[ENFP] Psssst.... Compare this.... - Page 4

Psssst.... Compare this....

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 31 to 35 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; Jung describes introverted sensing like this, in Psychological Types: I guess I would imagine an Si dom to be someone ...

  1. #31

    Jung describes introverted sensing like this, in Psychological Types:

    I guess I would imagine an Si dom to be someone who can navigate the 'mirror world' with ease, and utilize it for various efforts. Whereas someone who didn't have Si dominant might still find themselves in such a place, but would experience it much more clumsily and it may appear more magical or something than if it were to be one's home.

    "Introverted sensation apprehends the
    background of the physical world rather than its surface.

    The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, of the primordial images which, in their totality, constitute a psychic mirror-world.

    It is a mirror with the peculiar faculty of reflecting the existing contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but, as it were, sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year-old consciousness might see them.

    Such a consciousness would see the becoming and passing away of things simultaneously with their momentary existence in the present, and not only that, it would also see what was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence.

    Naturally this is only a figure of speech, but one that I needed in order to illustrate in some way the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. We could say that introverted sensastion transmits an image which does not so much reproduce the object as spread over it the patina of age-old subjective experience and the shimmer of events still unborn.

    The bare sense impression develops in depth, reaching into the past and future, while extraverted sensation seizes on the momentary existence of things open to the light of day."
    Llyralen thanked this post.

  2. #32
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by MeltedSorbet View Post
    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.
    The way I understand this, is that this discrepancy is an elephant in the room of how things are defined and explained. I don't see the point of finding similarities and grouping them as functions and then claim that those similarities are irrelevant now if it's in a different position. It's absurd and ruins the system from within. This is what the MB stack lacks and is how I started looking into this more. Also there are studies that show people don't really pick answers in tests that match their tertiary and inferior functions, and that basically opposite types have opposite preferences and the idea that we can develop our tert and inf does not really hold much water. You can read more about this here


    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)
    The idea comes from Jung's original descriptions of the types and what his Extraversion and Introversion originally meant, which were attitudes of adaptation to the world. He named extraversion the drive of positive relation to the world, meaning one adapts to it by changing themselves and accepting the object's influence with little resistance. Introversion is the opposite, a defensive/negative relation to the world, with the introvert abstracting what reinforces them, building a self-protective/validating environment, and when they can't are faced with the drive to dominate or withdraw, as they want not change themselves.

    ESFJs are good examples of FI, as they are key figures in harmonizing (or policing..) society according to their views, which are usually passed down on them by their family and generations at a young age and don't change easily throughout their lives. Jung's FE is an influenciable type who struggles with the idea of affecting the environment (i.e other people) as it is held in a higher regard than the self. FE looks inward to see how they can adapt themselves to the external.

    Myers switched these definitions around, and took extraversion to mean the exact opposite - wanting to act on the environment because you're perceiving it to need it, but that's all introversion. OR more accurately, the introvert wants to change the environment to affirm oneself, the extravert might change the environment to flesh out some potential he sees but it's not out of self-defense which is the key difference.
    FI/FE and TI/TE differences are not about looking inward or outward per se, but the intent and adaptive relation to the world when doing so.

    Well I think the reason as to why it should be able to explain your/our type is because being unable to do so is an indication of some fault of the system. Doesn't mean it's wholly unhelpful, but if we're gonna talk about it from a more technical side it's certainly important. In the end it would perhaps be even more helpful, something I mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of my post to Llyralen above.

  3. #33

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Panda View Post
    The way I understand this, is that this discrepancy is an elephant in the room of how things are defined and explained. I don't see the point of finding similarities and grouping them as functions and then claim that those similarities are irrelevant now if it's in a different position. It's absurd and ruins the system from within. This is what the MB stack lacks and is how I started looking into this more. Also there are studies that show people don't really pick answers in tests that match their tertiary and inferior functions, and that basically opposite types have opposite preferences and the idea that we can develop our tert and inf does not really hold much water. You can read more about this here
    It makes sense you would feel that way, and thanks for the reading material. I want to read through it later.

    The idea comes from Jung's original descriptions of the types and what his Extraversion and Introversion originally meant, which were attitudes of adaptation to the world. He named extraversion the drive of positive relation to the world, meaning one adapts to it by changing themselves and accepting the object's influence with little resistance. Introversion is the opposite, a defensive/negative relation to the world, with the introvert abstracting what reinforces them, building a self-protective/validating environment, and when they can't are faced with the drive to dominate or withdraw, as they want not change themselves.
    Ok this all makes a lot of sense. I can see that.

    ESFJs are good examples of FI, as they are key figures in harmonizing (or policing..) society according to their views, which are usually passed down on them by their family and generations at a young age and don't change easily throughout their lives. Jung's FE is an influenciable type who struggles with the idea of affecting the environment (i.e other people) as it is held in a higher regard than the self. FE looks inward to see how they can adapt themselves to the external.
    This though--this is where I'm not really seeing the same thing as you.

    Fe is influenced by the environment around, and I do think that Fe doms tend to attend to feeling when it's an interaction with their environment. From my small experience, they especially emphasize opportunities to reinforce bonds with other people, and that is where a lot of the feeling function comes out. It's to act out rituals that communicate group cohesiveness.

    I don't see that as Fi. I mean, I guess in that the Fe dom is asserting themselves over their environment, but they are also at the same time, as you said, being influenced by their environment in the moment, and the feelings of those around them. But I just think they tend to be influenced by that because they are seeking opportunities to reinforce bonds with other people.

    But to me that could also go along with Si or Ni, if we're saying introversion is what causes them to seek to exert control on the outer world.

    I don't know why they would necessarily have Fi and I also don't think Jung's description of Fe sounds much like an INFP, or his description of Fi sounds like ESFJs I've known.

    So I am kind of lost there--but I guess maybe it's Fi.

    But if the key difference is 'self defense' then maybe Fe doesn't seek to affect the outside world for self defense, but rather out of preference or desire for more advantageous outcome.

    The Fe types I've known are pragmatic and they are more defensive around their live trajectory and goals than trying to control other people with friendliness out of self-defense. They may even use people, at times, to help align their lives to what is comfortable to them, but it doesn't seem to them they are using other people because in the moment they are satisfying the creature comforts of those people, and the people are happy if also oblivious to what role they are fulfilling.

    Myers switched these definitions around, and took extraversion to mean the exact opposite - wanting to act on the environment because you're perceiving it to need it, but that's all introversion. OR more accurately, the introvert wants to change the environment to affirm oneself, the extravert might change the environment to flesh out some potential he sees but it's not out of self-defense which is the key difference.
    FI/FE and TI/TE differences are not about looking inward or outward per se, but the intent and adaptive relation to the world when doing so.

    Well I think the reason as to why it should be able to explain your/our type is because being unable to do so is an indication of some fault of the system. Doesn't mean it's wholly unhelpful, but if we're gonna talk about it from a more technical side it's certainly important. In the end it would perhaps be even more helpful, something I mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of my post to Llyralen above.

    I am trying to remember--I think your second paragraph to Llyralen was about SFJs.

    I am not sure I relate that much with some of your descriptions of FJs, though I'm sure there is truth to them. I just find that MBTI stereotypes about SFJs are kind of weird. As if SFJs are like these grandmothers sitting in rocking chairs.

    I get that's maybe Jung's description of Si, but the SFJs I've known have been pretty hip and trendy. They are fine with adopting new stuff so long as it fits in with their goals in life. An ISFJ I knew was really interesting to me because she shocked me with her scandalous backstory (and none of the SFJs I know fit into that naive, bumbling stereotype), but also her pragmatism with love. Like it may have been she seemed 'stuck' or just refusing to change, but she was actually just waiting for the right moment when it would be advantageous, and she was totally ready to change when the conditions favored her goals in life. This is not some martyr who is pining away from longing for change, but someone who is just being realistic.

    I think with people who are super stuck or unable to change, even when a behavior is hurting them, that can probably be correlated to higher neuroticism since its kind of disruptive. The SFJs I know haven't been on fire to change, but they don't really want to unless the conditions are right. I don't think it bothers them that much that they feel they need to change if they have nothing better to change for.

    In contrast, I do often feel stuck and I do want to change, sort of out of misguided principle. I would rather go without and stick to principles than be pragmatic and wait for a realistic opportunity, or at least that's what I tend to do. I don't want to be pragmatic, especially about romance or love. I would describe Si dom or aux as somewhat pragmatic, and I guess if that's a defense then it goes along with the introverted nature of Si, as you said.
    Red Panda thanked this post.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #34
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by MeltedSorbet View Post
    It makes sense you would feel that way, and thanks for the reading material. I want to read through it later.



    Ok this all makes a lot of sense. I can see that.


    This though--this is where I'm not really seeing the same thing as you.

    Fe is influenced by the environment around, and I do think that Fe doms tend to attend to feeling when it's an interaction with their environment. From my small experience, they especially emphasize opportunities to reinforce bonds with other people, and that is where a lot of the feeling function comes out. It's to act out rituals that communicate group cohesiveness.

    I don't see that as Fi. I mean, I guess in that the Fe dom is asserting themselves over their environment, but they are also at the same time, as you said, being influenced by their environment in the moment, and the feelings of those around them. But I just think they tend to be influenced by that because they are seeking opportunities to reinforce bonds with other people.

    But to me that could also go along with Si or Ni, if we're saying introversion is what causes them to seek to exert control on the outer world.

    I don't know why they would necessarily have Fi and I also don't think Jung's description of Fe sounds much like an INFP, or his description of Fi sounds like ESFJs I've known.

    So I am kind of lost there--but I guess maybe it's Fi.

    But if the key difference is 'self defense' then maybe Fe doesn't seek to affect the outside world for self defense, but rather out of preference or desire for more advantageous outcome.

    The Fe types I've known are pragmatic and they are more defensive around their live trajectory and goals than trying to control other people with friendliness out of self-defense. They may even use people, at times, to help align their lives to what is comfortable to them, but it doesn't seem to them they are using other people because in the moment they are satisfying the creature comforts of those people, and the people are happy if also oblivious to what role they are fulfilling.




    I am trying to remember--I think your second paragraph to Llyralen was about SFJs.

    I am not sure I relate that much with some of your descriptions of FJs, though I'm sure there is truth to them. I just find that MBTI stereotypes about SFJs are kind of weird. As if SFJs are like these grandmothers sitting in rocking chairs.

    I get that's maybe Jung's description of Si, but the SFJs I've known have been pretty hip and trendy. They are fine with adopting new stuff so long as it fits in with their goals in life. An ISFJ I knew was really interesting to me because she shocked me with her scandalous backstory (and none of the SFJs I know fit into that naive, bumbling stereotype), but also her pragmatism with love. Like it may have been she seemed 'stuck' or just refusing to change, but she was actually just waiting for the right moment when it would be advantageous, and she was totally ready to change when the conditions favored her goals in life. This is not some martyr who is pining away from longing for change, but someone who is just being realistic.

    I think with people who are super stuck or unable to change, even when a behavior is hurting them, that can probably be correlated to higher neuroticism since its kind of disruptive. The SFJs I know haven't been on fire to change, but they don't really want to unless the conditions are right. I don't think it bothers them that much that they feel they need to change if they have nothing better to change for.

    In contrast, I do often feel stuck and I do want to change, sort of out of misguided principle. I would rather go without and stick to principles than be pragmatic and wait for a realistic opportunity, or at least that's what I tend to do. I don't want to be pragmatic, especially about romance or love. I would describe Si dom or aux as somewhat pragmatic, and I guess if that's a defense then it goes along with the introverted nature of Si, as you said.
    I get that it's a bit more difficult to understand, it took me months because it's a different perspective of what I was used to with the MBTI. But it's about seeing the big picture of one's life and how they act rather than a momentary behavior, the differences in the definitions may seem slight but the change in perspective is pretty big and it explains 99% of behaviors of both types.

    The difficulty in this when it comes to understanding the Js is that due to their introversion they actively build up an validating environment around them so it takes some time & practice to see through this, usually being in conflict with them is what brings the clarity as that's when it is most evident. That's because the difference between I and E is that the I will try to change the group to conform to their views, it's how the two different types deal with cognitive dissonance. This is particularly evident in my experience, in groups with ESFJs in them, and when you butt heads with an STJ. And usually the J type is not the one who changes themselves, not as much as the others at least, they're usually one who tries to have others join them. With the exception of those who have more codependent style, so they will serve others in hope of getting attachment, but that's not extraversion but just a similar behavior with different intent, which is the important part of typology, to not just see the end behaviors but the *why*.

    One particular trait EFJs have quite pronounced is to try and infect others with their emotions, which is an introverted behavior that seeks to alter, influence/ control the environment. They will come at you with their feelings and expect you to be affected by them and respond. Every single FJ I've known is highly subjectivist, they believe the subjective point of view is always valid, which is an epistemologically defensive attitude that ensures it protects their own. SFJs are 1/3 of female population, they follow and create trends quite readily, which is quite evident in the way they do arts, it's usually some esoteric symbolic feelsy thing, from artistic dancing to pop videos like Dua Lipa's New Rules which fits this to a nauseating degree.

    Obviously these behaviors are not completely invalid and no one is 100% either I or E, and that was the important nuance of Jung's typology. One thing he didn't consider explicitly is that the preference for E/I means that someone who is very high F will sacrifice their I/E at times to save the F bias, which is why FJs are not always completely unadaptive and such. Jung was explicit that his descriptions are of the 'pure' types, and no one will fit them exactly like that.

    A criticism I have for him is that his Extravert types aside the NE are conflated with S more often than not, so they don't exactly cover the cases for ENFs and ENTs. Other than that, his description of FI in one word fits the FJ 'doorslam', but is also extended to the typical way FJs are defensive about their feelings. The problem is that many INFPs are actually Jungian FIs because they relate with the defensiveness of Feeling and less with NE. So because Myers basically mixed the Jungian groups together due to her FiNe stack, we can find these two distinct types of people within one group, and the FIs don't type J because the J questions correlate and fit more the S and Ts as studies have shown.

    I remember when I first became introduced to Jung's descriptions, a member here was asking me to read the FI description and tell me if I relate, I remember being quite confused and trying to make it so that I am, but I just couldn't relate to shutting down people's feeling when they don't fit my expectations or generally having this wall up and a highly subjectivist perspective, especially not as my default mode. And I don't think actual INFPs are like that either, in my experience. They can be sensitive and get hurt easily but that's not the same. I guess it's also where Jung's descriptions are lacking and don't help as he was quite crap at understanding the F despite enlisting help from someone else.
    MeltedSorbet thanked this post.

  6. #35
    Unknown

    @MeltedSorbet we've veered a bit too much off topic and I don't wanna continue it in this thread in particular so if you want we can talk about it over PM
    MeltedSorbet thanked this post.


     
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4

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 10:16 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