# My Ne-Fi and her Fe-Ni



## ebullientcorner (Oct 5, 2012)

Hi you guys!
I am writing today to get some insight and perspective on my daughter who is almost 7. She is most certainly an ENFJ. ( I would rather not go into the whole " are you sure she's an ENFJ, cause she's so young and blah blah." thing because it's sort of useless. If you don't think it's possible to type so young, let's do a hypothetical and say she's an ENFJ. I'm not one for absolute truths anyway.)

Mostly, Fe eludes me. The only one that confuses me as much is Ni. I feel that I can understand them symbolically, but when it comes to practice, I am lost.

At times I feel like I offend something in her. I can't put my finger on it, and it leaves me reeling. I feel distant and helpless. I have an INTP husband who is quite close to her.
I trust her endlessly, but I just don't know how to communicate it. Too often I think I can come off cold? I am not sure. It's also funny that I am often the parent that draw the lines and boundaries.


Anyway, any help is much appreciated.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

As long as it stays playful and creative, Ne and Ni communication is a fun thing (in my experience). The problems and misunderstandings start when serious matters are involved (also in my experience). Ni is extremely self-propelling and can come off as stubborn when it feels forced to go against its principles. And Ne can seem to fleeting and superficial (even if very interesting and inspiring) to Ni, imo.

Sry but I didn't quite get what your exact question was.


----------



## ebullientcorner (Oct 5, 2012)

Miya said:


> As long as it stays playful and creative, Ne and Ni communication is a fun thing (in my experience). The problems and misunderstandings start when serious matters are involved (also in my experience). Ni is extremely self-propelling and can come off as stubborn when it feels forced to go against its principles. And Ne can seem to fleeting and superficial (even if very interesting and inspiring) to Ni, imo.
> 
> Sry but I didn't quite get what your exact question was.


Ah. Sorry. I can be a bit unclear 
I wrote in a hurry.
From what you said, I wonder if it's not our Fi and Fe that clashes? I think sometimes I can be just a bit of a hard-ass as opposed to my husband's more tender approach.
I see her absolute conclusions and have to fight myself from trying to get her to go at it a few ways. 
Mostly, I just want her to be happy. 
Is there a better way to praise her? Better things to help her with? Anything that you seemed to appreciate in childhood?


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

ebullientcorner said:


> From what you said, I wonder if it's not our Fi and Fe that clashes? I think sometimes I can be just a bit of a hard-ass as opposed to my husband's more tender approach.
> I see her absolute conclusions and have to fight myself from trying to get her to go at it a few ways.
> Mostly, I just want her to be happy.
> Is there a better way to praise her? Better things to help her with? Anything that you seemed to appreciate in childhood?


Hmm, yes in my experience it really is FiTe and TeFi that comes off as rigid and "hard-ass", because it won't move an inch from its set values. Fe is much more "bendable" and adjustable. I have clashes with my ENFP sister very often because I think she's too gullible (she gives random people way too much credit and justifies that with the naive "why would that person lie?" or "I think that person knows what s/he's talking about!", which for me is a fallacy. Always always check the information and never take others too seriously before you know they're right). 

Her Fi seems immovable to me, like a tree with roots too deep, it won't be swayed or bent in a way it doesn't want to. I think there is an admirable strength and beauty to this, yet there are situations when a certain change of attitude is more appropriate, or so my Fe reasons.

What I appreciated in childhood would be giving me the approval to pursue the things that truly interest me, even if it may displease your Fi. My TeFi father made a habit of removing things (and people) from my life he deemed "not good" for me, which only made me dislike him. Never mess with the freedom of choice of a Ni user, it's gonna turn against you the instant you set up that cage... Or so I felt when I was forbidden to do certain things (like read a book on a certain subject) when I was not given any reasonable explanation WHY it was "bad" for me.

It is important for children to know their boundaries, psychologists agree that a child who doesn't know his/hers becomes an unhappy being very quickly. So, forbidding stuff that's obviously harmful to your kid is obligatory, yet please try not to make the mistake of explaining it with "because it's BAD" or "because I said so". You're gonna lose all credibility and trust in your child's eyes (if it's an independent minded child). It makes the child think they know better than you even though you officially stand above them on the power ladder, which also often entails loss of trust in your intellectual and emotional prowess.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

I have a lot of ENFJ friends (some of whom I've known since I was a child) and the key is to sit down and explain in detail why you do things/feel things/want them to do things. They're really good listeners, and are really quick about people even as young children. I think you're right that the block is Fe versus Fi, and the key with that is talking through things. Also, there's definitely a weird thing where INTPs and ENFJs connect really well.

Could you give an example of the kind of things that confuse you or make you feel distant from her?


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

Pinning a type on somebody who is seven years old is irresponsible as fuck. It doesn't matter that you don't wanna hear people telling you this, you need to hear it. It's irresponsible as fuck. You're being irresponsible as fuck. This is a complete abuse of typology.


----------



## ebullientcorner (Oct 5, 2012)

Miya said:


> Hmm, yes in my experience it really is FiTe and TeFi that comes off as rigid and "hard-ass", because it won't move an inch from its set values. Fe is much more "bendable" and adjustable. I have clashes with my ENFP sister very often because I think she's too gullible (she gives random people way too much credit and justifies that with the naive "why would that person lie?" or "I think that person knows what s/he's talking about!", which for me is a fallacy. Always always check the information and never take others too seriously before you know they're right).
> 
> Her Fi seems immovable to me, like a tree with roots too deep, it won't be swayed or bent in a way it doesn't want to. I think there is an admirable strength and beauty to this, yet there are situations when a certain change of attitude is more appropriate, or so my Fe reasons.
> 
> ...



Oh how interesting!!!!! Thank you! I have another daughter that I think may be an ENFP, an this is so interesting. Just to watch them interact is pure joy to me.

As for your sister, that un-acquitted credulity will drop into more wisdom as time goes on. She needs to take it to the end of the line, or it will stay there. If she doesn't drop into the realm of skepticism - which is more healthy for an ENFP, I would consider another type. Would-be ENFPs are actually a bit angry, and sort of er... thought police in a way... though I would have to go into it more I suppose. Like any good strong Ne... think Dr. Who (though he is an NT, but he's good for this purpose), ENFP's get a 'point of no return' burner to their faith in humanity and people. I am a credulist to a point, then once that person has hit the point of no return or burnt that principle, it's fire... and I always separate actions and thoughts from the humanity and the person. 
Well, that was a tangent...
You are right. Both of you... 



randomshoes said:


> I have a lot of ENFJ friends (some of whom I've known since I was a child) and the key is to sit down and explain in detail why you do things/feel things/want them to do things. They're really good listeners, and are really quick about people even as young children. I think you're right that the block is Fe versus Fi, and the key with that is talking through things. Also, there's definitely a weird thing where INTPs and ENFJs connect really well.
> 
> Could you give an example of the kind of things that confuse you or make you feel distant from her?


Yes, both of you. There are times, I think that I feel most distant when I don't feel I have time to stop and explain myself, or my feelings. Even simple things like: " we need to get in the car." I feel it's almost insulting to feed them everything. I was fed everything verbally as a child. My husband is really good at explaining, but the 'logic doesn't always seem to follow to me? It always feels... arbitrary? I know that sounds silly. 

Though, there was this one time, that seemed like it would be an awful moment of parenting, and it seemed to actually work nicely. I have this terrible neighbor, like... moronic beyond definition. She set this boundary of playing that was mean to my children in so many words, and I had to go and tell my children they couldn't play.
So my daughter, the ENFJ, was really mad at me for making her come home... but it was really the other woman, and my daughter was having an emotional reaction to the way she was treated so I just explained that the lady was kind of mean. That it would have been fun to play with her daughter, but the lady was mean to her. I didn't know what else to do.
My daughter looked at me like I'd given her a gift. Because it properly defined the situation?What do you guys think?
I think you are right in that the more access I give her to the world, the more she enjoys it.


----------



## ebullientcorner (Oct 5, 2012)

Velasquez said:


> Pinning a type on somebody who is seven years old is irresponsible as fuck. It doesn't matter that you don't wanna hear people telling you this, you need to hear it. It's irresponsible as fuck. You're being irresponsible as fuck. This is a complete abuse of typology.



I am an Ne dominant. I live, literally in the land of theory and agnosticism. I have never been one to pin anything on anyone. 
My entire world is a constant movement of theories and considerations. 
Irresponsibility will truly be shown in the way my daughter turns out. 
I have studied typing since I was 12 years old, in all of it's iterations. 
But, if you are an INTP, then you will know that none of this matters, and you would be more curious than anything. I'd be willing to give you a fighting chance. But do not presume that everyone you come across doesn't know what they are doing -- or is doing what you are thinking.
What you said was ignorant, given the context. You didn't think it through properly. Beyond that, what society do you live in where you speak to a perfect stranger who asked for your help in such a fashion?


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

ebullientcorner said:


> What you said was ignorant


No it wasn't.



ebullientcorner said:


> You didn't think it through properly.


Yes I did.

--

Let's put your shit to the test. What makes you think that your 7 year old daughter is ENFJ?


----------



## ebullientcorner (Oct 5, 2012)

Velasquez said:


> No it wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No.
 Thanks though. If you wanted to help with the original question of Ne/ Fi connecting with Fe/ Ni. That would be really helpful.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

ebullientcorner said:


> No.
> Thanks though. If you wanted to help with the original question of Ne/ Fi connecting with Fe/ Ni. That would be really helpful.


My topic is more important though. I've seen people try to type their kids before. I've literally seen people go 'he has an imaginary friend so he's an intuitive'. And it's obvious to see why that can lead to problems. You go 'my kid's an INTP', take him to a load of maths things and chess competitions, and he sucks at them and you've failed him as a parent. He was never an INTP in the first place, he's an ESTP, but you applied the same process to typing your children as you did to typing adults and ended up neglecting the actual needs of your child because of your misguided faith in your own typology skillz, and your misguided faith in the notion that kids are even typable. So before I deal with the actual topic of the thread, I need confirmation that this is _not_ what you are doing. Why do you think your seven year old daughter is ENFJ?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I kind of second that children of the age of 7 are not really typable. I don't think my type and personality got really solidified until I got 10+ years old because that's when I began noting things in relation to the world that type can explain like intertype relatioships. Before that, I may have had tendencies but those weren't as determined as they got when I grew older. 

Even Jung thought children weren't typable because they had no real sense of ego.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

My own personal (wrong) theory about this is that children basically try out a load of different approaches to life, and then end up veering towards and sticking with the one that gets the best reaction out of the people around them, which ends up forming their personality at a later date. So like, one day they take a stab at Ti shit, and nothing really happens. A couple of weeks later they take a stab at Te shit, and their parents are like 'oooh good boy', so they're like 'I should do that stuff more often'. Like, they experiment with wearing all the personalities like suits, and over time certain ones get eroded away until they're left with just one. Obviously that's not what happens, but maybe it's something like that.


----------



## ebullientcorner (Oct 5, 2012)

Velasquez said:


> My topic is more important though. I've seen people try to type their kids before. I've literally seen people go 'he has an imaginary friend so he's an intuitive'. And it's obvious to see why that can lead to problems. You go 'my kid's an INTP', take him to a load of maths things and chess competitions, and he sucks at them and you've failed him as a parent. He was never an INTP in the first place, he's an ESTP, but you applied the same process to typing your children as you did to typing adults and ended up neglecting the actual needs of your child because of your misguided faith in your own typology skillz, and your misguided faith in the notion that kids are even typable. So before I deal with the actual topic of the thread, I need confirmation that this is _not_ what you are doing. Why do you think your seven year old daughter is ENFJ?





ephemereality said:


> I kind of second that children of the age of 7 are not really typable. I don't think my type and personality got really solidified until I got 10+ years old because that's when I began noting things in relation to the world that type can explain like intertype relatioships. Before that, I may have had tendencies but those weren't as determined as they got when I grew older.
> 
> Even Jung thought children weren't typable because they had no real sense of ego.






Thanks for your concern. I wouldn't trust most people with typing, and don't. 
Infact, I don't even really trust myself with it.
Good thing, as I said before, I am an Ne dominant and live in a world of concept and agnosticism. I throw theories up, and I don't really believe in any of them. I don't have faith, I have theories.

However, my own experience make me more biased toward potential typings at a younger age. It's much more personal. I was raised in an extremely religious culture (mormon). Very. I was the youngest of four children and the only N for miles. I was introduced to typing by an ENTJ at the age of 12. 


With my family being all S types and extremely religious, it would have been very helpful to at least consider that I was at least capable of cognitively thinking differently than them.

I am not pinning my child into a type, but rather considering and questioning how she sees and perceives the world differently from me. I am hoping to give her autonomy, consideration, and safety in her thoughts-- WHATEVER they may be. Whatever she does, I let her do. And then I adjust to her. 


I am a fundamentally unstructured person. I guess if there was someone more structured, I would agree with you, but I feel that way about a lot of structured things. 

Thank you for your theories. I will certainly take them into consideration.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ebullientcorner said:


> Thanks for your concern. I wouldn't trust most people with typing, and don't.
> Infact, I don't even really trust myself with it.
> Good thing, as I said before, I am an Ne dominant and live in a world of concept and agnosticism. I throw theories up, and I don't really believe in any of them. I don't have faith, I have theories.
> 
> ...


How sure are you that you are an Fi type? Not because I necessarily want to call your type into question, but since this is about you trying to understand your child, it seems to me that you yourself is actually an Fe type, so if you apply the logic of "I'm an ENFP and my child is an ENFJ" but you got your type wrong, everything else you will conclude based on your type will be wrong including your child's type, and these perceived differences you think may be there or not may not be there at all.

Most importantly though, why even bother trying to figure out your child through the logos of type? Why not see your child for who it is and simply operate on that? You don't need a type in order to understand someone. A type merely offers a structure with reliable results, but those results were already in place before the definition of type was formulated.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> How sure are you that you are an Fi type?


Haha, I didn't wanna say anything, but amusingly I've been operating under the assumption that the OP is actually ENFJ herself.


----------



## ebullientcorner (Oct 5, 2012)

Velasquez said:


> My own personal (wrong) theory about this is that children basically try out a load of different approaches to life, and then end up veering towards and sticking with the one that gets the best reaction out of the people around them, which ends up forming their personality at a later date. So like, one day they take a stab at Ti shit, and nothing really happens. A couple of weeks later they take a stab at Te shit, and their parents are like 'oooh good boy', so they're like 'I should do that stuff more often'. Like, they experiment with wearing all the personalities like suits, and over time certain ones get eroded away until they're left with just one. Obviously that's not what happens, but maybe it's something like that.



Hm. I like that.

I had a college professor once that said it's all nurture. She was SO smart. Like to die for smart. I wanted to be her.


Then I had a friend in the class who said that his kids came out screaming their personalities. It was an interesting exchange.

I was pregnant with my first kid at the time.

I couldn't really say, but I guess in my experience I feel there is very little I can do to shape my children ( not that I want to), but so much power I feel my parents have to shape me.... and yet I look at my parents and see that they feel powerless.
Though they are more of the 'active shaper' types.

The brain works mysteriously (to us). 


My Te was more highly developed because of the way I was raised. I had to use it a lot with my parents, it's all my dad would listen to. When i got married, I went back to what I was meant to be. Weird no?


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

ebullientcorner said:


> I would rather not go into the whole " are you sure she's an ENFJ, cause she's so young and blah blah." thing because it's sort of useless. If you don't think it's possible to type so young, let's do a hypothetical and say she's an ENFJ. I'm not one for absolute truths anyway.




I'm not one for them much either, though it sort of depends. But for what it's worth, I recommend going more in depth into what being an ENFJ constitutes to you, why you're linking the enigmatic responses to Fe or Ni. 
I don't mind if you take a guess that this is her type (and it looks like you are willing to revise it based on further consideration), but I know you'll gain very little without filling in the gaps of what it is you actually mean when you say she's an ENFJ. People change their types like _wild_ on the forums here, because they discover new info or whatever that leads them to a different conclusion, until eventually they get to a stable result. So it's better to keep in mind that the explanations of your relation to your daughter may not be directly linked to Fe or Ni than to decide from the outset that this is the case --- but if you're an Ne-dom, I imagine you have some capacity for stomaching this sort of thing.

The reason here is that it helps to really isolate what of the conflict here is _not _type dependent. And then, type will help provide the right perspective on things and so forth, but not become a way to explain things that it really isn't meant to. At best, some things type-unrelated conceptually may be related on a statistical correlation basis, e.g. so and so cognitive type is likely statistically to be this and this way (based on manifestations of that type in nature being common or uncommon to occur in certain fashions).

As to conflicts, well if someone is a feeling dominant and you an intuitive, there is already a big potential difference. One thing that could be a conflict is I think in practical interaction, Ne can seem a bit reckless as compared to how the feeling dominant wants to proceed. E.g. maybe if you suggested 100 directions suggested by intuition that she could go, stemming from a certain point with minimal rationalization, right after she expressed her feelings on something, this might seem to her not to be taking into account her feelings, when it might be your way of "wanting to help" -- i.e. offering her some kind of intuitive data. 

I'm not _quite _sure that it's an Fe vs Fi conflict either -- it could be. But look what you write here ---




> From what you said, I wonder if it's not our Fi and Fe that clashes? I think sometimes I can be just a bit of a hard-ass as opposed to my husband's more tender approach.
> *I see her absolute conclusions and have to fight myself from trying to get her to go at it a few ways.*




It can be really characteristic of feeling dominants to be extremely sharp to conclude something in the realm of feeling from the start, and be confident enough in this that they see little need to revise it. And this isn't stubborn v. not stubborn at work -- an irrational dominant type who has concluded something may never feel the need to revise it, but they might have a lot more psychological stamina towards gathering data without placing it in a coherent rational framework.



As to Fe-Ti v Fi-Te, well, I really have to say, while there's this general tendency on the forum to look at Fi as brash and unbending, and Fe as not...is this warranted? I don't think so personally. Fi bends for different reasons from Fe. Fe can be equally unbending, but in fact for some of the opposite reasons, i.e. due to the rejection of Fi, i.e. its aim and direction are distinct and thus certain kinds of data which the Fi type finds decisive to bending may completely not move the Fe type. 

And here is a case where I'll say, what if you are correct she is a feeling dominant, but not about her cognition being extraverted like yours? Perhaps she is Fi>Ne, for instance. That is a _very_ different type in a lot of cases. A strong Fi preference to Ne can nearly totally change how the person looks.

That said, Myers' theory does have auxiliaries for a reason as key part of the type characterization (this is WHY there are 16 types, not just 8), meaning the imbalance potentially caused by a stronghold of a dom function is supposed to be offset somewhat by the auxiliary.



Some things here seem very non-type-related. It's almost always a good idea to me to explain what you can about your conclusions to a child, or to anyone you demand something of. I have always needed explanations for literally everything, and drove most people half crazy by incessant questioning all through my years.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Velasquez said:


> Haha, I didn't wanna say anything, but amusingly I've been operating under the assumption that the OP is actually ENFJ herself.


Same. Hence, it begs the question "my child is an ENFJ and she's different from me" whether this is actually applicable or not. Perhaps the child is just what a child is and hence different because it is after all a different individual from yourself. I find this difficult for Fe types to understand too.


----------



## ebullientcorner (Oct 5, 2012)

Sorry, a bit of info coming at me here. I'll try to cover it all. 



ephemereality said:


> How sure are you that you are an Fi type? Not because I necessarily want to call your type into question, but since this is about you trying to understand your child, it seems to me that you yourself is actually an Fe type, so if you apply the logic of "I'm an ENFP and my child is an ENFJ" but you got your type wrong, everything else you will conclude based on your type will be wrong including your child's type, and these perceived differences you think may be there or not may not be there at all.
> 
> Most importantly though, why even bother trying to figure out your child through the logos of type? Why not see your child for who it is and simply operate on that? You don't need a type in order to understand someone. A type merely offers a structure with reliable results, but those results were already in place before the definition of type was formulated.





Velasquez said:


> Haha, I didn't wanna say anything, but amusingly I've been operating under the assumption that the OP is actually ENFJ herself.





ephemereality said:


> Same. Hence, it begs the question "my child is an ENFJ and she's different from me" whether this is actually applicable or not. Perhaps the child is just what a child is and hence different because it is after all a different individual from yourself. I find this difficult for Fe types to understand too.





ephemereality said:


> How sure are you that you are an Fi type? Not because I necessarily want to call your type into question, but since this is about you trying to understand your child, it seems to me that you yourself is actually an Fe type, so if you apply the logic of "I'm an ENFP and my child is an ENFJ" but you got your type wrong, everything else you will conclude based on your type will be wrong including your child's type, and these perceived differences you think may be there or not may not be there at all.
> 
> Most importantly though, why even bother trying to figure out your child through the logos of type? Why not see your child for who it is and simply operate on that? You don't need a type in order to understand someone. A type merely offers a structure with reliable results, but those results were already in place before the definition of type was formulated.





Velasquez said:


> Haha, I didn't wanna say anything, but amusingly I've been operating under the assumption that the OP is actually ENFJ herself.



I am most definitely an Fi. I am genuinely confused. I am being questioned in a few posts over my type, yet after 7 years of knowing someone, despite age, you can't know their type? Child or not. 

My daughter lives in a dream world. Not for fun, not as a diversion, or as amusement. She tries to intuit things without any information at all. She's exceptional at understanding the concept of things...but genuinely struggles to understand the physical...er... rendering of it?

Spacy is an understatement, yet she IS structured, but not in an 'SJ' way -- you will forgive the generalization, I use it for speed (rules, policies, procedures, regulations-- all the physical things don't matter). She is clearly a J - she directs the behaviors of others. She has rigid perception. She deeply scrutinizes even the most basic things. Like "Be kind". It's not because she's uncaring, but you have to explain it to her in the abstract for her to get it. She doesn't just walk into a room and get things. She walks into a room and doesn't get anything. Some people even think she is slow because of this. 

She is very light on details. She can't tell you anything about her friends at school, but she can tell you a lot about what she think their nature is. AND she's very insightful about that, and very popular.

Although she is oblivious to her popularity. (which is interesting) She is very social. 


As for my own Fi etc. I am an Fi. 
I will raise my eyebrows at you. Just kidding.

If you met me, you would laugh and know it too. I don't need to give you definitions of Fi and show you how I fit perfectly into it. I will decide my own morals. I have to. I will be my own judge, I will be my own jury, and I will do it better than anyone. I have to behave morally. One of my morals is caring for my daughter. Connecting with her is absolute. Seeing her properly is absolute. I genuinely don't understand Fe, and I find it interesting that you guys saw me as an Fe. Feelings, for their own sake are nothing to me. I will search every feeling, every moral and distill it to the point of reckoning.... unless a good show is on. (that's where I love me some good Ne.) 

Not to mention, I need people to think at (Te). I can't do logic without context. However, I can do morality without context. I resist morality WITH context. 

People always say, " It's alright Gretch because of this this this and this." But it's not okay. There's a right and a wrong that spans exists out of time or place and spans forever. To attach morality to context is...poison. 

I also heavily suppress the sensory. It is my bane and is very much my peripheral, and the ultimate stress when it arises. 












bearotter said:


> I'm not one for them much either, though it sort of depends. But for what it's worth, I recommend going more in depth into what being an ENFJ constitutes to you, why you're linking the enigmatic responses to Fe or Ni.
> I don't mind if you take a guess that this is her type (and it looks like you are willing to revise it based on further consideration), but I know you'll gain very little without filling in the gaps of what it is you actually mean when you say she's an ENFJ. People change their types like _wild_ on the forums here, because they discover new info or whatever that leads them to a different conclusion, until eventually they get to a stable result. So it's better to keep in mind that the explanations of your relation to your daughter may not be directly linked to Fe or Ni than to decide from the outset that this is the case --- but if you're an Ne-dom, I imagine you have some capacity for stomaching this sort of thing.
> 
> The reason here is that it helps to really isolate what of the conflict here is _not _type dependent. And then, type will help provide the right perspective on things and so forth, but not become a way to explain things that it really isn't meant to. At best, some things type-unrelated conceptually may be related on a statistical correlation basis, e.g. so and so cognitive type is likely statistically to be this and this way (based on manifestations of that type in nature being common or uncommon to occur in certain fashions).
> ...



This was an exceptionally thought through post. Very insightful. Hopefully I did some of what you suggested in paragraph 1 above. But, really,I see how saying what it means to you helps distill it's essence. I suppose. 

---

Just digesting... The bit about it being Ne vs Fe is very fascinating and resonates loudly. that I could be hurting her feelings. I think that might be a source of collision. 

I guess, do you think... hm... Her feelings are hurt. 

I must confess, if I haven't already, that I have a very difficult time with Fe. Or, rather, I have always been confused by its aims -- feeling (wrongly) it's had the same goals I have had. And obviously misjudging it. I have never had to properly learn how get along with a dominant Fe. Learning about it has helped. 

I guess I will have to trust her process. She can come up with feelings about very irrational things at times though (that mostly I can't do), and I'm never sure -- rather, can't give them weight or relate. 

I have tried to be more expressive-- feelings wise--, but it's so difficult, and I'm not even sure what will matter.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ebullientcorner said:


> snip


Let's start with what you think Fe and Fi is. 



> My daughter lives in a dream world.


Not intuition in a Jungian sense though in a stereotype MBTI sense, yes. 



> Not for fun, not as a diversion, or as amusement. She tries to intuit things without any information at all. She's exceptional at understanding the concept of things...but genuinely struggles to understand the physical...er... rendering of it?


Sorry, but this doesn't mean anything. She could just be an intelligent child for her age. Ability to understand a concept does not directly correlate to intuition and inability to understand the world in a concrete way does not correlate to intuition either.

I would first of all advise picking up a child development book if you haven't already. A lot o what you attribute to functions here could easily be explained by the natural development pattern children follow as they grow up. I mean seriously, what child has a good sense of reality and isn't clumsy at the age of 7 one degree or another?



> Spacy is an understatement, yet she IS structured, but not in an 'SJ' way -- you will forgive the generalization, I use it for speed (rules, policies, procedures, regulations-- all the physical things don't matter). She is clearly a J - she directs the behaviors of others.


The letter J is unique to the MBTI system but has nothing to do with cognitive functions more than it intends to denote that the person has an extroverted judgement function as auxiliary or dominant. However, I think this is a misattribution Myers did. If you study say socionics, you will find they claim something different - every judging dominant that is, someone who prefers T or F as their dominant function, is going to be structured. I almost always score INTP on tests. Why? Because I'm first of all Ni-Se. I'm actually inclined to think socionics got it more right and MBTI wrong, though none got it entirely right. In a pure Jungian sense, being structured or not relates more to what Jung would call persona.



> She has rigid perception. She deeply scrutinizes even the most basic things. Like "Be kind". It's not because she's uncaring, but you have to explain it to her in the abstract for her to get it.


To be honest, your kid sounds like a Ji dom based on this.



> She doesn't just walk into a room and get things. She walks into a room and doesn't get anything. Some people even think she is slow because of this.


Even more reason to think judging dominant perhaps, depending on how to interpret the situation.



> She is very light on details. She can't tell you anything about her friends at school, but she can tell you a lot about what she think their nature is. AND she's very insightful about that, and very popular.


Depending on what she's talking about would be more determining regarding her type that is, the kind of info she's conveying, than that she's talking at all. 



> As for my own Fi etc. I am an Fi.
> I will raise my eyebrows at you. Just kidding.
> 
> If you met me, you would laugh and know it too.


Would I? Your cognition in your post here doesn't tell me that you reason based on Fi. It's very Fe-derived in a dominant sense.



> I will decide my own morals. I have to. I will be my own judge, I will be my own jury, and I will do it better than anyone. I have to behave morally. One of my morals is caring for my daughter. Connecting with her is absolute. Seeing her properly is absolute. I genuinely don't understand Fe, and I find it interesting that you guys saw me as an Fe. Feelings, for their own sake are nothing to me. I will search every feeling, every moral and distill it to the point of reckoning.... unless a good show is on. (that's where I love me some good Ne.)


This isn't Fi. Anyone can be moralistic or not moralistic. The only difference in Fe and Fi is where people draw their values from - is it from the outside or the inside? Where is the person's cognitive focus? Is it on the outside or the inside? 

This here for example is a perfect example of extroverted feeling:


> One of my morals is caring for my daughter. Connecting with her is absolute. Seeing her properly is absolute.


You are doing several things that suggests extroversion here:

You see your daughter as an object (and I don't mean this negatively but I am merely using the words Jung used when describing introversion-extroversion)of feeling/emotion/value/whatever, and you focus on your relationship she has with you as opposed to how you feel about her. Because you see her as an object you are describing her properties in terms of feeling content in an objective way. Your focus is on her. An Fi type doesn't do this. They focus on what they feel about their daughter because their primary point of view when it comes to feeling is themselves because they see themselves as subjects. Examples of Fi sentiments would be:

I like my daughter very much and I would like to connect with her better because I feel we could be closer than we are. I think it's important we're close because it's important for parents to have a good relationship with their children. I wish I could understand her better than I do because I think I am sometimes bad at understanding other people's point of views. I hope that if I can understand get to know her better so we can cultivate a good parent-child relationship, that it will improve both of our lives. 

Notice how in every instance when referring to the child/daughter, it's done from the person's point of view. It's about how the person (the subject) feels about the object, as opposed to only dealing with the object and focusing on the object itself. 



> I genuinely don't understand Fe, and I find it interesting that you guys saw me as an Fe. Feelings, for their own sake are nothing to me. I will search every feeling, every moral and distill it to the point of reckoning.... unless a good show is on. (that's where I love me some good Ne.)


I wonder what you think Fe is, but I think it's more in the lines of how MBTI stereotypically portrays which honestly doesn't capture Fe well at all. This here seems to indicate you are feeling dominant anyway, since you claim you don't care much for feeling itself but it is the rationalization process you care for, which is true for feeling dominants. Many feeling doms mistype themeselves as thinking types because they experience themselves as so emotionally detached and rational, misunderstanding that rationality itself has nothing to do with thinking in an actual function sense.



> Not to mention, I need people to think at (Te). I can't do logic without context. However, I can do morality without context. I resist morality WITH context.


That's the thing though - Te is logic without context. Te is objective logic hence, it varies with context, hence, it can deduce things without context because it simply draws upon whatever generalized data that exists and the Te type is aware of.



> People always say, " It's alright Gretch because of this this this and this." But it's not okay. There's a right and a wrong that spans exists out of time or place and spans forever. To attach morality to context is...poison.


Herein you actually decry Fi-Te as something you don't like. Fi attaches morality to context. Fe does not.



> I also heavily suppress the sensory. It is my bane and is very much my peripheral, and the ultimate stress when it arises.


Define sensation.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

ebullientcorner said:


> I am being questioned in a few posts over my type, yet after 7 years of knowing someone, despite age, you can't know their type? Child




To comment on this, the main reason I think type is hard to decide on for a child is that one reason we use type because it's some sort of _stable _anchoring behind a lot of phenomena related to our cognitive orientation. You probably have that. Not that someone can necessarily tell your type accurately without digging further, and extensively discussing with you, but I think the idea is that the suggestions are at least based on the idea that you have some stability to your orientation towards information.

Even then, a lot of things don't remain stable under the functions POV -- we develop, if we're using type for development. Most certainly, I don't think it's always meaningful to pin someone as per their "top two" functions, as the MBTI tends to do, because depending on who it is, the second function may not even be that meaningful in characterizing them. Sometimes it's really the top function which defines their cognition so severely that the second is kind of fluff. Sometimes not. Sometimes three functions will be prominent in describing the conscious type structure.
Sometimes someone's such a sensor that it's kind of meaningless to really call 'em SF, ST, etc beyond just their external presentation .. though one can attempt to do so anyway. 

If all these things can develop, change, etc in an adult, at least the adult has some sense of consistent anchoring -- what people I think are getting at is the child may simply not, and that while you may see certain cognitive tendencies right now, it may not constitute a _type_ proper, as these tendencies may be wildly unstable, whereas type development is based on the premise that there are certain central paradigms guiding our cognition, and tell us we need to work on ourselves in certain central ways as a _result_​ of that -- until we know those paradigms are central, however, such a conclusion might not be warranted.

One of the ways an alternate theory called socionics addresses it is that instead of organizing by temperament, aka NF, NT (OK yes it has this too technically but bear with me), it has an immensely higher amount of descriptive concepts that tells you what each of the 16 types is, plus subtypes. 
Now socionics has its problems in terms of how the theory is at times presented, but then so do most presentations and most theories due to over-emphasis on something at the expense of other important ones -- we deal with it and take things that make sense, that's that.

edit -- think of my last paragraph as a contrast with paragraph 2, which was intended to detail variations within an adult's type structure, as compared either with other adults, or as compared with themselves in different phases of life. There's a little less of a raw hierarchy concept blatantly driving the socionics model (despite there being plenty of ways one can infer one), and instead a lot of explanations as to what occupying a certain place in the model is, apart from hierarchical data, which just makes for a different organizational scheme.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Anyway at the OP; I don't really care what your type is, but I would strongly advise against typing your child simply because I think you will get your child's type wrong because you yourself do not fully know how to type, which becomes apparent with how you here on the one hand want to discuss functions, but then mix up with MBTI definitions that got nothing to do with function theory.

As such, you will not get the kind of information you are really looking for without projecting certain things onto your child as others have already expressed is a potential end result no matter how genuinely you think you can see your child's needs objectively. The truth is that you don't and therein lies your own cognitive bias we all possess but this is yours, specifically. You need to realize that your child is her own individual unrelated to you and separate from you and she may not at all be appreciative of the idea that you cannot understand this and this may itself be a great source of conflict when you try to "relate" to and "understand" her, but she feels you actually do none of those things but instead simply see her as an object to be compared to other objects.

It's hurtful to the greatest degree. Don't type your child, simply and don't try to understand her through your own type label, whatever label you decide to carry. She's more than a label and is worthy as a human being to be valued as such.


----------



## ebullientcorner (Oct 5, 2012)

Uhm. I disagree. The reason why I put the addendum in the OP was because I only wanted advice on the theory. I am a psych major, I've taken child's development courses. No, I don't think of my child as an object, I think you could be projecting.  What more should I say? I think we should agree to disagree. I am sure there are plenty of things you all would tell your children I would consider harmful.
I'm annoyed with lawyering. If you can't attach to the essence of what I am trying to do, then you don't get it. I know what Fe and Fi are, and I don't have to reiterate it in a post to prove it to anyone. 
I just wanted help with a question. You don't have to prove my type or my child's type to answer it. If you want to help me with that, I'd like that. If not, that is more than fine. Go start a thread about typing children somewhere else.
I know you guys have the best intentions; I think they are misplaced.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Don't know who the below is and is not addressed to. But FWIW I answered what I think is a likely divergence experienced between typical Ne-cognition and a feeling dominant's cognition (without necessarily typing you or your child). Although again, it doesn't have to be that way -- lots and lots of exceptions.

From discussions with tons of people of adult age, I think you'll find it a general theme in my expression of views on typology that it's important to clarify what is and isn't really type-related.



ebullientcorner said:


> I know you guys have the best intentions; I think they are misplaced.​





​


----------



## ebullientcorner (Oct 5, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Anyway at the OP; I don't really care what your type is, but I would strongly advise against typing your child simply because I think you will get your child's type wrong because you yourself do not fully know how to type, which becomes apparent with how you here on the one hand want to discuss functions, but then mix up with MBTI definitions that got nothing to do with function theory.
> 
> As such, you will not get the kind of information you are really looking for without projecting certain things onto your child as others have already expressed is a potential end result no matter how genuinely you think you can see your child's needs objectively. The truth is that you don't and therein lies your own cognitive bias we all possess but this is yours, specifically. You need to realize that your child is her own individual unrelated to you and separate from you and she may not at all be appreciative of the idea that you cannot understand this and this may itself be a great source of conflict when you try to "relate" to and "understand" her, but she feels you actually do none of those things but instead simply see her as an object to be compared to other objects.
> 
> It's hurtful to the greatest degree. Don't type your child, simply and don't try to understand her through your own type label, whatever label you decide to carry. She's more than a label and is worthy as a human being to be valued as such.



If my daughter came up to me and told me she was a purple elephant tomorrow, I would support her. Anything she wants to be, male or an ISTP she can be. I merely try to observe. But I will do it with as many tools as I can. 'Not labeling' is impossible for me. And ridiculous. Why would you tell me to be something I am not?
You accused me of the worst kinds of things. I DO understand that my daughter is different from me and I catalogue her behaviors to benefit her and to protect her from my biases, not to restrain her. The more aware I am the better. Labels are necessary to my cognitive process. (Though I don't push this on her. I have never talked to her about typing)
You however, have done exactly what you accuse me of. You make judgments without any information whatsoever based on preconceived notions of how things are meant to be. You think no child should be categorized and then thrust this belief onto those who do not share your functions, thus inhibiting things that can be very beneficial. You may so often be right. You may so often be good in this thought, but it would almost be an accident.
Of COURSE my child is her own person. What on earth have I said other than presuming a possible typing that could suggest I felt anything but that? It makes me think that you have not read my words, just taken out a swords and played hack and slash with morality. LISTEN TO ME. I am agnostic to who she is, but I must understand from all angles. 
Don't you dare to presume to tell me the morality of thinking about what type my child MIGHT be. How presumptuous. I do not know everything, but I do know certain monumental things. You can't run away from bias, you can only understand it. I only have one option, and that is to understand as much as possible, to induct as much as possible. 
Her living a full life to the measure of HER creation is my aim. So, we have a common goal.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

ebullientcorner said:


> I am agnostic to who she is, but I must understand from all angles.


No you fucking aren't. You say in your introductory post, and I quote -_ "She is most certainly an ENFJ."_


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Velasquez said:


> No you fucking aren't. You say in your introductory post, and I quote -_ "She is most certainly an ENFJ."_


I think that there most certainly is not a god in a Judeo-Christian sense. 

However, I am an agnostic. 

I need to see things from different angles in order to understand it in a greater context.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

arkigos said:


> I think that there most certainly is not a god in a Judeo-Christian sense.
> 
> However, I am an agnostic.
> 
> I need to see things from different angles in order to understand it in a greater context.


That kind of thinking does_ not _gel with me at all.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

ebullientcorner said:


> Would-be ENFPs are actually a bit angry, and sort of er... thought police in a way... though I would have to go into it more I suppose. Like any good strong Ne... think Dr. Who (though he is an NT, but he's good for this purpose), ENFP's get a 'point of no return' burner to their faith in humanity and people. I am a credulist to a point, then once that person has hit the point of no return or burnt that principle, it's fire... and I always separate actions and thoughts from the humanity and the person.
> 
> There are times, I think that I feel most distant when I don't feel I have time to stop and explain myself, or my feelings. Even simple things like: " we need to get in the car." I feel it's almost insulting to feed them everything. I was fed everything verbally as a child. My husband is really good at explaining, but the 'logic doesn't always seem to follow to me? It always feels... arbitrary? I know that sounds silly.
> 
> ...


First of all, I think you're spot on about the way ENFPs tend to be pretty cynical and definitely have that specific breaking point. I really identify with that. And I love the Doctor. 

Second, I think you're exactly right. _Explain_ what's happening to her, and it will make sense. That's good advice for any parent, really. "Because I say so," never helped anyone.

Now, there's a lot of...stuff going on in this thread about typing children. I will say this: I believe that children that young have a primary function and only a primary function. So, strictly speaking, I'm going on the assumption that your daughter is an ExFJ right now. It may be possible to guess at her second function, but I don't think those are particularly set until high school or so (maybe middle school). Not that it matters. The problem you're having is to do with Fe anyway. Essentially, you're trying to speak to Fe ONLY, and the fact that she's got nothing else softening it is hard.

I think the discussion of your type is not useful, and I'm not at all sure where people are getting Fe use from. It concerns me. I think people use Fe as an accusation, as if it's bad. It's not bad, and it's not shallow. It's not a label for people you don't like. Even if it's your inferior.

Back to the actual point: Je children are already not into other people making decisions, so you really have to give them all the information. Then you're giving them a chance to come to the same conclusion you did, understand and connect to you better, and in the process build up trust in your reasoning so that if a situation arises where you simply can't explain to them why you need them to do something, they might be able to trust you. Might. 

And the idea that you're somehow confining your child by thinking abstractly about how her brain works in an attempt to understand it is, frankly, bullshit. Even if you can't truly type children accurately, _so what?_ It doesn't matter in the slightest. People need to learn the difference between talking and acting. You are not constricting your child by trying to understand her. That's absurd. It's wonderful that you're trying to connect with her and are spending this much time thinking about how she thinks. Frankly, most parents don't learn to treat their children as separate human beings until well after high school. The respect you have for your daughter is impressive, and she's privileged to have you as a mother.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I think that there most certainly is not a god in a Judeo-Christian sense.
> 
> However, I am an agnostic.
> 
> I need to see things from different angles in order to understand it in a greater context.


*cough* Ne *cough*



Velasquez said:


> That kind of thinking does_ not _gel with me at all.


INTP, huh?


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

I have some ideas that may help. They are from a theory I have relating cognitive functions to emotions and it is just a theory so please excuse me if it is not accurate (and I very much welcome feedback).

Ne, Ni, Fe, Fi are advancements over the basic emotions of: Surprise, Anticipation, Joy, and Sadness, respectively. Both Ne<->Ni and Fe<->Fi are opposed to eachother in some sense. Surprise opposes anticipation and vice versa (unexpected things destroy anticipation's ability to predict the future, and predicting the future accurately destroys surprise's ability to be unexpected). Joy opposes Sadness and vice versa (the desire to prevent losing valued resources is at odds with the the desire to gain valued resources, when Joy takes, Sadness feels loss; and on the flip side when Sadness seeks empathy, Joy sees a gain). 

These may be related to some of the trouble you have interacting with your daughter. Hope it helps. I can go into more detail specific to how ENFP and ENFJ use each of these emotions if you don't think I'm way off the mark.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

randomshoes said:


> INTP, huh?


Go on...


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

@Velasquez
I was pointing out that this:


arkigos said:


> I need to see things from different angles in order to understand it in a greater context.


is pretty much just a description of Ne, so I'm curious why you don't identify with it.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

randomshoes said:


> @_Velasquez_
> I was pointing out that this:
> 
> is pretty much just a description of Ne, so I'm curious why you don't identify with it.


Because INTPs lead with a judging function. Ne looks at things from lots of different angles, but then Ti sifts through all of that stuff and comes up with the correct answer. Staying in a permanent state of 'I don't know anything it could be like I mean anything is possible mannnn' is fine for Ne dominants, but no good for me. Just because I've made a final decision about something doesn't mean that I didn't start off by considering it from lots of different angles.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

@Velasquez

But what he was saying was that he hadn't made a decision yet; he was still in the trying out different possibilities phase. And I make decisions too; I hate the "anything is possible" bullshit. Some things are clearly not possible. I am in possession of a judging function, or I wouldn't be able to function as an adult. Also, Fi is much more permanent and unmoving than Ti is. So once I make a decision I will become considerably more immovable than a Ti user would ever be comfortable with (Te adds to this tendency).

My experience with INTPs (I'm dating one) is that they try on a possibility, explore it and see if it has internal logic, and then determine whether it has any theoretical value or not. If it doesn't, they throw it out, but if it does they keep it around, and _then pick up another possibility._ I've never known my girlfriend to throw out a theory until she found an internal contradiction, or to reject a new theory because she had already found one that so far seemed to work. In other words, at any given time they have their best theory (in the scientific sense of something that has been repeatedly supported by tests), but it can change if they find a better one. They're really fairly flexible people, in the grand scheme of things. 

I'd guess what happened here is that you already spotted something that seemed to be an internal contradiction and rejected the theory, but arkigos was still testing it. I was just surprised that you didn't recognize that behavior. And, as for the example of being agnostic, I think he was saying (and correct me if I'm wrong, @arkigos) that there are some theories he can't test for internal logic because he simply doesn't have enough information. Just like I have to make decisions in my life, INTPs have to _not_ make decisions in their life.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

randomshoes said:


> I'd guess what happened here is that you already spotted something that seemed to be an internal contradiction and rejected the theory, but arkigos was still testing it. I was just surprised that you didn't recognize that behavior. And, as for the example of being agnostic, I think he was saying (and correct me if I'm wrong, @_arkigos_) that there are some theories he can't test for internal logic because he simply doesn't have enough information. Just like I have to make decisions in my life, INTPs have to _not_ make decisions in their life.


I suppose another INTP trait can be that they withdraw from the world until they have fully worked through a problem and come to a decision about it. So it's not so much the fact that he was undecided about something that I couldn't click with...it was the fact that he decided to announce his indecision in the thread as a static opinion. To me, the word 'agnostic'...it's like saying 'I have decided that I am undecided about this', which is just weird to me. If I'm undecided about something, then that's uncomfortable for me. I wouldn't tell anybody...that would be like admitting a weakness, haha. So when I said that I couldn't gel with that kind of thinking...that's probably not what I meant, I probably meant that I couldn't gel with that kind of presentation of that kind of thinking. Does that make any sense?


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

Velasquez said:


> I suppose another INTP trait can be that they withdraw from the world until they have fully worked through a problem and come to a decision about it. So it's not so much the fact that he was undecided about something that I couldn't click with...it was the fact that he decided to announce his indecision in the thread as a static opinion. To me, the word 'agnostic'...it's like saying 'I have decided that I am undecided about this', which is just weird to me. If I'm undecided about something, then that's uncomfortable for me. I wouldn't tell anybody...that would be like admitting a weakness, haha. So when I said that I couldn't gel with that kind of thinking...that's probably not what I meant, I probably meant that I couldn't gel with that kind of presentation of that kind of thinking. Does that make any sense?


Hmm, that's fascinating. Yeah, I think there's a lot of variation in how comfortable people are with sharing their thought processes before they're completely...processed. An unwillingness to do that is probably more associated with your relative level of introversion, how much confidence you have in that area, and what you might see as a show of weakness. I don't at all get the fear of being seen as weak, but it's quite possibly an INTP thing as my girlfriend definitely says things like that (although about really different things). I also think Ne doms over share in an intense, stream-of-consciousness way, so it doesn't always occur to me that people _wait_ and _think_ before they talk or post, not to mention perhaps sparing people every detail of how they got to their conclusion.  

I do think it's really valuable to see people's thought processes as they happen, but I _am_ an extrovert.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

randomshoes said:


> @_Velasquez_
> 
> But what he was saying was that he hadn't made a decision yet; he was still in the trying out different possibilities phase. And I make decisions too; I hate the "anything is possible" bullshit. Some things are clearly not possible. I am in possession of a judging function, or I wouldn't be able to function as an adult. Also, Fi is much more permanent and unmoving than Ti is. So once I make a decision I will become considerably more immovable than a Ti user would ever be comfortable with (Te adds to this tendency).
> 
> ...


Ti is pretty permanent and unmoving. Rather the definition of, actually. Logic is universal and absolute. It doesn't change... so either the data/perspective changes, or here we sit. Though I agree to Fi/Te stubbornness. I suppose Ti is simply more inclined to think things through... where Fi/Te has to be forced to do so, or rather be shown, to reconsider? Not sure, but, yes, I suddenly get what you are after here.

I think your experience with INTP is accurate, though I don't think that Ne allows us to absolutely throw anything out in the realm of idea. Ne is purely inductive... and Ti/Si only throws out based on internal consistency, usually to an existing framework. Thus the idea is only thrown out in this specific case in this specific context. It doesn't work within the framework of all these other ideas, it is inconsistent with them, so it it not thrown out but rather thrown back onto the pile of stuff for another day in another context. 

I, too, will reject a new theory if the current one is already working. I do that with type theories other than CFT... though it is only after giving them a cursory check for awesomeness. I give them all a chance, but since I am not in the market, I am much less inclined to try to dive into them and try to make something of them. I'd rather push the cart I've got.

I am indeed a ridiculously flexible person. 

As far as agnosticism, I am saying that no matter how logically inconsistent the idea of god is, I don't think Ne can reject any possibility on a conceptual level. Ti can say it's not logical, Si can say it has never experienced anything dealing with it, Fe can call it harmful... but Ne has to say 'I can't say'. I have encountered INTP 'atheists' before.. but I felt that their decision was more of an inferior Fe thing... like, belief is harmful and stupid and so we have to get after people about it. I suspect that in most cases, if it weren't for that or something to that effect, INTPs would dodge the atheism question as Ne pushes them to do:


* *













Tyson is probably an ENTP rather than INTP, but the process is the same:












Velasquez said:


> I suppose another INTP trait can be that they withdraw from the world until they have fully worked through a problem and come to a decision about it. So it's not so much the fact that he was undecided about something that I couldn't click with...it was the fact that he decided to announce his indecision in the thread as a static opinion. To me, the word 'agnostic'...it's like saying 'I have decided that I am undecided about this', which is just weird to me. If I'm undecided about something, then that's uncomfortable for me. I wouldn't tell anybody...that would be like admitting a weakness, haha. So when I said that I couldn't gel with that kind of thinking...that's probably not what I meant, I probably meant that I couldn't gel with that kind of presentation of that kind of thinking. Does that make any sense?


Admitting a weakness? THAT sounds bizarre to me. Are we in a death match? Nah... for me, stating something so vulgar as atheism is what is awkward. What the hell do I know? That there is no god of any kind? How in the world could I even begin to know something like that? 

Waaaaaay too many variables, and I know that I know so staggeringly little about the nature of the universe. It seems beyond foolish to me to claim otherwise.

If I die and before me appears some pearly gates... my first thought would be 'fascinating!' not 'this is UNPOSSIBLE, there was no evidence!!'. Reducing my perceptions of life, the universe, and everything simply to a critique of other people's explanations of it... and the denial thereof.... seems, well, like Te/Ni. It also sounds boring.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

arkigos said:


> Reducing my perceptions of life, the universe, and everything simply to a critique of other people's explanations of it... and the denial thereof.... seems, well, like Te/Ni. It also sounds boring.


You literally just decide which types people are based on whether they agree or disagree with you, don't you?



arkigos said:


> I have encountered INTP 'atheists' before.. but I felt that their decision was more of an inferior Fe thing... like, belief is harmful and stupid and so we have to get after people about it. I suspect that in most cases, if it weren't for that or something to that effect, INTPs would dodge the atheism question as Ne pushes them to do:


Don't call me an atheist in inverted commas. And don't say 'oh you're only saying that because of your cognitive functions'. No. That's my fucking viewpoint.

Why am I not open minded about this? Like Richard Dawkins says, are you also agnostic about Thor, and Zeus, and Father Christmas, and the Tooth Fairy. And Harry Potter. And _every other conceivable thing ever_? If yes, as far as I'm concerned you are either only saying that to seem clever (like, you can take the high road in _any_ argument by saying 'well we don't actually know _anything_ though do we so look how open minded (correct) I am (plus, if I wanted to be an absolute fucking wanker, I could say that the only reason you say this is because it's an argument that_ pleases everybody and considers all viewpoints _which is being driven by your inferior Fe ha ha ha look at this dick with his inferior Fe (except I wouldn't make that argument because it's stupid and obnoxious))), or you are just wasting space in your brain.


----------

