[ENFP] Psssst.... Compare this.... - Page 3

Psssst.... Compare this....

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
Thank Tree49Thanks

This is a discussion on Psssst.... Compare this.... within the ENFP Forum - The Inspirers forums, part of the NF's Temperament Forum- The Dreamers category; I'm unsure what you mean by tapping into Si, when I think of Si-sex my mind goes to ritualistic and ...

  1. #21
    Unknown

    I'm unsure what you mean by tapping into Si, when I think of Si-sex my mind goes to ritualistic and repetitive stuff (fixations) or some kind of inhibition. Not that I've had sex with an SJ but it's how SI usually functions in the general sense so I'm extrapolating.
    Last edited by Red Panda; 08-23-2019 at 11:20 AM.
    Llyralen thanked this post.

  2. #22

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Panda View Post
    I'm unsure what you mean by tapping into Si, when I think of Si-sex my mind goes to ritualistic and repetitive stuff (fixations) or some kind of inhibition. Not that I've had sex with an SJ but it's how SI usually functions in the general sense so I'm extrapolating.
    Well... me either. Lol. And maybe this is some Se or something instead? Or who knows. I will do my best to try to explain the actual experience though and then we can maybe figure out what my brain is doing.

    I do realize that when I first described feeling more Si in sex lately in my first descriptive post That I talked about remembering (actually I could say fantasizing about) past experiences to build on what was currently happening and all of those together were producing some arousal.

    Then in the above description I started to talk about visually being turned on by our bodies and by my actions. And for me I have to use the word objectification on this because I am getting turned on by my mind objectifying this. This is new... I used to not really get turned on by my own acts. I have always gotten turned on in response to his actions though and his actions put me in that Fi-Ne place.

    I donít know.... glad it all is working though.

    For me maybe because the Ne and Si are on the bookends of how I operate then it doesnít seem like they get mixed. The Si memories are introverted and kind of blend together to give a nice arousal but him acting or feeling something good and new or even slightly new is really what I crave and puts me into a wonderful Ne-Fi landscape to explore. So me getting turned on from the objective stuff is new and is rocking his world lately but then me experiencing his turn on in response is rocking my world. Thing is, I can tell he wants me turned on objectively like that every time.

    I donít know, Iím trying to explain. I think itís super cool that you and our other NFP girls knew what I meant by our-of-body pleasure immediately and by all of the abstract sensations.. I want to talk about this with my husband but he actually starts going into his Fi too much and makes him worry if I talk too much about it all. So what works for him is either me completely in my Ne landscape and my body is doing plenty to let him know that (although I think he was getting bored for a while or couldnít follow me there or something) but now heís back to enjoying putting me there OR me objectifying and getting super turned on by the act and by the visuals. Maybe that second one is Se-like? Because I donít seem to get deep meaning or lasting well-being from it. I do get lasting meaning from the fact that my husband responds so well and immediately to it and he just loves it. I think he feels for sure that he is definitely a part of me being turned on then.

    And as I realized above... it is what I wanted from him for a while. Rwaaarrrr! I wanted him hungry for my actual body and hungry to actually have sex.

    So I donít know. Maybe my brain sometimes has sex while my shell of a body has sex and sometimes my body has sex while my brain is only there to coordinate the next move. I like my brain and heart sex better by far...those orgasms are from what my brain and heart did with what youíre doing to me, who you are, how we are, what your brain did to mine and what your heart is doing to me baby... but I guess my actual bodyís physicality and sensations and his has to get in there somewhere in order for the abstract ideas to even exist in the first place?

    I am feeling like the strangest creature now....yeah, itís true though... my own physical self is that remote for me and has that little significance usually. But I love the concept of my physical self turning on his physical self and that should ring true and be there in order for the rest of things to work. If this guy doesnít stimulate my brain or heart and all good to go there then sex is not going to happen. Thatís for sure. Luckily my husband always stimulates my brain and heart. When he sends me a text with a link to an archeology dig or some new scientific discovery we can talk about then thatís better than a scented massage by way of a turn-on. Thankfully he knows how to keep me happy on those fronts. Plus I love his beautiful heart.

    Iím so weird!
    We???? Are we all so weird???

    Did I put Se into it??? I donít know, but those are my most recent experiences. I am still wanting to go back to pure Ne or pure Ne-Fi as I realize it truly is. Abstracts of what we are feeling and doing.

    Okay okay. Stop typing, me. It wonít make you less embarrassed... STOP!

  3. #23
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by Llyralen View Post
    Well... me either. Lol. And maybe this is some Se or something instead? Or who knows. I will do my best to try to explain the actual experience though and then we can maybe figure out what my brain is doing.

    I do realize that when I first described feeling more Si in sex lately in my first descriptive post That I talked about remembering (actually I could say fantasizing about) past experiences to build on what was currently happening and all of those together were producing some arousal.

    Then in the above description I started to talk about visually being turned on by our bodies and by my actions. And for me I have to use the word objectification on this because I am getting turned on by my mind objectifying this. This is new... I used to not really get turned on by my own acts. I have always gotten turned on in response to his actions though and his actions put me in that Fi-Ne place.

    I don’t know.... glad it all is working though.

    For me maybe because the Ne and Si are on the bookends of how I operate then it doesn’t seem like they get mixed. The Si memories are introverted and kind of blend together to give a nice arousal but him acting or feeling something good and new or even slightly new is really what I crave and puts me into a wonderful Ne-Fi landscape to explore. So me getting turned on from the objective stuff is new and is rocking his world lately but then me experiencing his turn on in response is rocking my world. Thing is, I can tell he wants me turned on objectively like that every time.

    I don’t know, I’m trying to explain. I think it’s super cool that you and our other NFP girls knew what I meant by our-of-body pleasure immediately and by all of the abstract sensations.. I want to talk about this with my husband but he actually starts going into his Fi too much and makes him worry if I talk too much about it all. So what works for him is either me completely in my Ne landscape and my body is doing plenty to let him know that (although I think he was getting bored for a while or couldn’t follow me there or something) but now he’s back to enjoying putting me there OR me objectifying and getting super turned on by the act and by the visuals. Maybe that second one is Se-like? Because I don’t seem to get deep meaning or lasting well-being from it. I do get lasting meaning from the fact that my husband responds so well and immediately to it and he just loves it. I think he feels for sure that he is definitely a part of me being turned on then.

    And as I realized above... it is what I wanted from him for a while. Rwaaarrrr! I wanted him hungry for my actual body and hungry to actually have sex.

    So I don’t know. Maybe my brain sometimes has sex while my shell of a body has sex and sometimes my body has sex while my brain is only there to coordinate the next move. I like my brain and heart sex better by far...those orgasms are from what my brain and heart did with what you’re doing to me, who you are, how we are, what your brain did to mine and what your heart is doing to me baby... but I guess my actual body’s physicality and sensations and his has to get in there somewhere in order for the abstract ideas to even exist in the first place?

    I am feeling like the strangest creature now....yeah, it’s true though... my own physical self is that remote for me and has that little significance usually. But I love the concept of my physical self turning on his physical self and that should ring true and be there in order for the rest of things to work. If this guy doesn’t stimulate my brain or heart and all good to go there then sex is not going to happen. That’s for sure. Luckily my husband always stimulates my brain and heart. When he sends me a text with a link to an archeology dig or some new scientific discovery we can talk about then that’s better than a scented massage by way of a turn-on. Thankfully he knows how to keep me happy on those fronts. Plus I love his beautiful heart.

    I’m so weird!
    We???? Are we all so weird???

    Did I put Se into it??? I don’t know, but those are my most recent experiences. I am still wanting to go back to pure Ne or pure Ne-Fi as I realize it truly is. Abstracts of what we are feeling and doing.

    Okay okay. Stop typing, me. It won’t make you less embarrassed... STOP!
    haha this was kinda amusing to read

    I think overall it kinda reads like you somehow grew out of some inhibition you had that kept you from experiencing this objectification in a positive and productive manner.

    Typology wise I'm hesitant to tie such things to singular functions because, I guess this goes back to skills =/= personality. Functions are not the skills but psychological preferences, so for example liking something a certain way because it makes you feel good and you remembering all those times in the past that it worked isn't necessarily SI. I'd imagine being fixated and attached to this in a preferential manner would be SI, like at a deeper psychological level. For example I have an SFJ friend who's had issues with her father and she has (or at least had - haven't updated lol) sexual daddy fixations. Her husband I'm pretty sure is STJ and has strong fixations with anal.

    One thing is for sure it's not easy to describe these things. Sex is a very physical thing but it doesn't change our psychological preferences so my guess is we don't turn to S function to deal with it. Only exception I can think of right now is perhaps the triggering of some self-preservation instinct in a case that something happens, i.e. pain, which could turn on some hypochondric low S response. Perhaps for N, the promise and the potential of pleasure (including trying out new stuff) is what guides us along with the physical sensations of getting there.
    Llyralen thanked this post.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #24

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Panda View Post
    haha this was kinda amusing to read

    I think overall it kinda reads like you somehow grew out of some inhibition you had that kept you from experiencing this objectification in a positive and productive manner.

    Typology wise I'm hesitant to tie such things to singular functions because, I guess this goes back to skills =/= personality. Functions are not the skills but psychological preferences, so for example liking something a certain way because it makes you feel good and you remembering all those times in the past that it worked isn't necessarily SI. I'd imagine being fixated and attached to this in a preferential manner would be SI, like at a deeper psychological level. For example I have an SFJ friend who's had issues with her father and she has (or at least had - haven't updated lol) sexual daddy fixations. Her husband I'm pretty sure is STJ and has strong fixations with anal.

    One thing is for sure it's not easy to describe these things. Sex is a very physical thing but it doesn't change our psychological preferences so my guess is we don't turn to S function to deal with it. Only exception I can think of right now is perhaps the triggering of some self-preservation instinct in a case that something happens, i.e. pain, which could turn on some hypochondric low S response. Perhaps for N, the promise and the potential of pleasure (including trying out new stuff) is what guides us along with the physical sensations of getting there.

    The objectification just wasnít a place my body or brain ever went to before. Iím not sure my brain was built that way. Itís sexual objectification of physical objects and acts. I donít like the idea of being inhibited but who knows? Itís been good to put into the mix to change things up but whatever that is (Se? Si? Who the freak knows) doesnít nurture me or actually even seem meaningful. Like who would trade my psychedelic out of body pleasure universe for concrete body and acts? I wonít but itís okay to use a mix. Itís now a tool in my tool box. At some point in the encounter Iím going to want an Ne-Fi orgasm and its okay if i have a whatever-that-is kind of orgasm but It doesnít even satisfy though, so I will want the other one later (oh dang hopefully my husband is up for it, but whateveró sometimes it can be all about him). Itís like that part of the encounter hardly happened, except that it was different and turned my husband on a ton.

    I have no fixations that I know of. Clean slate.
    Last edited by Llyralen; 08-23-2019 at 04:42 PM.
    Red Panda thanked this post.

  6. #25

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Panda View Post
    I'm unsure what you mean by tapping into Si, when I think of Si-sex my mind goes to ritualistic and repetitive stuff (fixations) or some kind of inhibition. Not that I've had sex with an SJ but it's how SI usually functions in the general sense so I'm extrapolating.
    No one should take what I'm saying here seriously, as these are just musings:

    I'm not well-read when it comes to functions and typology theory, but I sometimes like imagining Beebe's archetypes, with it.

    Like for an ISFJ, the Si is much more of the hero--it's the one responsible for making things run smoothly and even dealing with inner and outer world. It's the champion of the stack.

    So ISFJ Si is more well defined, but it's also hardier and more versatile and used to heavy lifting.

    Sort of like with INFP the Fi is not some delicate crying baby, it's the heavy hitter that gets dragged through mud, torn to pieces, and always manages to renew stronger, if a little tattered around the edges.

    You know? When you take an INTJ and their Fi is tertiary, in a child-like place. They aren't going to let their Fi go out there and get torn to pieces on the front lines. They are going to watch it play, delight in it a little, or even agonize over it like somewhat dismissive but still doting parents. So for the tertiary, it's much more child like--it plays tricks, it's less hardy, and it's definitely not the 'hero' of the stack like it is for an INFP.

    So anyway--I think of function order with Si. Perhaps with an Si dom you see a fairly competent Si function, whereas with an INFP you see a child-like Si function that plays tricks and is cherished, but can also be a bit naive and unsophisticated at times (but also can be cute).

    I'm not sure how it works with the inferior function--according to Beebe that'd be the animus/anima function or something.

    But sometimes I imagine Si acting kind of funny and a little more disfunctional and less useful for those who use it in tertiary or inferior. John Keats, in my mind, is probably an INFP and I imagine his Si was partially responsible for how his poetry circles around transience and wanting this sort of perfect, immortal world that never changes...since he was literally surrounded by sick people (as a nurse) and watching people decay. That kind of silly Si that doesn't really help a whole lot in regular life, but plays childish games inside the mind.

    So anyway...back to the inferior Si, that was described as being a yearning (which sort of fits Beebe's animus) where an ENFP might actually desire that stability in a world that constantly changing (which Ne is always aware of), but it's got to be one of the weakest performing functions in the stack, and full of twitches and involuntary actions that make little sense to the conscious mind.

    Idk

    With sex, I guess I'd imagine it more like how I described tertiary Si in INFP--with John Keats...sort of an inner landscape of material world. Almost like a dream world. Things being filed away.

    I guess with SFJs, and the idea of tradition, you could imagine there is some aspect of Si that is relating to a dream world in which life is a continuous cycle of seasons and various material objects have symbolic meaning that is somewhat static, despite the changing seasons.

    I have no idea what I'm talking about though.

    My ex was an ESFJ, I think, and he didn't have any fixations I don't think--but I don't tend to think of SFJs as particularly romantic in their notions about the world. They are very pragmatic and know what they want. I get the sense that it's common for sex to be more peripheral to other goals in life such as having a family, getting ahead financially, or living a comfortable life. That's the only generalization I'd make. I think it'd probably be more likely for a Pe type to want to enjoy sex solely as sex, for that purpose alone, and to make that experience a significant value (even in the moment). But I knew an ISFJ and she only said that she enjoyed having romantic evenings where her partner would pamper her--but even then I'm not sure that her attraction for her parnter was that independent from the type of life he represented to her (and her goals).

    With ESFJ I knew, sex was more of a ritual to reinforce the relationship? But it's interesting to me that he's said that sex wasn't like a necessity (for me it's a huge value and an indicator of serious problems or breakdown in the relationship). But to him it was more of just this thing you do to symbolize the relationship...he wouldn't even be bothered without having sex. To me it's like a huge part of the relationship--similar to what @Llyralen said if the relationship is in bad shape, sex goes out the window, and then it's like 'we've got to talk because something is seriously wrong.' For him it was like 'okay--maybe sex goes away, but everything else is the same.'
    Red Panda and Llyralen thanked this post.

  7. #26
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by MeltedSorbet View Post
    No one should take what I'm saying here seriously, as these are just musings:

    I'm not well-read when it comes to functions and typology theory, but I sometimes like imagining Beebe's archetypes, with it.

    Like for an ISFJ, the Si is much more of the hero--it's the one responsible for making things run smoothly and even dealing with inner and outer world. It's the champion of the stack.

    So ISFJ Si is more well defined, but it's also hardier and more versatile and used to heavy lifting.

    Sort of like with INFP the Fi is not some delicate crying baby, it's the heavy hitter that gets dragged through mud, torn to pieces, and always manages to renew stronger, if a little tattered around the edges.

    You know? When you take an INTJ and their Fi is tertiary, in a child-like place. They aren't going to let their Fi go out there and get torn to pieces on the front lines. They are going to watch it play, delight in it a little, or even agonize over it like somewhat dismissive but still doting parents. So for the tertiary, it's much more child like--it plays tricks, it's less hardy, and it's definitely not the 'hero' of the stack like it is for an INFP.

    So anyway--I think of function order with Si. Perhaps with an Si dom you see a fairly competent Si function, whereas with an INFP you see a child-like Si function that plays tricks and is cherished, but can also be a bit naive and unsophisticated at times (but also can be cute).

    I'm not sure how it works with the inferior function--according to Beebe that'd be the animus/anima function or something.

    But sometimes I imagine Si acting kind of funny and a little more disfunctional and less useful for those who use it in tertiary or inferior. John Keats, in my mind, is probably an INFP and I imagine his Si was partially responsible for how his poetry circles around transience and wanting this sort of perfect, immortal world that never changes...since he was literally surrounded by sick people (as a nurse) and watching people decay. That kind of silly Si that doesn't really help a whole lot in regular life, but plays childish games inside the mind.

    So anyway...back to the inferior Si, that was described as being a yearning (which sort of fits Beebe's animus) where an ENFP might actually desire that stability in a world that constantly changing (which Ne is always aware of), but it's got to be one of the weakest performing functions in the stack, and full of twitches and involuntary actions that make little sense to the conscious mind.

    Idk

    With sex, I guess I'd imagine it more like how I described tertiary Si in INFP--with John Keats...sort of an inner landscape of material world. Almost like a dream world. Things being filed away.

    I guess with SFJs, and the idea of tradition, you could imagine there is some aspect of Si that is relating to a dream world in which life is a continuous cycle of seasons and various material objects have symbolic meaning that is somewhat static, despite the changing seasons.

    I have no idea what I'm talking about though.

    My ex was an ESFJ, I think, and he didn't have any fixations I don't think--but I don't tend to think of SFJs as particularly romantic in their notions about the world. They are very pragmatic and know what they want. I get the sense that it's common for sex to be more peripheral to other goals in life such as having a family, getting ahead financially, or living a comfortable life. That's the only generalization I'd make. I think it'd probably be more likely for a Pe type to want to enjoy sex solely as sex, for that purpose alone, and to make that experience a significant value (even in the moment). But I knew an ISFJ and she only said that she enjoyed having romantic evenings where her partner would pamper her--but even then I'm not sure that her attraction for her parnter was that independent from the type of life he represented to her (and her goals).

    With ESFJ I knew, sex was more of a ritual to reinforce the relationship? But it's interesting to me that he's said that sex wasn't like a necessity (for me it's a huge value and an indicator of serious problems or breakdown in the relationship). But to him it was more of just this thing you do to symbolize the relationship...he wouldn't even be bothered without having sex. To me it's like a huge part of the relationship--similar to what @Llyralen said if the relationship is in bad shape, sex goes out the window, and then it's like 'we've got to talk because something is seriously wrong.' For him it was like 'okay--maybe sex goes away, but everything else is the same.'
    I disagree a lot with this interpretation and I'm glad you bring the example of "Fi" for INFP and INTJ as I think it's one of those glaring examples that the Grant Stack becomes shambles. The INFP is an adaptable creature, they're supposed to be flexible emotionally and embrace change, they will avoid impeding on others and turn inwards to adapt to the needs of others. The INTJ on the other hand is all but that, they seek to make others adapt to them by preference and avoid emotional changes like the plague, I mean the INTJ forum is the only one that has a feels thread with a rule to not respond to others. Sadly I think a lot of notions about FI in the typology community stem from TJs and not actual FPs, aside from all the FJs who are mistyped.
    Anyways, I don't want to make this too long, but under Jung's typology, the INFP is actually a FE type and the J is the one who'd use FI preferentially, and same goes for the T function.

    I find Beebe's theory with the complexes to be interesting and prob does have truth to it but it also seems awfully prescriptive and the fact he bases it on the Grant Stack is a huge red flag to me. I don't see why the complexes must be the same, form the same way and have this 8 function-attitude order to them. As someone who has a low F/T preference which is quite visible in my daily life, every time I read about his theory I'm doubtful that it can explain people like me as it takes for granted the switch in attitude that came outta Myers' ass. I've watched him in an interview bring up her justification for this, as well as his own, and it's from a paragraph in which Jung says the auxiliary function is "in every respect different" from the dominant, except in that same paragraph he makes it explicit he is talking about judging-perceiving and not introvert-extravert. He had no reason to bring up the attitude of adaptation in this paragraph in particular as he had already made it explicit he thinks only one dominates the conscious.
    MeltedSorbet and odinthor thanked this post.

  8. #27
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by Llyralen View Post
    The objectification just wasn’t a place my body or brain ever went to before. I’m not sure my brain was built that way. It’s sexual objectification of physical objects and acts. I don’t like the idea of being inhibited but who knows? It’s been good to put into the mix to change things up but whatever that is (Se? Si? Who the freak knows) doesn’t nurture me or actually even seem meaningful. Like who would trade my psychedelic out of body pleasure universe for concrete body and acts? I won’t but it’s okay to use a mix. It’s now a tool in my tool box. At some point in the encounter I’m going to want an Ne-Fi orgasm and its okay if i have a whatever-that-is kind of orgasm but It doesn’t even satisfy though, so I will want the other one later (oh dang hopefully my husband is up for it, but whatever— sometimes it can be all about him). It’s like that part of the encounter hardly happened, except that it was different and turned my husband on a ton.

    I have no fixations that I know of. Clean slate.
    Well not all inhibitions are some major thing that have a negative effect, I thought of it in a more neutral sense, like perhaps you could go all your life not having this and it wouldn't make you miserable but somehow you have unlocked it and your mind can go there and enjoy it.

    I had some of those negative inhibitions due to certain things in my past that kept me from going 100% in and when I grew over them it was very liberating and like I could breathe again. Also this is relevant because it did lead me to enjoying this type of objectification too, at least as long as I feel my partner is someone I know, love and respect and he feels the same for me.
    But the differences I've seen with my SFJ friend for example is that she doesn't want to get over her inhibitions and fixations even if they create negative feelings for her, the idea of change is seen as more negative or even impossible.
    Llyralen thanked this post.

  9. #28

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Panda View Post
    Well not all inhibitions are some major thing that have a negative effect, I thought of it in a more neutral sense, like perhaps you could go all your life not having this and it wouldn't make you miserable but somehow you have unlocked it and your mind can go there and enjoy it.

    I had some of those negative inhibitions due to certain things in my past that kept me from going 100% in and when I grew over them it was very liberating and like I could breathe again. Also this is relevant because it did lead me to enjoying this type of objectification too, at least as long as I feel my partner is someone I know, love and respect and he feels the same for me.
    But the differences I've seen with my SFJ friend for example is that she doesn't want to get over her inhibitions and fixations even if they create negative feelings for her, the idea of change is seen as more negative or even impossible.
    Thatís interesting. I donít think I ever felt inhibitedó but I see how getting over inhibitions could be very liberating. I would not have been miserable without experiencing objectification. It seems fairly meaningless to me. But useful at this point between two NFPs. I feel much more sexually powerful and glorious about my sexuality when I can be in my Ne-Fi space. But the other person I know who enjoys sex as much as I do is my cousin. Iíve believed she is an ESFP. I think there must be some kind of equivalent state of being for them with sex that is found in the physical realm but that she derives great meaning from. I wonder... i now wish I could have her take the MBTI test.

    That is very unfortunate about your friend. There should be more counselors trained on such things. It sounds awful.
    Red Panda thanked this post.

  10. #29
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by Llyralen View Post
    That’s interesting. I don’t think I ever felt inhibited— but I see how getting over inhibitions could be very liberating. I would not have been miserable without experiencing objectification. It seems fairly meaningless to me. But useful at this point between two NFPs. I feel much more sexually powerful and glorious about my sexuality when I can be in my Ne-Fi space. But the other person I know who enjoys sex as much as I do is my cousin. I’ve believed she is an ESFP. I think there must be some kind of equivalent state of being for them with sex that is found in the physical realm but that she derives great meaning from. I wonder... i now wish I could have her take the MBTI test.

    That is very unfortunate about your friend. There should be more counselors trained on such things. It sounds awful.
    I'm kinda wondering how we both mean objectification now because the way I experience it I wouldn't call it non-N, it's like with it there's all this potential/ possibilities, it's just not necessarily romantic, but lustful. But since I ain't got a clue how an SE type experiences sex I can't compare it to that either. I have an ESFP friend but she's the closest to asexual I've encountered and has very little interest in sex though she is in a relationship. I've talked with other ESFPs but aside from them focusing a lot on visuals and wanting to have sex very early on in a relationship I don't know much else.

    Not sure there could be counselors about this, since at the root of this it's the predisposed inability to welcome change that has a more genetic basis or at least it's a very fundamental trait to the personality. This took me a long time to accept as change is something I actively pursue and sometimes I get angry or bewildered at others who don't do the same, but learning about this also kinda helped me to stop spending myself fruitlessly trying to help people who don't want to be helped.
    Llyralen thanked this post.

  11. #30

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Panda View Post
    I disagree a lot with this interpretation and I'm glad you bring the example of "Fi" for INFP and INTJ as I think it's one of those glaring examples that the Grant Stack becomes shambles. The INFP is an adaptable creature, they're supposed to be flexible emotionally and embrace change, they will avoid impeding on others and turn inwards to adapt to the needs of others. The INTJ on the other hand is all but that, they seek to make others adapt to them by preference and avoid emotional changes like the plague, I mean the INTJ forum is the only one that has a feels thread with a rule to not respond to others. Sadly I think a lot of notions about FI in the typology community stem from TJs and not actual FPs, aside from all the FJs who are mistyped.
    What you are saying here isn't really contradicting my understanding--not sure about how it shows the function stack model is in shambles. But that was kind of one of my points that a function could look and work very differently, depending on how developed or unconscious it is (so where it is in the stack).

    So like stereotypes around Fi might come from how Thinkers have less developed Fi. Similar to how Si in an Si dom would be more seamless, while in an Si tertiary/inferior we might find it more primitive.

    But I'm not convinced of any personality theory, really--I find Briggs explanation of the function stack lacks something. I like how Beebe goes into it more, but it could also be that he's just applying more archetypes, which I think is useful. I don't think Myers really went that far into the idea of roles and archetypes and she was using it more as a metaphor.

    Anyways, I don't want to make this too long, but under Jung's typology, the INFP is actually a FE type and the J is the one who'd use FI preferentially, and same goes for the T function.

    I find Beebe's theory with the complexes to be interesting and prob does have truth to it but it also seems awfully prescriptive and the fact he bases it on the Grant Stack is a huge red flag to me. I don't see why the complexes must be the same, form the same way and have this 8 function-attitude order to them. As someone who has a low F/T preference which is quite visible in my daily life, every time I read about his theory I'm doubtful that it can explain people like me as it takes for granted the switch in attitude that came outta Myers' ass. I've watched him in an interview bring up her justification for this, as well as his own, and it's from a paragraph in which Jung says the auxiliary function is "in every respect different" from the dominant, except in that same paragraph he makes it explicit he is talking about judging-perceiving and not introvert-extravert. He had no reason to bring up the attitude of adaptation in this paragraph in particular as he had already made it explicit he thinks only one dominates the conscious.
    I don't get the INFP would be a Fe type, or know where that came from. I get that judging types favor judging functions and it doesn't make that much sense that you'd have a judging dominant perceiver--though Myers said it is because the extroverted function will be the ambassador for the external world.

    But when I look at someone who tests as an INFP and an ESFJ, I'm not seeing Fi dom as being much like an Fe dom.

    But yeah, I find Beebe interesting though the stack does seem prescriptive.

    To me, when Jung talks about personality types, it also seems like he's talking about one function being dominant, and I've never really been satisfied with Myers explanation. But in some ways, it opens up to more variation than fitting everyone into four or eight types.

    I tend to test high on N and P in the mbti test, and mid range on F/T or E/I and I do wonder about it. But I also think Jung described people who don't have a strong preference for a function--they are just sort of 'meh' and I think that could be part of what is happening. I might live as something I wouldn't normally choose for myself, out of necessity--I work with young children and usually have my creativity and individuality somewhat surpressed for others. I am criticized for 'overthinking' things or misunderstood when I do anticipate problems or think of ideas that don't jive well with other personality types. So I don't think personality theory has to explain my type if it's just that I'm not really in an environment that facilitates my preferred function development.

    (or something...idk. I haven't had any coffee this morning)
    Llyralen thanked this post.


Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [ENFP] Psssst...
    By Musikaman in forum ENFP Forum - The Inspirers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-18-2010, 11:38 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:58 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0