[Eosin]

I was just wondering, does our temperament have an influence on how we are "moody?" (emotional state-wise)

As an ENTJ, I find "moods" to be an enigma. I am unsure if I ever had them.

I am not talking about a "physical" mood.
For example, I may be "not in the mood" to eat chocolate or to go out today.
When I say this, it doesn't really refer to my emotional state, but more so my physical state (I feel tired, bloated, etc.)
Or, when I am starving, I am "not in the mood" to argue or to talk, because I want to satisfy my pressing need.

I am taking about this kind of mood:
Let's say someone did something wrong to me. Like at work, someone is being difficult or uncooperative. Or lets say I set up a meeting with someone and the person did not show up without any explanation or apologies at all.
I find that these disappointments do not really "affect my mood" nor do they alter the way I go about with my day. My emotional state stays the same, and I don't get "bummed out" or whatever. I see that the person did something wrong and owes me an apology, or he/she deserves to undergo some sort of consequence, but that's it.

In contrast, I find other people get upset over these things, and you can see their faces change or their "moods" change.
Like one moment everything is fine and whatnot, but after that particular upsetting event, the whole situation changes and the person interacts differently.

Of course, it would be different if something drastic were to happen, like a death of a family member. But then again, in the event that things like that happen (for example, when my aunt died), I was still rather "stable" emotionally and I ended up going into "fix" mode making sure everyone is OK and not getting into problems (since under stress, people can get negligent and make mistakes). Afterwards, I didn't really grieve, I wasn't really sad but I can say that I miss my aunt.

Can any ENTJ's relate to this?

Can anyone explain this to me? Maybe feelers can explain?

 

[Sophia1]

I can relate to this.
Its not often I get "bummed out". if I do, I openly say "I'm bummed out" then I forget about it and stop being "bummed out" because I've forgotten about it haha.

Its sorta bad for disagreements. I disagree, theres a conflict, and I expect the other person has let it go also since the issue has been "resolved" to me, it has not impacted my mood. However for most feelers, NO they will NOT get over it. Where as I get pretty neutral about stuff. Even as a kid my mom said I would get "bummed out" or "angry" then I would forget about it after a few minutes like it never happened. Actually going to school sometimes I would wake up cranky, and she would tell me "youre being cranky eat your food" then I would change and be happy. its strange that I can do that. but generally most people cant. Perhaps these teeny events do not run deep enough to alter my outlook. I would imagine if they did run deep enough it would be harder for me to "get over"

 

[Lesuhlee]

As in a state of comfort/ discomfort? I have difficulty answering simpleton questions like 'how are you?' Never know how to answer. Why? Because if I'm in a state of discomfort, I'm actively doing something to get comfort; if I'm comfortable, I'm actively doing something to get more comfortable or maintain that homeostasis.

Thus, I'm constantly DOING and living in a state of action; not necessarily DWELLING.

 

[MsBossyPants]

I was just wondering, does our temperament have an influence on how we are "moody?" (emotional state-wise)

As an ENTJ, I find "moods" to be an enigma. I am unsure if I ever had them.

I am not talking about a "physical" mood.
For example, I may be "not in the mood" to eat chocolate or to go out today.
When I say this, it doesn't really refer to my emotional state, but more so my physical state (I feel tired, bloated, etc.)
Or, when I am starving, I am "not in the mood" to argue or to talk, because I want to satisfy my pressing need.

I am taking about this kind of mood:
Let's say someone did something wrong to me. Like at work, someone is being difficult or uncooperative. Or lets say I set up a meeting with someone and the person did not show up without any explanation or apologies at all.
I find that these disappointments do not really "affect my mood" nor do they alter the way I go about with my day. My emotional state stays the same, and I don't get "bummed out" or whatever. I see that the person did something wrong and owes me an apology, or he/she deserves to undergo some sort of consequence, but that's it.

In contrast, I find other people get upset over these things, and you can see their faces change or their "moods" change.
Like one moment everything is fine and whatnot, but after that particular upsetting event, the whole situation changes and the person interacts differently.

Of course, it would be different if something drastic were to happen, like a death of a family member. But then again, in the event that things like that happen (for example, when my aunt died), I was still rather "stable" emotionally and I ended up going into "fix" mode making sure everyone is OK and not getting into problems (since under stress, people can get negligent and make mistakes). Afterwards, I didn't really grieve, I wasn't really sad but I can say that I miss my aunt.

Can any ENTJ's relate to this?

Can anyone explain this to me? Maybe feelers can explain?

Cognitive Processes

Fe	Extraverted Thinking: Connecting; considering others and the group-organizing to meet their needs and honor their values and feelings; maintaining societal, organizational, or group values; adjusting to and accommodating others; deciding if something is appropriate or acceptable to others. Considering what would be appropriate for the situation: "One should or shouldn’t wear…" or "People will think…"
Fi	Introverted Feeling: Valuing; considering importance and worth; reviewing for incongruity; evaluating something based on the truths on which it is based; clarifying values to achieve accord; deciding if something is of significance and worth standing up for. Evaluating whether you like an outfit or not: "This outfit suits me and feels right."

In your scenario, you see the behavior as irresponsibility on the other person's part, but not directed at you personally. You're thinking of it more in terms of WHAT they did. Your Fi is telling you that "it's not worth getting worked up over". It's your own internal sense of what matters to you --> It's not worth your time or getting upset about.

A Fe-driven thought would be more along the lines of "that was rude" or "it's inconsiderate to make others wait". Fe is more about social norms, group behavior and what's appropriate -->It needs to be addressed. (hence the change in mood)

 

[Eosin]

As in a state of comfort/ discomfort? I have difficulty answering simpleton questions like 'how are you?' Never know how to answer. Why? Because if I'm in a state of discomfort, I'm actively doing something to get comfort; if I'm comfortable, I'm actively doing something to get more comfortable or maintain that homeostasis.

Thus, I'm constantly DOING and living in a state of action; not necessarily DWELLING.

I can relate to this.
Its not often I get "bummed out". if I do, I openly say "I'm bummed out" then I forget about it and stop being "bummed out" because I've forgotten about it haha.

Its sorta bad for disagreements. I disagree, theres a conflict, and I expect the other person has let it go also since the issue has been "resolved" to me, it has not impacted my mood. However for most feelers, NO they will NOT get over it. Where as I get pretty neutral about stuff. Even as a kid my mom said I would get "bummed out" or "angry" then I would forget about it after a few minutes like it never happened. Actually going to school sometimes I would wake up cranky, and she would tell me "youre being cranky eat your food" then I would change and be happy. its strange that I can do that. but generally most people cant. Perhaps these teeny events do not run deep enough to alter my outlook. I would imagine if they did run deep enough it would be harder for me to "get over"

@Lesuhlee
Yes! When they ask me "how are you?" I respond with a physical condition! Or whatever is going on! And I never dwell either! It just baffles me how a lot of people dwell, and I can't seem to understand it.
@Sophia1

I am in the same boat! If I get upset, I say what makes me upset, and then I'm done! In fact, if I had a huge fight with someone, and the other person apologizes (assuming it's his/her fault) or the other person accepts my apology, everything is high and dry for me, and I do not dwell.

Can any non-ENTJ's add some insight?

 

[Eosin]

Cognitive Processes

Fe	Extraverted Thinking: Connecting; considering others and the group-organizing to meet their needs and honor their values and feelings; maintaining societal, organizational, or group values; adjusting to and accommodating others; deciding if something is appropriate or acceptable to others. Considering what would be appropriate for the situation: "One should or shouldn’t wear…" or "People will think…"
Fi	Introverted Feeling: Valuing; considering importance and worth; reviewing for incongruity; evaluating something based on the truths on which it is based; clarifying values to achieve accord; deciding if something is of significance and worth standing up for. Evaluating whether you like an outfit or not: "This outfit suits me and feels right."

In your scenario, you see the behavior as irresponsibility on the other person's part, but not directed at you personally. You're thinking of it more in terms of WHAT they did. Your Fi is telling you that "it's not worth getting worked up over". It's your own internal sense of what matters to you --> It's not worth your time or getting upset about.

A Fe-driven thought would be more along the lines of "that was rude" or "it's inconsiderate to make others wait". Fe is more about social norms, group behavior and what's appropriate -->It needs to be addressed. (hence the change in mood)

@MsBossyPants Spot on! I tend to not take things personally most of the time.

And you are right in that there are some things that are non-negotiable, where my Fi would tell me to discuss something, since it was something deeply wrong.

And your Fe explanation clears up a HUGE thing I noticed yesterday. My ENFJ friend was so worked up because he said "excuse me" to a group of guys, but the guys kind of remained where they were, still obstructing the pathway. After that, he was so upset and told us that upon leaving the store, he would totally go back the same way and say "excuse me" with more clout.

I for one, was unaffected and didn't even think much of it. I acknowledge that there are rude people and there are considerate people, and I do not think that I can change much of everyone's behavior anyway unless I am influential to the said person.

 

[MsBossyPants]

@MsBossyPants Spot on! I tend to not take things personally most of the time.

And you are right in that there are some things that are non-negotiable, where my Fi would tell me to discuss something, since it was something deeply wrong.

That's why it's important not to over apply the Fi/Fe thing - stereotyping that Fe is emotional, and Fi is stoic. Violate a value I hold important and it's going to get ugly. :wink:

And your Fe explanation clears up a HUGE thing I noticed yesterday. My ENFJ friend was so worked up because he said "excuse me" to a group of guys, but the guys kind of remained where they were, still obstructing the pathway. After that, he was so upset and told us that upon leaving the store, he would totally go back the same way and say "excuse me" with more clout.

I for one, was unaffected and didn't even think much of it. I acknowledge that there are rude people and there are considerate people, and I do not think that I can change much of everyone's behavior anyway unless I am influential to the said person.

The upside of that quality? I have an ESFJ friend who is the nicest person I know. She genuinely cares that others have everything they need and are comfortable in any situtation. She's the perfect party hostess, and a great person to have around if you need some TLC. Self-less and accommodating. Gracious and kind. But, ya ... don't be late, or you'll be met with a disapproving glance at her watch and maybe even a lecture on tardiness.

 

[Sophia1]

@Eosin, @MsBossyPants I am sorry, I am still confused about Fe v Fi...
Fe is about personal hurt and Fi is about social normalcy hurt???

 

[MsBossyPants]

@Eosin, @MsBossyPants I am sorry, I am still confused about Fe v Fi...
Fe is about personal hurt and Fi is about social normalcy hurt???

Fe is external. It's putting the importance on interpersonal interaction. It's taking the "temperature of the room" and evaluating the group dynamic. Establishing rapport. More focused on how you interact with others. Seeking affirmation that you belong.

You're more likely to be bothered by something that violates the group dynamic. "Do unto others ...", "Can't we all get along?"

Fi is internal. It's deciding what's important to YOU. It's evaluating your own priorities and values. Your guidepost is your own personal conviction based what you believe in. More focused on living your life in a way that's true to yourself.

You're more likely to be bothered by something that violates your own personal code. "I don't like bullies", "Not on my watch."

 

[Lesuhlee]

Fe is external. It's putting the importance on interpersonal interaction. It's taking the "temperature of the room" and evaluating the group dynamic. Establishing rapport. More focused on how you interact with others. Seeking affirmation that you belong.

You're more likely to be bothered by something that violates the group dynamic. "Do unto others ...", "Can't we all get along?"

Fi is internal. It's deciding what's important to YOU. It's evaluating your own priorities and values. Your guidepost is your own personal conviction based what you believe in. More focused on living your life in a way that's true to yourself.

You're more likely to be bothered by something that violates your own personal code. "I don't like bullies", "Not on my watch."

First off, thank you for the link you inboxed me re: functions. Bookmarked, referenced, applied as needed.

Second-- I saw it mentioned throughout various forum threads about 'rogue/ manipulative ENFJs' Frank Underwood (HoC) is oft cited as such.

This perplexes me: aren't they just mistyped ENTJs?

Example: Frank Underwood (FU), House of Cards. It's argued back and forth that Frank Underwood is an ENFJ (just...roll with me here.) He connects on an emotional level with his ultimate victims, and is able to establish superficial communal rapport.

I would argue FU uses people as pawns he positions to achieve his ends. It's not about the emotional structure-- that's a mere means to his end, not the end in and of itself.

Given that Te= Segmenting, systematizing the outer world for efficient structure;
and Fe= Forming connections between people in the outer world for emotional structure;

Thus FU, and any other 'rogue/ manipulative' ENFJs are just mistyped ENTJs?

TBH-- I thought for a while I was an ENFJ, but realized my emotional connection was not my intent; it was my tool for creating effectiveness in reaching a desired end.

Thoughts?

 

[MsBossyPants]

First off, thank you for the link you inboxed me re: functions. Bookmarked, referenced, applied as needed.

Second-- I saw it mentioned throughout various forum threads about 'rogue/ manipulative ENFJs' Frank Underwood (HoC) is oft cited as such.

This perplexes me: aren't they just mistyped ENTJs?

Example: Frank Underwood (FU), House of Cards. It's argued back and forth that Frank Underwood is an ENFJ (just...roll with me here.) He connects on an emotional level with his ultimate victims, and is able to establish superficial communal rapport.

I would argue FU uses people as pawns he positions to achieve his ends. It's not about the emotional structure-- that's a mere means to his end, not the end in and of itself.

Given that Te= Segmenting, systematizing the outer world for efficient structure;
and Fe= Forming connections between people in the outer world for emotional structure;

Thus FU, and any other 'rogue/ manipulative' ENFJs are just mistyped ENTJs?

TBH-- I thought for a while I was an ENFJ, but realized my emotional connection was not my intent; it was my tool for creating effectiveness in reaching a desired end.

Thoughts?

It's hard to type fictional characters because their actions are sometimes over the top and often all over the place to move the plot along. I dont' think MBTI was considered when forming the character. Morely likely, just a general combining of over-the-top, no holds barred, power-seeking meglomaniacal traits.

 

So of course, he's an ENTJ :laughing: geez . I'm surprised no one has created a thread asking us about whether or not he's an ENTJ. (You guys are assholes, right?) :frustrating:

I don't think that manipulative behavior is type specific, though. Anyone can be an asshole. All traits have a positive and negative side. That kindness that prompts people to connect with others at its worst can be seen as fakeness and busybody behavior, or stalker-ish clinginess, for example.

I think it's more accurate to say that he FAKES connecting on an emotional level with his victims. He's faking Fe. He's a predator. He's playing them. He knows what works and where to stick the knife. There is no genuine seeking of rapport or emotional attachment for him. It's merely manipulation. A lot of times, after faking such a connection, he smirks at the camera and makes snarky comments about how easy it is to manipulate people.

.

 

[Eosin]

It's hard to type fictional characters because their actions are sometimes over the top and often all over the place to move the plot along. I dont' think MBTI was considered when forming the character. Morely likely, just a general combining of over-the-top, no holds barred, power-seeking meglomaniacal traits.

 

So of course, he's an ENTJ :laughing: geez . I'm surprised no one has created a thread asking us about whether or not he's an ENTJ. (You guys are assholes, right?) :frustrating:

I don't think that manipulative behavior is type specific, though. Anyone can be an asshole. All traits have a positive and negative side. That kindness that prompts people to connect with others at its worst can be seen as fakeness and busybody behavior, or stalker-ish clinginess, for example.

I think it's more accurate to say that he FAKES connecting on an emotional level with his victims. He's faking Fe. He's a predator. He's playing them. He knows what works and where to stick the knife. There is no genuine seeking of rapport or emotional attachment for him. It's merely manipulation. A lot of times, after faking such a connection, he smirks at the camera and makes snarky comments about how easy it is to manipulate people.

.

@MsBossyPants and @Lesuhlee I want to know what you think of how I relate to people. The example of Frank Underwood made me reflect on how my mind operates.

I generally care for people, and genuinely want to give help (especially to those who deserve it)--I really looked deep into myself and thought about it. However, sometimes, I catch myself doing a multi-purposed approach of help to people.

My rationale for helping tends to be semi-subjective: I help not to make myself "feel good" but because it is the "right thing" and also, it ends up benefiting me (in some cases, or at times, I perceive it that way even if I had not initially or intentionally helped someone for the purpose of elevating myself).

For example, I just moved to another city and made a genuine friend (we are roommates), like we actually just "clicked," unlike how I relate to most people. He's a NF. Anyway, I find myself actually going out of my way to support him through advice, and actually do acts of service, give things and whatnot. I genuinely like what I am doing. However, I question myself sometimes because I catch myself thinking: "I should be nice to him, because I actually found a good friend, and I might not meet another one, so I will be lonely, bored, and have nobody 'good enough' to talk to," so I feel like the reasons I am nice to him is calculated.

For instance, I very easily identify weak spots in his life, and I tend to offer help/support where those weak spots are. And whatever he lacks, those are the things I provide for. In doing this, my mind is telling me that it is more beneficial for both of us since he gets what he needs and I establish better rapport relative to if I offered support/things where they are not needed.

On the other hand, he's someone who feels fulfilled helping people, so I enable him to help me in areas where I know he can offer his help, and then the other areas I do not reveal to him. This way, I give him a feeling of accomplishment since he was able to help out. In areas where he cannot, I do not reveal them so that he does not feel upset by not being able to help.

I have done the same things to other friends. For example, I invite friends to help me out to do something (something physical and tedious and time-consuming), and in the background I am actively helping hook them up with a job. And I actually delivered. It was not a simple give and exchange-relationship or a conditional help-relationship per say [her hiring was not contingent upon whether she will help me or not], but there was that prospective job that one of my friends was counting on from me. And I actually wanted to get her a job, regardless of whether she helps me, and even before I asked for her help.

Interestingly, before she even got the job, she helped me so much (compared to the others) and it almost looked like (in the most objective sense) I was "dangling" or "lording over" the job prospect to her. (The job pays well by the way, $23/hr for an associate's degree). And once again, I was not intending (nor did I ever think) to "dangle" the job on her so she would help me. I did, however, think that she would probably be more likely to help me since I was doing her a solid by trying to hook her up with a job.

But don't get me wrong, I do genuinely want to support and give help to my friends.

Now when I compare these "calculated" gestures to the general population (from what I have experienced), I don't think I have met another person who has intentionally provided thoughtful and "accurate and precise" support towards others as I have towards others. Usually they just offer general help (sometimes I suspect them to do it out of politeness); I don't think I have ever received deliberate/intentional "accurate and precise" help. If someone did that for me, I would be suspicious and question his/her Modus operandi.

So my question is, am I faking it like Frank Underwood? I fear that I am too calculating and deliberate. Because what I find myself lacking (even up to now) is the desire for emotional attachment. I am unsure if I have it. Or, how does that desire present itself in your life? Maybe I express it differently?

 

[MsBossyPants]

@MsBossyPants and @Lesuhlee I want to know what you think of how I relate to people. The example of Frank Underwood made me reflect on how my mind operates.

I generally care for people, and genuinely want to give help (especially to those who deserve it)--I really looked deep into myself and thought about it. However, sometimes, I catch myself doing a multi-purposed approach of help to people.

My rationale for helping tends to be semi-subjective: I help not to make myself "feel good" but because it is the "right thing" and also, it ends up benefiting me (in some cases, or at times, I perceive it that way even if I had not initially or intentionally helped someone for the purpose of elevating myself).

"Right thing" means different things to different people. It can be the right thing that's socially acceptable or it can be the right thing as you see it -performing an action that has value to you. Just because you ultimately benefit from an action that has value for you doesn't mean that it is selfish. You seem to genuinely want to help those that matter to you. That's the key ..."that matter to you". Your act of service is an outward expression of your inner connection with that person. It's Fi's way of establishing a commitment or showing loyalty. It's based on your interaction with that individual.

So my question is, am I faking it like Frank Underwood? I fear that I am too calculating and deliberate. Because what I find myself lacking (even up to now) is the desire for emotional attachment. I am unsure if I have it. Or, how does that desire present itself in your life? Maybe I express it differently?

Me? I not emotionally attached to many people, but the few I'm attached to, the bond is deep. I'd do most anything for them. It's an exclusive club you have to work your way into by showing loyalty and commitment.

I know a lot of people, and I would say I'm friends with a lot of people. But, it's more of a casual friendship. If I can help them in some way, I see it more like having the ability to solve their problem for them and keeping the link to them open and freely flowing. I enjoy their company, but have no interest in sharing my secrets with them, or being their sounding board for all their problems -to share intimacies with them. So, in that sense I don't share an emotional attachment to them. It's more like networking - not burning a bridge that might be useful in the future. That "doing someone a solid" you mentioned. It's a casual relationship, not one based on emotional attachment.

That doesn't mean that I don't want emotional attachment. It means it has to be on my terms and with the right person(s).

 

[Elistra]

I'm rarely accused of moodiness, but when I am the accusation invariably boils down to -- "You're calling me out on my outrageous behavior and/or egregious lies, and I don't like it because I think I'm entitled to be as trashy, disgusting, and/or generally vile as I want."

 

[Eosin]

"Right thing" means different things to different people. It can be the right thing that's socially acceptable or it can be the right thing as you see it -performing an action that has value to you. Just because you ultimately benefit from an action that has value for you doesn't mean that it is selfish. You seem to genuinely want to help those that matter to you. That's the key ..."that matter to you". Your act of service is an outward expression of your inner connection with that person. It's Fi's way of establishing a commitment or showing loyalty. It's based on your interaction with that individual.

@MsBossyPants Huh! It makes sense! I questioned whether I even make a connection to people, since it tends to be not very apparent externally. But it makes sense that Fi's way of making connection with people is through an internal connection, and the best way I show it is though acts of service and giving gifts, even though I never make declarations or say how I feel about people.

Me? I not emotionally attached to many people, but the few I'm attached to, the bond is deep. I'd do most anything for them. It's an exclusive club you have to work your way into by showing loyalty and commitment.

The same applies to me! I have been friends with this one girl for about 4-5 years; we were in the same group of friends and she was in my college classes. I used to have a casual friendship with her, didn't really make deep connections, I did help her from time to time but there was no "deep connection." And then after no longer being in close proximity to her after a year, I was in desperate need of help and she (among many of my other "close" friends) was the one who delivered. After that, I saw her in another light, and I think that event was the catalyst in perceiving her as part of that "exclusive club"

I know a lot of people, and I would say I'm friends with a lot of people. But, it's more of a casual friendship. If I can help them in some way, I see it more like having the ability to solve their problem for them and keeping the link to them open and freely flowing. I enjoy their company, but have no interest in sharing my secrets with them, or being their sounding board for all their problems -to share intimacies with them. So, in that sense I don't share an emotional attachment to them. It's more like networking - not burning a bridge that might be useful in the future. That "doing someone a solid" you mentioned. It's a casual relationship, not one based on emotional attachment.

That doesn't mean that I don't want emotional attachment. It means it has to be on my terms and with the right person(s).

I feel the same exact way! I don't really share any intimate information with anyone, unless the person is part of that "exclusive club," and it takes years to gain that membership.
Some people have given me that vibe--questioning why I am not sharing anything intimate about myself. And it even got to the point where I thought that I was incapable of having "real relationships" with people since I do not share this type of information. From what you just said, I am glad that I am not alone in this.
And my "exclusive club" friends never pressured me to share any intimate information at all. Which is why they are part of that group.

 

[Gman1]

I was just wondering, does our temperament have an influence on how we are "moody?" (emotional state-wise)

As an ENTJ, I find "moods" to be an enigma. I am unsure if I ever had them.

I am not talking about a "physical" mood.
For example, I may be "not in the mood" to eat chocolate or to go out today.
When I say this, it doesn't really refer to my emotional state, but more so my physical state (I feel tired, bloated, etc.)
Or, when I am starving, I am "not in the mood" to argue or to talk, because I want to satisfy my pressing need.

I am taking about this kind of mood:
Let's say someone did something wrong to me. Like at work, someone is being difficult or uncooperative. Or lets say I set up a meeting with someone and the person did not show up without any explanation or apologies at all.
I find that these disappointments do not really "affect my mood" nor do they alter the way I go about with my day. My emotional state stays the same, and I don't get "bummed out" or whatever. I see that the person did something wrong and owes me an apology, or he/she deserves to undergo some sort of consequence, but that's it.

In contrast, I find other people get upset over these things, and you can see their faces change or their "moods" change.
Like one moment everything is fine and whatnot, but after that particular upsetting event, the whole situation changes and the person interacts differently.

Of course, it would be different if something drastic were to happen, like a death of a family member. But then again, in the event that things like that happen (for example, when my aunt died), I was still rather "stable" emotionally and I ended up going into "fix" mode making sure everyone is OK and not getting into problems (since under stress, people can get negligent and make mistakes). Afterwards, I didn't really grieve, I wasn't really sad but I can say that I miss my aunt.

Can any ENTJ's relate to this?

Can anyone explain this to me? Maybe feelers can explain?

If you receive enough criticism from enough people over time, then eventually you'll start to lose faith in yourself.
So if a person is difficult with you, you'll start to think it's your fault, and they are in the right.
Or if people don't show up at a meeting, it's because you're incompetent, and they don't want to waste their time with you.

The basic answer is: being unable to adapt.
Some people simply cannot adapt properly to the needs of our 21st century environment. It may be because they are not very outgoing (which apparently is a big no-no in our society), or maybe they are not very smart or energetic.

In an ideal world, everyone would be saying exactly the same thing as you. Unfortunately, it's far from ideal.

 

[Eosin]

If you receive enough criticism from enough people over time, then eventually you'll start to lose faith in yourself.
So if a person is difficult with you, you'll start to think it's your fault, and they are in the right.
Or if people don't show up at a meeting, it's because you're incompetent, and they don't want to waste their time with you.

@agwood Makes sense! All my life people have been criticizing me (including my own family and relatives) so I believe that it caused me to develop a very thick skin. I tend to rarely get upset over criticism, since "I know myself, I know what I can do, and whatever you think of me does not change who I am."

In contrast, my friend seems to be raised in a more loving and accepting family, so there was not much criticism going on. Whenever he gets criticized, he takes it very seriously, and it alters his mood by A LOT.

The basic answer is: being unable to adapt.
Some people simply cannot adapt properly to the needs of our 21st century environment. It may be because they are not very outgoing (which apparently is a big no-no in our society), or maybe they are not very smart or energetic.
I personally believe some people, like yourselves, are well suited to the urban environment, whereas others are better suited to more quiet, rural locations, where the demands are different.

This is spot on! Once again, I have experienced way too many difficulties in life (coincidentally, urban life), which has forced me to adapt to changes almost every day of my life.

And living in the city, I am used to potentially negative interactions all the time, and the demands and competition are very high; I thrived well since I was usually the top of the class, and I usually end up coming out on top on anything even when crap hits the fan.
I also moved a lot, so I had to make new friends all the time, and I had "establish myself" every time I moved. I was never comfortable.

In contrast, my friend who tends to be more affected by moods lives in a more rural environment. He had been surrounded by the same people all his life, and it seems like he lived a very comfortable life.
I had always wondered why he was so "hard on himself" and why he questioned his abilities.

Your explanation clears up a lot!

 

[Lesuhlee]

@MsBossyPants and @Lesuhlee I want to know what you think of how I relate to people. The example of Frank Underwood made me reflect on how my mind operates.

I generally care for people, and genuinely want to give help (especially to those who deserve it)--I really looked deep into myself and thought about it. However, sometimes, I catch myself doing a multi-purposed approach of help to people.

My rationale for helping tends to be semi-subjective: I help not to make myself "feel good" but because it is the "right thing" and also, it ends up benefiting me (in some cases, or at times, I perceive it that way even if I had not initially or intentionally helped someone for the purpose of elevating myself).

For example, I just moved to another city and made a genuine friend (we are roommates), like we actually just "clicked," unlike how I relate to most people. He's a NF. Anyway, I find myself actually going out of my way to support him through advice, and actually do acts of service, give things and whatnot. I genuinely like what I am doing. However, I question myself sometimes because I catch myself thinking: "I should be nice to him, because I actually found a good friend, and I might not meet another one, so I will be lonely, bored, and have nobody 'good enough' to talk to," so I feel like the reasons I am nice to him is calculated.

For instance, I very easily identify weak spots in his life, and I tend to offer help/support where those weak spots are. And whatever he lacks, those are the things I provide for.

Now when I compare these "calculated" gestures to the general population (from what I have experienced), I don't think I have met another person who has intentionally provided thoughtful and "accurate and precise" support towards others as I have towards others.

So my question is, am I faking it like Frank Underwood? I fear that I am too calculating and deliberate. Because what I find myself lacking (even up to now) is the desire for emotional attachment. I am unsure if I have it. Or, how does that desire present itself in your life? Maybe I express it differently?

It's problematic to wash everything down to a values- based system of transactions: 'I scratched your back; you scratched mine'. It's like trying to build an infrastructure on air and assumption.

For me, it REALLY is as basic as this:

1) What does Leslie want or need?
2) Who do I need it from?
3) How am I going to get them to give it to me?

Sometimes in that process others get helped; sometimes they get hurt.

Small intimate circle of those I keep semi- central to this process as well. Family, never an SO (sorry future ladies).

But it is worth noting: no one ever gets deeper than the surface layers i peel and toss them. No one.

 

[Sophia1]

@MsBossyPants Huh! It makes sense! I questioned whether I even make a connection to people, since it tends to be not very apparent externally. But it makes sense that Fi's way of making connection with people is through an internal connection, and the best way I show it is though acts of service and giving gifts, even though I never make declarations or say how I feel about people.



The same applies to me! I have been friends with this one girl for about 4-5 years; we were in the same group of friends and she was in my college classes. I used to have a casual friendship with her, didn't really make deep connections, I did help her from time to time but there was no "deep connection." And then after no longer being in close proximity to her after a year, I was in desperate need of help and she (among many of my other "close" friends) was the one who delivered. After that, I saw her in another light, and I think that event was the catalyst in perceiving her as part of that "exclusive club"



I feel the same exact way! I don't really share any intimate information with anyone, unless the person is part of that "exclusive club," and it takes years to gain that membership.
Some people have given me that vibe--questioning why I am not sharing anything intimate about myself. And it even got to the point where I thought that I was incapable of having "real relationships" with people since I do not share this type of information. From what you just said, I am glad that I am not alone in this.
And my "exclusive club" friends never pressured me to share any intimate information at all. Which is why they are part of that group.

@Eosin, @MsBossyPants

*sigh of relief,
so glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. I tried to explain this exclusive club theory, and the casual friendships thing and ppl just didn't understand...
I do all the things discussed. Ppl I care about, do anything to help them. Bonds run very deep for me, but not given willy nilly.

 

[Lesuhlee]

@Eosin, @MsBossyPants

*sigh of relief,
so glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. I tried to explain this exclusive club theory, and the casual friendships thing and ppl just didn't understand...
I do all the things discussed. Ppl I care about, do anything to help them. Bonds run very deep for me, but not given willy nilly.

For me the intimate information is relative. It's based on my own personal values; I recognize this varies person to person.
I can't exactly explain the je ne sais quoi (sp?) of my intrinsic value set-- but I sure as hell know when it's been violated. And when it's been violated, you're out of my inner semi-circle. No questions asked. (Friendships, at least. With regards to intimate partners-- it's different (see also: my post in the relationships thread)).

It boils down to again, my infrastructures built on air and assumptions analogy.

My Fe- Dom best friend has her own conception of intimacy comfort level; it was far more intimate than mine. I thought I was clearly opening up to her; she felt like I was withholding and 'plotting to use what she divulged against me' in this weird paranoia. Ultimately, I felt it necessary to end the friendship. It felt comfortable to me; I just cut her off. Closure enough.