and other personality theories, but I know it's not the fault of the theory itself, but of the one who interpret it that way.



Elwood92 said:


> That is correct. However, my argument was that NFs have a certain kind of problem with "feeling arrogance", which manifests itself in the kind of behaviours I've descirbed. NTs have other ways of rushing to conclusions in their own fields of operating, I do not doubt that. Actually, I started this thread by acknowledging that NTs are usually seen as "intellectually arrogant". So, once again, you are misrepresenting my ideas, since you _falsely_ accuse me of saying that NFs are the only types to be arrogant. And thus, you are also falsely accusing me of hypocrisy by saying that I am as arrogant as the people I criticised, while that is not exactly the case.


Again, I was just talking about what I saw, if I got it wrong, I understand.



Elwood92 said:


> This is true. It's a shame that you're not quite as good at interpreting my words as you think you ought to be. Maybe you should heed your own advice. Also, wasn't it clear that I was aware of the benefits of a feeler's interpretation? I even literally named contexts in which a feeling interpretation is superior to a logical one (when flirting, in emotionally loaded conversations, etc.). So, it would seem that you are preaching to the choir without even noticing it.


Well, now you seem to be the one who doesn't get me. I know what you said, what I was trying to point out, is that even when discussing ideas, you had to have a balance, not being fully literal like you seem to said before. But I understand if you got it wrong because I didn't explained well. Maybe we have to improve that.


----------



## chances2468

@Elwood92 In my last paragraph, I meant "feeling arrogance" when I wrote "arrogance." 

In your post to @1251 when you stated your _argument was that NFs have a certain kind of problem with "feeling arrogance,"_ it led me to believe that I had not misunderstood you. But sorry, nevertheless.

I'm not critiquing so there is no need for a rebuttal. I have no desire to persuade someone to agree with me. It's not important to me.


----------



## Protagoras

1251 said:


> Oh, sorry if get you wrong, maybe I went a little too literal. I was just talking about what I just saw, and I didn't saw in any of your post that you explicitly said that the arrogant behavior wasn't something only of NFs. In fact, if we read again the post that I quoted before, it looks like you were saying the opposite, exactly in these parts:


Here's the quote that disproves this lie, that you continue to tell, even though I warned you. It's the very first sentence of my very first post in this thread. It's a shame you aren't paying attention and nitpicking words just to prove a point which is still fallacious in it's essence. It's clear that you are not willing to listen to what I'm saying though.



Elwood92 said:


> It is sometimes said that NTs are often arrogant about their intellectual life and although I can definitely understand why this is such a complaint for other types, I have also been somewhat frustrated by the arrogance of certain NFs myself, both that I know in real life as well as on PerC, regarding MY emotions and MY life.


No matter how you try to semantically prove that I don't mean what I'm saying, my basic premise still stands. I never said that NFs were the only arrogant types and although I did spoke generalizing, my meaning can't be understood as an absolute statement given the context. It's quite obvious that when I say _"NFs do this."_, I mean: _"NFs tend to do this."_ or _"In my experience NFs usually do this."_, since I couldn't mean anything else by it without lying.


----------



## 1251

Elwood92 said:


> Here's the quote that disproves this lie, that you continue to tell, even though I warned you. It's the very first sentence of my very first post in this thread. It's a shame you aren't paying attention and nitpicking words just to prove a point which is still fallacious in it's essence. It's clear that you are not willing to listen to what I'm saying though.
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how you try to semantically prove that I don't mean what I'm saying, my basic premise still stands. I never said that NFs were the only arrogant types and although I did spoke generalizing, my meaning can't be understood as an absolute statement given the context. It's quite obvious that when I say _"NFs do this."_, I mean: _"NFs tend to do this."_ or _"In my experience NFs usually do this."_, since I couldn't mean anything else by it without lying.


Excuse me, but I'm not trying to lie, you are the one who's getting too many ideas from my posts now. I have read that sentence you quote, and- ooooh wait! I now see the problem... I have been reading "NF" instead of "NT", haha, I'm sorry, you're right. It's not the first time that happens me, though. Anyways, I never meant to lie or offend others. All this was just a stupid misunderstanding of mine.


----------



## Razare

NF arrogance?

I've come to claim my trophy!



Elwood92 said:


> -After telling my INFP friend that I thought putting hearts in one's messenger name if you're in a relationship is a really empty and useless sign of affection. She told me that I would think differently about it when I'd finally get into a meaningful relationship myself. She spoke with an air of confidence, as if she just knew what was best for me and as if I was just a stupid schoolboy who didn't know the first thing about my OWN feelings.


That's an INFP, to their friends they always know best. The lady ones at least.



> -Similarly, an ENFJ acquaintance told me that my "lack of feelings" could be ascribed to my "weak sense of autonomy", because I had "never been in contact with my inner self". Once again an arrogant NF who presumes to know everything about me just because I shared one or two of my many ideas and feelings with him, which he then completely misrepresented in his arguments.


ENFJ's have this core of feeling that their entire world revolves around. If they see that someone else doesn't have it, they're likely to think that person is emotionally dead... if it hasn't dawned on them yet that every person is different.



> -Then there was also this INFJ who constantly thought that I was sending all kind of signals in my speech that I wasn't sending (probably due to an over-active Ni or something), simply because she herself spoke in metaphors. Even though I was actually quite literal and blunt.


INFJ making stuff up out of nowhere, which is what we're best at. We also speak in metaphors a lot so we're likely to think others are doing it too if it the logic fits, even if the intention wasn't there.[/quote]


----------



## Protagoras

@1251 and @chances2468: Thank you for clearing up your thoughts, I thought I was going mad after I read your posts... so, I'm sorry if that made me a bit too aggressive in my reasoning (lol, aggressive reasoning... that's funny). Anyway, sorry for my tone. That was unnecessary too. Oh, and @1251, you don't have to want the tell a lie to actually tell it. Sometimes, we lie without knowing it ourselves. So, it's not that I thought of you as wanting to lie about this, I was just very frustrated when I wrote that. Once again, I should apologize for my tone. That was really unfeeling of me.


----------



## spifffo

spifffo said:


> -What do you think is the reason or the explanation for this kind of behaviour?
> It's often strongest after I've been rejected and/or felt misunderstood...I'll blame the misunderstanding on the other person's inability to relate to/understand/listen to people before I blame it on my own inability to communicate. I also swallow my judgements so much to try to appeal to other people's F's that when they do come out, they are harsher and more frustrated than they would have been if I acknowledged, accepted, and acted constructively on them.


I figured out more about this as I was lying in bed last night. I judge other people when I am frustrated that I can't find a place to belong. It's hard to find a place to use NF...academia isn't quite right (too T), helping professions aren't quite right (too S and T, too science-based), and the dominant culture certainly isn't right (too too S)...and I don't really have the resources to access the arts to the extent I'd like. In trying to find my place, I end up with my N and my F at odds with each other...so I resent it when anyone else doesn't have enough N or doesn't have enough F because I want everyone to be balanced so that I can be balanced. Of course this is a ridiculous expectation; I never consciously realized that it was my expectation before last night. 

A lot of NFs that I know share this feeling of alienation and being underappreciated/misunderstood-- living in a society that doesn't value our gifts. This leads us to resent the people doing the misunderstanding-- but like I said before, maybe it is up to us to communicate better afterall...though supposedly we're the temperament with the best communication skills. Maybe we're frustrated that other people don't have those same communication skills.

NT's also feel alienated and misunderstood I am sure, but at least they have the whole "smart" reputation to fall back on...they can find a stable, successful job that suits them perfectly, etc. NF's are less appreciated for being "smart" even if they equal the talent of an NT, and in my experience they have more trouble finding practical use for their gifts...or maybe that's just ENFP's in particular with our inferior Si.

In short, people judge other people when they feel alienated and underappreciated by those people. I wonder if there is a more productive way to become understood and included by those people instead of alienating them further...I would like to find that out.


----------



## noche

@_Elwood92_ i think your problem and your friends problem are not trying to understand each other from each other point of view. I mean you and your friends are different person with different personality. When you say something and have response from other person, try to see it from the way the other person glasses. Put your self on their shoes and not trying to push something you believe in. That will help you to understand why his/her response are like that or why it is different from your response. That's also apply to your friends... it seems they also not trying to understand you from your point of view. Keep thinking on your mind that your friends are feelers who put emotional first and you are thinker who put logic first.

Oh well there is always tension when people trying to push others to his/her point of view .


----------



## LiteratureNerd

I can't explain to what makes that happen. Perhaps it's the same sort of thing that spurs "thinking arrogance"? Sometimes people get so wrapped up in what they value personally in terms of communication that they shut themselves off to the enlightenment that other equally valid perspectives can bring. It's a huge pitfall, in my opinion, since all it does is create conflict, and man, I hate conflict. 

From a personal standpoint, I've seen (and had to deal with) the kinds of things the OP is describing. I don't handle people acting "smug" too well, regardless of what they're being smug about, personally. And, yes, it it ends with that horrible feeling of being completely misunderstood when, if the other person got their head out of their ass for a few minutes, need not have happened. 

Talking to people with a completely different styles of communication is always a learning experience for me. Sure, I will generally look at things as though they have multiple meanings (I can't help it - it's my default), but that also means I like looking at things from multiple perspectives. My strong "people-pleaser" tendencies kind of force me to look a bit outside myself when I'm talking to different people, and to accommodate them the best I can. It sounds like being a total pushover, but what I mean is that assessing and figuring out how to work with someone else's communication style more than I try to insist upon my own. 

Part of my job involves having to find different, effective ways of conveying the same information to different people, based on how they listen, so to speak. One of the side effects of that is learning several different ways of listening to people, based on how they convey information. I'm used to it...but I have to admit that it can be a little draining after awhile. 

Since I'm not perfect, there are times when I'll hear someone speak in such a straightforward, matter-of-fact way that I can take it personally. And there are times where I get the feeling that the other person is much more interested in having me understand them than making any effort to understand me - I'll respect another person's perspective, but I admit that I get a bit defensive when they don't extend the same courtesy to me. 

I don't like it when people smugly claim to know and understand me just because I shared a couple of personal anecdotes with them, and I'm certainly not going to act like my people-reading skills, while fairly good, are superhuman when I talk with others. And I know enough to leave my ego at the door when trying to understand someone else, and avoid jumping to conclusions. If I ask you a lot of expansive questions about what you're saying, it's only because I'm trying to better understand your thought process. My logic, after all, is not always the same as someone else's logic. Yes, my NF-ness makes me more prone to see the subjectivity in everything rather than the objectivity (I've noticed this can be a source of real conflict between NFs and NTs), but believe me when I say that my intentions are good. It can be annoying to some people when I'm more interested in multiple possibilities of meaning rather than that which is indisputable, but I can't really help it - it's how I'm wired, I suppose. 

Personally, I appreciate it when people are more focused on their words rather than any sort of symbolic meaning behind them while I'm getting to know them, even if it sometimes comes as a bit of a shock to my own tactful nature. I don't always have the energy for all the mind-reading that's expected when someone likes to speak in ambiguous metaphors. 

Bottom line: Sending someone hearts over a text message is a great substitute for ipecac. I'm in a meaningful, loving relationship and even I threw up in my mouth a little bit. Unless your friend is in junior high, then there's no excuse. But that is only my opinion. :wink:


----------



## Kittann

Some of those comments do sound very arrogant! I would feel pretentious making some of those remarks, particularly the 'never been in contact with your inner self' stuff, so hopefully it's more of an individual trait than particular of all NFs (just like I'm sure not all NTs are intellectually arrogant).

But as for this exchange:



> After telling my INFP friend that I thought putting hearts in one's messenger name if you're in a relationship is a really empty and useless sign of affection. She told me that I would think differently about it when I'd finally get into a meaningful relationship myself. She spoke with an air of confidence, as if she just knew what was best for me and as if I was just a stupid schoolboy who didn't know the first thing about my OWN feelings.


Personally, if someone dismissed a romantic gesture I had made to my partner as 'empty' and 'useless', I would feel offended and embarrassed. I'd find it quite a harsh remark and would probably dismiss such an opinion as that of someone who 'just didn't understand' because I'd be feeling defensive.

Of course the girl may have been being deliberately arrogant, not all infps are the same, but that's why I would react in such a way. :shocked:​


----------



## MrShatter

I do try to explain to people how emotions work within the context of a situation. It's asked for though, or they are troubled.


----------



## Oliver_Aaron

This is a very observant point, in particular what you describe regarding ENFJs (according to Socionics, they are INTJs' supervisor relations and treat us exactly as you describe).

Here are some of my observations

- NFs are attracted to the left wing politics, but not because it gives any indication of being the truth but rather it becomes their belief system; they base their whole persona on being a social justice warrior. Rarely to never will you find an NF adopts a political stance that is different from their NF peers (refer to Keirsey's ''cooperative tempraments''). Their 2nd Wave "feminazi" type feminist/Marxist/occupy movement politics is their RELIGION. For NTs, we really think about our politics. Some may start out as left-wingers, but this is until we receive new, better information.

NTs arrogance is mixed with a genuine humility. We are bloody obvious about what can be seen as inconsistencies in our creative and intellectual projects. In fact, we can be brutal with ourselves and not only laugh deprecatingly at how muddled up we've got about certain things, but have a real brutality to this self-criticism.

The NF device of bringing up the whole ''you aren't in touch with your feelings'' this, or that is not based upon evidence but rather a devout (rather than well thought-out) belief in the MBTI, and a sparse look at the "first hit" Socionics profiles (there are many variants or subtypes included in Wikisocion. But when it comes to INFP, they make up their mind FAST whether or not something is worthwhile rather than doing the work.

My advice for dealing with NFs, and I know a few that are absolutely wonderful is the pressure test; delta NFs (NFP) probably won't pass this as most have a thinking deficit (by choice, as they are well able to improve their abilities for reasoning). The pressure test goes along these lines, ask them to qualify statements. What communication upset them?

They cannot think for themselves outside of the type descriptions. The description of their alleged personality index is a holy grail. Just because we're thinking types doesn't mean we don't have strong feelings; INTJs cognitive process arranges Fi input, not Ti foremost. Ti is not who we are, but what we do, according to Gulenko.

ENFJs seem to be the most keen to tear people apart and butthurt of the NF types. When the one I've unfortunately been in contact sends long messages of this or that imaginary abuse or online bullying, I request the same thing: send screen grabs. I was banned from a group (which people aren't supposed to get banned from for anything). Send grabs. The next stages are as follows.

Say, send grabs.

again, say, send grabs.

They won't; nor will they look into information that goes outside of their (socialist) belief system. They will give some excuse, or get out clause, wail about abuse.

My advice is not to bother wasting your emotional resources on NFs. The block function is good for this purpose.


----------



## Oliver_Aaron

I agree that the comment was a bit harsh. I wouldn't say that, but rather would ask why she has to announce her relationship (or at all). I would probably only intervene if I knew the person with whom she was in a relationship was a questionable character.

Yep, that comment was damned cold.


----------



## unoriginal

That's sort of a generalization. I can always get an understanding of how someone feels just based on body language (which most INFJs seem to excel at). But I never tell you I know what you're feeling, the only way I would know is if you TOLD ME what you were feeling.


----------



## Du Toit

I don't see any arrogance there, just you projecting your insecurities onto others.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells

Protagoras said:


> It is sometimes said that NTs are often arrogant about their intellectual life and although I can definitely understand why this is such a complaint for other types, I have also been somewhat frustrated by the arrogance of certain NFs myself, both that I know in real life as well as on PerC, regarding MY emotions and MY life. I often find that their arrogance is better concealed and more accepted by their peers though. As if they can get away with it through their constant appeal to the other's Feeling side.
> 
> I often find that some NFs tend to think they know more about my emotional life than I do myself. I'll give you a few examples:
> 
> -After telling my INFP friend that I thought putting hearts in one's messenger name if you're in a relationship is a really empty and useless sign of affection. She told me that I would think differently about it when I'd finally get into a meaningful relationship myself. She spoke with an air of confidence, as if she just knew what was best for me and as if I was just a stupid schoolboy who didn't know the first thing about my OWN feelings.
> -Similarly, an ENFJ acquaintance told me that my "lack of feelings" could be ascribed to my "weak sense of autonomy", because I had "never been in contact with my inner self". Once again an arrogant NF who presumes to know everything about me just because I shared one or two of my many ideas and feelings with him, which he then completely misrepresented in his arguments.
> -Then there was also this INFJ who constantly thought that I was sending all kind of signals in my speech that I wasn't sending (probably due to an over-active Ni or something), simply because she herself spoke in metaphors. Even though I was actually quite literal and blunt.
> 
> So, my questions to you NFs are:
> -Do you recognize this kind of behaviour in yourself and/or other NFs?
> -What do you think is the reason or the explanation for this kind of behaviour?
> -Do you think this has something to do with me being an INTP and NFs being weak at understanding and meeting the INTP's emotional needs and/or motivations?
> 
> 
> Thanks for reading! I hope that you'll find the time to share your thoughts. :wink:


Not in myself because I actually come across as an INTP to most people irl. I find most affectionate gestures meaningless and when I voice these opinions like you did, I often get criticized by other NFs. 

I understand that not showing your feelings outwardly is not the same as not having feelings or not in touch with own feelings.

I'm guilty for reading into things. I attach certain words with certain meanings. So I tend to take things personally when I hear certain words phrased in a certain way. I'm trying to change that.


----------



## The_Wanderer

NFs are potentially the most arrogant of all the types; but also share the SF's skill with emotions and feelings - so they can also manipulate others better than NT's can.


----------



## Summery

Protagoras said:


> It is sometimes said that NTs are often arrogant about their intellectual life and although I can definitely understand why this is such a complaint for other types, I have also been somewhat frustrated by the arrogance of certain NFs myself, both that I know in real life as well as on PerC, regarding MY emotions and MY life. I often find that their arrogance is better concealed and more accepted by their peers though. As if they can get away with it through their constant appeal to the other's Feeling side.
> 
> I often find that some NFs tend to think they know more about my emotional life than I do myself. I'll give you a few examples:
> 
> -After telling my INFP friend that I thought putting hearts in one's messenger name if you're in a relationship is a really empty and useless sign of affection. She told me that I would think differently about it when I'd finally get into a meaningful relationship myself. She spoke with an air of confidence, as if she just knew what was best for me and as if I was just a stupid schoolboy who didn't know the first thing about my OWN feelings.
> -Similarly, an ENFJ acquaintance told me that my "lack of feelings" could be ascribed to my "weak sense of autonomy", because I had "never been in contact with my inner self". Once again an arrogant NF who presumes to know everything about me just because I shared one or two of my many ideas and feelings with him, which he then completely misrepresented in his arguments.
> -Then there was also this INFJ who constantly thought that I was sending all kind of signals in my speech that I wasn't sending (probably due to an over-active Ni or something), simply because she herself spoke in metaphors. Even though I was actually quite literal and blunt.
> 
> So, my questions to you NFs are:
> -Do you recognize this kind of behaviour in yourself and/or other NFs?
> -What do you think is the reason or the explanation for this kind of behaviour?
> -Do you think this has something to do with me being an INTP and NFs being weak at understanding and meeting the INTP's emotional needs and/or motivations?
> 
> 
> Thanks for reading! I hope that you'll find the time to share your thoughts. :wink:


Hmm, that must be personal experience in life, I don't find emotional intelligence nec. related to MBTI. Often has links, yes, but it's more than that!


----------



## Tetsuo Shima

NTs are way more arrogant. I have a whole lot of feelings, but only for myself.


----------



## Summery

The_Wanderer said:


> NFs are potentially the most arrogant of all the types; but also share the SF's skill with emotions and feelings - so they can also manipulate others better than NT's can.


I don't believe arrogance has anything to do with the cognitive function someone uses. Health of the functions plays a big part in this.


----------



## CrystallineSheep

That sounds like any personality, especially feelers in general, is capable of something like that.


----------



## TheQuirkyArtiste

-Do you recognize this kind of behavior in yourself and/or other NFs?
Yep. Not only have I been a total idiot in this area in the past, I've experienced it firsthand from other NFs. Particularly ENFJs, although most of them I can at least partially eventually win over.

-What do you think is the reason or the explanation for this kind of behavior?
I think because we think we know what we're doing. We have major confidence, i think, in what we know we're particularly good at, but no one is always right.

-Do you think this has something to do with me being an INTP and NFs being weak at understanding and meeting the INTP's emotional needs and/or motivations? 
I'm not sure if I know any INTPs, so I can't really answer this.


----------



## Empty

My Sweet Stalin said:


> This is completely wrong. The problem here isn't a personality difference, it's a philosophical difference. You're a logical positivist (whether you know it or not) and you're trying to argue with postmodernists who insist on deconstructing your arguments (whether they know it or not) and who know that meaning absolutely does not exist in a vacuum, but depends crucially on context, and you simply cannot get away from analyzing ideas and people together. The latter is the more modern view and you're just not on that page. You can't deal with it, so you're trying to blame it on personality types and put down people who are different from you in the process.
> 
> Edit to add: I am specifically saying that MBTI personality types have nothing to do with the matter expressed in the post I quoted, and that it is wrong to try to blame these differences on personality types.



This is so fucking stupid I cannot even decide where to start my deconstruction of the notions presented.

Jungian cognitive functions and archetypes have literally zero objective bearing to either logical positivism or postmodern contextualism (both of which are philosophical dead-ends to many contemporary philosophers, mind, so neither is 'up-to-speed' like the poster fucking insinuated). 

I see his individual hasn't been on for quite some time, but since this was at the beginning of the thread, I felt the urge to address it, as extreme absurdity carrying misinformation should not be allowed to sit uncontested.


----------



## Kyusaku

NFs aren't saints, just regular people, however awful regular people can be, so can be NFs. There is no better or worse, just different shades of crap.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen

My Sweet Stalin said:


> This is completely wrong. The problem here isn't a personality difference, it's a philosophical difference. You're a logical positivist (whether you know it or not) and you're trying to argue with postmodernists who insist on deconstructing your arguments (whether they know it or not) and who know that meaning absolutely does not exist in a vacuum, but depends crucially on context, and you simply cannot get away from analyzing ideas and people together. The latter is the more modern view and you're just not on that page. You can't deal with it, so you're trying to blame it on personality types and put down people who are different from you in the process.


Curious. What relevance do you think the nature of the person having the idea has to the idea? I can see it biasing the idea but I can't see that, itself, making the idea wrong.


----------

