Having to carry others intellectually.

[Duxwing]

Deal with it, because it barely depends on age. Sure, people get more mature, but that includes INTPs. They're not suddenly about to become thinkers. You'll keep most of your interests, and they'll keep most of theirs. It doesn't suddenly change, and people don't really get more open minded either.

I don't think time changes the world as fast as it changes my perception. Most of my friends have little in common to me. I admit it bothers me, but that doesn't mean they don't hold value. In fact, they're truly valuable and worth the time I spend on them, as long as I know not to expect any insights that aren't class-related.

Oh how I loathe that. My classmates all get A's, but most of them either can't handle the minimal emotional conflict underlying intellectual discourse; can handle the conflict, but can't handle concepts and ideas beyond their "encyclopedia" of facts; or can handle both, but are so entrenched in their own views that debate is pointless. Finding a fellow logical "fencer" (someone who can debate and enjoys debating) in my school is difficult indeed. And I've largely realized why, and the reason is so cruelly, coldly, and ironically logical:

Let "logical fencer" refer to any person of the Rational Temperament.
Caveat: Not every Rational is a "logical fencer," but I'll assume that the number of Rationals who aren't is equal to the number of other temperaments that are. Thus, the 'ideal' number of "logical fencers" is maintained.

Almost all of my classes are in the 'upper echelon' of difficulty
Most kids who take one class that is in the 'upper echelon' of difficulty take all such classes
Therefore, I effectively have the same classmates in each of my classes.

Let 'my class' refer to the set of all students in all of my classes, myself included.

No more than 25 students are in my class
The Rational Temperament makes up, at the outside around 4% of the population; Or, in other words, a random sample of 100 people will, on average, yield 4 Rationals
A random sample of 25 people from the 100 people will therefore, on average, yield 1 Rational

Assuming that the students in my class comprise a random sample of a whopping 25 people, we should, on average, find 1 Rational in my class.
By definition, the remaining number of possible Rationals = The total number of possible Rationals - The number of Known Rationals (congruently, R = P - K)
I am a Known Rational; therefore K = 1
We should, on average, find only one Rational in my class; therefore P = 1
Substitution of givens for P and K yields: R = 1 - 1, which simplifies to R = 0

QED: Finding a fellow logical "fencer" in my school is difficult indeed. Forever Alone.

-Duxwing

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm pretty sure rationals comprise more than 4% of the population.

Also, as you mentioned, you are in the upper echelon of academia, your classes would likely select for the rational temperament.

Also also, if your sample is comprised of people that are not you (as you are estimating the chance of meeting a rational that is not you), assuming a base rate of 4%, you are very likely to find a fellow rational in a sample of 24.

Also also also, temperament is not that big of a deal. Even if you were correct in assuming rationals were extremely rare, you should not underestimate the value of an intelligent non-rational temperament. Plenty of the people here that you seem to love conversing with are of this ilk.

 

[Duxwing]

I'm pretty sure rationals comprise more than 4% of the population.

Also, as you mentioned, you are in the upper echelon of academia, your classes would likely select for the rational temperament.

Also also, if your sample is comprised of people that are not you (as you cannot share a class with yourself), assuming a base rate of 4%, you are very likely to find a fellow rational in a sample of 24.

Ah, but it is. I am a member of my class. The whole problem is that the model predicts that one person in my class of 25 is a Rational, and I know of one such person: myself. I've already taken up the Rational "slot" in my class, so if I found a Rational in my class who wasn't me, then my class would have not 1 Rational but 2: he or she and I. But the model predicts that, on average, there can only be one. Ergo, my class would have to contain an above-average number of Rationals in order for me to know of a Rational in my class who isn't me.

But arguing about people is messy, and the army of pronouns necessary to do so is confusing. Let's use a simple analogy to my class: A bag of balls. Imagine a bag of 25 balls in which 4% of the balls are blue. I draw a ball from the bag at random and produce a blue one. Assuming a normal distribution of blue balls in the bag, I have therefore removed the bag's only blue ball. If I've removed the only blue ball from the bag, then I logically cannot draw additional blue balls from the bag.

Now replace "blue ball" with "Rational" and "bag" with "my class," and you'll see that your reasoning makes sense if I were sitting in one class and looking at another because the odds of, say, a teacher finding a Rational in a class of 24 are almost 1. However, I already comprise one of the Rationals in my class of 25, so if I found a Rational in my class, then I would be finding an additional Rational in excess of what the model predicts.

How likely is that? 1/25. And I have seven classes.

QED: (Almost certainly) Forever Alone.

Now I would like to point out that I've met five Rationals in my class (two ENTPs, two INTJs, and one possible INTP), so I'm just arguing this for fun, and I agree that a pro-Rational selection pressure might exist. But oddly enough, most of my classmates are SJs. I suspect that few others, given slightly above average intelligence (the selection pressure for IQ certainly exists) could handle the workload and memorization necessary to run that many hard classes at once, and my interactions with them evince lots of Si.

I, on the other hand, am just smart enough to largely coast through. Or maybe they're all Rationals, and I'm just arrogant.

Also also also, temperament is not that big of a deal. Even if you were correct in assuming rationals were extremely rare, you should not underestimate the value of an intelligent non-rational temperament. Plenty of the people here that you seem to love conversing with are of this ilk.

Note the caveat in my definition of "logical fencer": For the very reason that you've described, my model assumes that the number of people who can debate and enjoy debating is equal to the number of Rationals, not that the set of all Rationals is the set of all people who can debate and enjoy debating.

-Duxwing

 

[Hadoblado]

You are still making an error. If you have a one in ten chance to shoot a hoop from 10 yards, and you start off the set by scoring, you still have nine chances each equal to 1 in 10. The fact that you start off your class with a goal (yourself being of rational temperament) tells you nothing about the other twentyfour 1/25 (your classmates). In the basketball example, you are much more likely to score two hoops, than you are to score one. You are measuring the chance that a person you meet is a rational, the fact that you yourself are a rational has nothing to do with this.

Going into dot point ‘cos I have some pressing issues that require attention

- Statistics does not work with ‘slots’.

- You use the term ‘normal distribution’, but then demonstrate that you likely don’t actually understand what that entails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

- You say “the model predicts that, on average, there can only be one”. Either you are misinterpreting your model or your model is wrong. Statistically, there will be one on average, but you cannot say that on average there can only be one. You can have an average of one, but an average in this circumstance is only a best guess. The mean testacles per capita of the human race is one, but inferring the notion that meeting a person with a different number of testacles is unlikely would be foolish.

edit: I don't mean any of this in a nasty way. From what I understand, you are mistaken, and I am (somewhat crudely) illustrating why I am led to this conclusion.

 

[SpaceYeti]

You are still making an error. If you have a one in ten chance to shoot a hoop from 10 yards, and you start off the set by scoring, you still have nine chances each equal to 1 in 10. The fact that you start off your class with a goal (yourself being of rational temperament) tells you nothing about the other twentyfour 1/25 (your classmates). In the basketball example, you are much more likely to score two hoops, than you are to score one. You are measuring the chance that a person you meet is a rational, the fact that you yourself are a rational has nothing to do with this.

Going into dot point ‘cos I have some pressing issues that require attention

- Statistics does not work with ‘slots’.

- You use the term ‘normal distribution’, but then demonstrate that you likely don’t actually understand what that entails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

- You say “the model predicts that, on average, there can only be one”. Either you are misinterpreting your model or your model is wrong. Statistically, there will be one on average, but you cannot say that on average there can only be one. You can have an average of one, but an average in this circumstance is only a best guess. The mean testacles per capita of the human race is one, but inferring the notion that meeting a person with a different number of testacles is unlikely would be foolish.

edit: I don't mean any of this in a nasty way. From what I understand, you are mistaken, and I am (somewhat crudely) illustrating why I am led to this conclusion.

You're presuming an infinite supply of potential meetings all with an equal chance, not decreasing due to those already met, of people to meet. If we have a total of 100 people, and you're one of them because you're a person, and 4 of them are rational, then only 3 other people are rational out of 99 (if you're rational). As you determine people's type, you discover two other rationals by the time you count to 34. Including yourself, you discovered 3 rationals within 35 people, those 35 people being only a part of the greater hundred people. You now have 65 more people to meet, but only one of them is a rational. Thus, the odds of finding that rational is 1 in 65, which is far less than 1/25. It's not like someone rolls the dice to determine what the person your meeting's type is. Granting, the raw number of people in a larger society is far greater than 100, or 25, or whatever, but if you have two rationals in a class of 25, and the odds of having a single one is 1/25 as determined by the statistics of society at large, then it doesn't matter who those rationals are, if one is you or if neither is, the class has a higher ratio of rationals than classes would have if type were divided evenly into them.

If you're a rational, then your odds of meeting random people who are also rationals is decreased because you are one of the rationals people might meet. With the size of society, your decreased odds are negligible, but they're still decreased.

Unless we have infinite people, but we don't.

 

[Duxwing]

You are still making an error. If you have a one in ten chance to shoot a hoop from 10 yards, and you start off the set by scoring, you still have nine chances each equal to 1 in 10. The fact that you start off your class with a goal (yourself being of rational temperament) tells you nothing about the other twentyfour 1/25 (your classmates). In the basketball example, you are much more likely to score two hoops, than you are to score one. You are measuring the chance that a person you meet is a rational, the fact that you yourself are a rational has nothing to do with this.

And when you're done shooting hoops, you'll have a list of data points that will, on average, be {Misses = 9, Hits = 1}. Therefore, if all your sets of ten shots conformed to the average, then finding one hit in a given set means that you will find no other hit in that set. But, as you've pointed out, not all of your sets will conform to the average.

Now if I'm not mistaken, the odds of getting 'n' favorable outcomes in a given set of independent trials is:

f * p^-n

Where f is the number of possible favorable outcomes and p is the number of possible outcomes.

Therefore, getting two Rationals in one class would be equal to:

1 * 25^-2

1 * 1/625

1/625

A number which, while greater than zero, is too small to be statistically significant.

Going into dot point ‘cos I have some pressing issues that require attention

Dots!

- Statistics does not work with ‘slots’.

No, it doesn't, but its a crude approximation when all sets of trials conform to the average.

- You use the term ‘normal distribution’, but then demonstrate that you likely don’t actually understand what that entails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

D'oh! I need to read that article again. Thanks.

- You say “the model predicts that, on average, there can only be one”. Either you are misinterpreting your model or your model is wrong. Statistically, there will be one on average, but you cannot say that on average there can only be one.

I can say that on average, there will only be one, but I can't say that in all cases. Just 624 out of 625 of them.

You can have an average of one, but an average in this circumstance is only a best guess.

Best guess, as far as I know, is 624 out of 625. Better odds than surviving childbirth in Latin America, and yet I still see plenty of babies being born there.

The mean testacles per capita of the human race is one, but inferring the notion that meeting a person with a different number of testacles is unlikely would be foolish.

Not all averages are created equal.

edit: I don't mean any of this in a nasty way.

If you're worried about sounding nasty, then perhaps you could work on your tone?

From what I understand, you are mistaken, and I am (somewhat crudely) illustrating why I am led to this conclusion.

We're both two dudes... groping in the dark.

YEAAAAAAAH!

-Duxwing

 

[Brontosaurie]

thank you based hadoblado.

 

[Hadoblado]

@SpaceYeti
Yes I presume an infinite pool, but the diminishing likelihood of meeting people of a rational temperament from a population of 7,000,000,000 is negligible. reducing the total number of rationals from a population by one is statistically insignificant.

@Duxwing
Sorry, I have next to zero experience in mathematics, and so have difficulty both understanding and communicating algebra. I do have experience in statistics, which is where my confidence that you are mistaken comes from.

Let me rephrase this. In the basketball example, you are a player, who for some reason is able to always score his first shot, but for every other shot, is only able to succeed one in ten times. This is the statistical equivalent of your conundrum. You are always a rational, and everyone else adheres to the base-rate. Yes the base rate is diminished slightly by your absence from the population, but this is negligible.

If the first shot is always a score, and the base rate is 1/10, then by including yourself in the data, you are achieving the base rate before a second shot is taken every time. You are completely ignoring the 9/10 chance you will score from every subsequent shot in your set. Using your math, and a base rate of one in ten shots scoring, what is the average score per set? It is not one, it is much closer to two. At the very least, you can admit that by meeting your assumed base rate quota before observing variables, the actual base rate must be greater than one?

Another argument:
If you systematically searched for people of rational temperament in the entire population, but used your method of including yourself in each sample of 25, you would be the only rational you ever find. This is precisely what you are doing in regard to your class.

@Brontosaurie
I'm sorry, I don't take your meaning.

 

[Brontosaurie]

@Brontosaurie
I'm sorry, I don't take your meaning.

thank you for straightening that stuff out.

 

[SpaceYeti]

@SpaceYeti
Yes I presume an infinite pool, but the diminishing likelihood of meeting people of a rational temperament from a population of 7,000,000,000 is negligible. reducing the total number of rationals from a population by one is statistically insignificant.

So the entire population of the world goes to or works at or can otherwise be found in that school such that we use the entire world in the school's population's statistics?

Even if we do, it's irrelevant. If there are two people in the class of a particular type, then there are two people in that class of a particular type, whether you're one of them or not.

 

[Duxwing]

@SpaceYeti
Yes I presume an infinite pool, but the diminishing likelihood of meeting people of a rational temperament from a population of 7,000,000,000 is negligible. reducing the total number of rationals from a population by one is statistically insignificant.

@Duxwing
Sorry, I have next to zero experience in mathematics, and so have difficulty both understanding and communicating algebra. I do have experience in statistics, which is where my confidence that you are mistaken comes from.

Let me rephrase this. In the basketball example, you are a player, who for some reason is able to always score his first shot, but for every other shot, is only able to succeed one in ten times.

But the fact that I'm a Rational is also the result of chance.

This is the statistical equivalent of your conundrum. You are always a rational, and everyone else adheres to the base-rate. Yes the base rate is diminished slightly by your absence from the population, but this is negligible.

I, too, adhere to the base rate. I just happen to be a Rational.

If the first shot is always a score, and the base rate is 1/10, then by including yourself in the data, you are achieving the base rate before a second shot is taken every time.

Your argument implicitly uses two samples: A sample of 1 (me) and a sample of 24 unknowns. The sample really is 25 unknowns, of which one (me) has been revealed.

You are completely ignoring the 9/10 chance you will score from every subsequent shot in your set. Using your math, and a base rate of one in ten shots scoring, what is the average score per set? It is not one, it is much closer to two. At the very least, you can admit that by meeting your assumed base rate quota before observing variables, the actual base rate must be greater than one?

Again, you've neglected to consider that my being a Rational was also produced by the base rate.

Another argument:
If you systematically searched for people of rational temperament in the entire population, but used your method of including yourself in each sample of 25, you would be the only rational you ever find. This is precisely what you are doing in regard to your class.

But that's exactly my problem. I'm in every class that I'm in, so when performing statistical analysis, I must include myself in every sample that I take; ergo, I can't find any other Rationals, as you have so well put. If I weren't part of the sample, however, then I agree that I ought to find one.

-Duxwing

PS As a matter of unprompted curiosity, have I sounded nasty in our debate? I didn't and don't mean to.

 

[BigApplePi]

Guys, I haven't read all this theme, but would put it this way:

Suppose we assume 4 percent of the world population is rational. That presents an expected 1 in 25 of a class of 25 chosen at random to be rational. The 25 must be random. If you put yourself in this class, the 25 are no longer random. The other 24 may be. But that is unlikely and the entire 25 are unlikely to be random. It depends on the class. Consider a student class of artists versus engineers. Those classes aren't random with respect to rationals.

 

[Duxwing]

Guys, I haven't read all this theme, but would put it this way:

Suppose we assume 4 percent of the world population is rational. That presents an expected 1 in 25 of a class of 25 chosen at random to be rational. The 25 must be random. If you put yourself in this class, the 25 are no longer random. The other 24 may be. But that is unlikely and the entire 25 are unlikely to be random. It depends on the class. Consider a student class of artists versus engineers. Those classes aren't random with respect to rationals.

Of course the classes have selection pressures Hadoblado and I just splitting hairs for fun and knowledge.

-Duxwing

 

[Hadoblado]

That was BAP, and no, you haven't sounded nasty

I'm not annoyed, as I too like to argue semantics, though I am starting to think that you are trolling.

Do you really think that by measuring the entire population in samples of 25, you will never meet another rational?

The fact that you have 4-5 rationals in your class besides you implies that in further sampling, you will somehow need to observe less than one rational in a sample of 25 that includes yourself, otherwise your base rate is incorrect. For every rational that is not you that you find, you need to somehow find less than one rational in another sample that by definition, has one or more rationals.

Edit: and SpaceYeti is right to pull me up using the entire population of the earth, though it is still a negligible effect.

 

[Duxwing]

That was BAP, and no, you haven't sounded nasty

I'm not annoyed, as I too like to argue semantics, though I am starting to think that you are trolling.

Oh no no! I was only trying to be funny with that "Forever Alone" idea, and if that's trolling, then I apologize. This argument has morphed very much from its original intentions.

Do you really think that by measuring the entire population in samples of 25, you will never meet another rational?

No, and I didn't assert as much.

The fact that you have 4-5 rationals in your class besides you implies that in further sampling, you will somehow need to observe less than one rational in a sample of 25 that includes yourself, otherwise your base rate is incorrect. For every rational that is not you that you find, you need to somehow find less than one rational in another sample that by definition, has one or more rationals.

Look over my assumptions, and you'll see that I'm arguing about a hypothetical class. In reality, I'm not forever alone.

EDIT: I've grossly underestimated the Rational rate. It's ~10%. Consider my entire example debunked.

-Duxwing

 

[Hadoblado]

Quote:
Do you really think that by measuring the entire population in samples of 25, you will never meet another rational?

No, and I didn't assert as much.

But that's exactly my problem. I'm in every class that I'm in, so when performing statistical analysis, I must include myself in every sample that I take; ergo, I can't find any other Rationals, as you have so well put. If I weren't part of the sample, however, then I agree that I ought to find one.

-Duxwing

From this it seems that you think that the statistics will rearrange themselves when including yourself in the sample. If you meet 24 people, you think it is likely one of them will be rational, but then by thinking in terms of you being part of the people you meet, this likelihood suddenly drops to zero. In reality nothing has changed. A rational person does not have a reduced chance of meeting rationals, the observations are independent.

BAP explained it well, when you are part of the sample tested, the data-point representing you is not random, but the other 24 are. Your presence is not at all predictive of other people's personality.

I feel as if at this point we are just repeating ourselves, and one of us is not properly reevaluating our position. This makes me uncomfortable, so unless there is something new one of us can offer I am discontinuing this discussion. I don't mean to be rude, I just don't see this progressing.

 

[Duxwing]

From this it seems that you think that the statistics will rearrange themselves when including yourself in the sample. If you meet 24 people, you think it is likely one of them will be rational, but then by thinking in terms of you being part of the people you meet, this likelihood suddenly drops to zero. In reality nothing has changed. A rational person does not have a reduced chance of meeting rationals, the observations are independent.

But you're talking about a different kind of sampling. I'm talking about this kind:

Step 1.)Divide the people of the Earth into random groups of 25
Step 2.) Average the number of Rationals in each group. You should find that the average is one. (The rate is wrong, but that doesn't matter)
Step 3.) Eliminate all groups of which I am not a member (I can't observe groups that I am not in).
Step 4.) Eliminate all groups that have more than one Rational OR be in a world wherein all samples reflect the expected result (1 Rational per 25 People)
QED: Forever Alone

But this kind of sampling and reasoning is silly! It doesn't reflect reality (the rate is incorrect) and some groups (1 in 625) will have a Rational in them, even by my stringent standards.

The real rate of Rationals is 1 in 10, so I'd have to cut the group size down to ten and still apply step four in order to eliminate the 1% chance that I'd get a two-Rational class, the .1% chance that I'd get a three-Rational class, the .01% chance that I'd get a four rational class, and so on.

So you're right, I'm not forever alone.

BAP explained it well, when you are part of the sample tested, the data-point representing you is not random, but the other 24 are. Your presence is not at all predictive of other people's personality.

I am not including myself in the samples, but rather excluding all samples that don't randomly include me.

I feel as if at this point we are just repeating ourselves, and one of us is not properly reevaluating our position. This makes me uncomfortable, so unless there is something new one of us can offer I am discontinuing this discussion. I don't mean to be rude, I just don't see this progressing.

You're right. My original position doesn't describe reality.

-Duxwing

 

[Cherry Cola]

I never said that they'd be dumber. I said that I'd throw a fit. And I'd throw it because, assuming that the INFJ and ESFP are in my age group (16) we'd have few interests in common because our dominant functions would all be different and our auxiliary functions, the one source of common ground between the INFJ and me, would be almost entirely undeveloped (my Ne is just coming in). And if you'd have looked at the post to which I was replying, then you'd have noticed that shared interests were what SpaceYeti and I were discussing.



Right, but you're likely older than I am. In my age group, or at least in my cohort of peers, Sensors, iNtuitives, Thinkers, and Feelers are that and little else. Without having been friends with them for years, we just care about wildly different things.

-Duxwing

Interests do not directly depend directly on type. Sure there's statistical tendencies but those are just that, tendencies; furthermore, you share introverted thinking with INFJ's besides extraverted feeling. In fact I'd say INTP's and INFJ's can learn a great deal from each other, one being strong where the other is weak and vice versa, all the while both having strong intuitive capabilities in opposite directions.

Also there's a lot that you need to learn in life which you can't learn from pondering alone alone, or chances are you'll never really develop those lower stack functions properly and end up stuck in a sollipsistic loop shut off from the world. And again Ne, your main remedy against this loop, unlike Ti, it requires stimuli.

 

[Duxwing]

Interests do not directly depend directly on type. Sure there's statistical tendencies but those are just that, tendencies;

Regarding the ESFP, I don't think that you've ever really been to a Sensor board. It's such a different place: facts and experience rule the day, and topics are largely about hot rods and hot babes. Admittedly, I stayed on one for three years and had a reasonably good time cutting my debating teeth-- I have never found a better-read, more factually-loaded group of ISTJs and ISTPs. But in time I wore on them, and they threw me out. Being in a group with a (stereotypical-- but that much is implied) ESFP would drive me nuts.

furthermore, you share introverted thinking with INFJ's besides extraverted feeling. In fact I'd say INTP's and INFJ's can learn a great deal from each other, one being strong where the other is weak and vice versa, all the while both having strong intuitive capabilities in opposite directions.

When you're my age, most Ni-dom's are almost pure Ni. No Je, just Ni. They're very good friends and confidants, but their meandering, indirect, illogical, Ni makes them very difficult to debate with. Here's a story that describes how my debates with INFJ's usually go.

[Up curtain]
[INFJ and INTP are talking about modus ponens]
INTP: P therefore Q, Q, therefore P.
INFJ: Just as the sky is bright if the sun is shining, if the sun is shining, the sky is bright.
INTP: Eh?
INFJ: Your way of reasoning is so linear and slow.
INTP: It's called logic! Use it!
INFJ: But can't you see all the possibilities and limitations to logic? How we cannot become robots, addicted to the mechanical! That we must not worship--
INTP: --Strawman! When did I say that?
INFJ: (eyebrow twitch) That's just like you, ignoring pertinent arguments that don't fit your lens.
INTP: (oblivious to twitch) Hypocrite! You just rejected logic because it didn't float your boat! You're so illogical!
INFJ: (beat, furious) I'M A-FIRIN' MY FE-ZAR! BLOOOOOOOARRRRGH!
[2 CONES of FLAME shoot out of INFJ into INTP]
INTP: (whimpering) But I thought we were friends!
INFJ: (Ni-doorslam)
[Exit INFJ]
[Down Curtain]

The INFJ lets their Ni-ghtmares take control of them, the INTP is clueless to the INFJ's valid analogy (albeit, an unexplained one) the INFJ tries to emotionally strong-arm the INTP and the INTP just cranks up the pressure in response, the INFJ won't follow straight logic, the INTP misses emotional cues, and the discussion ends in third-degree burns, broken friendships, and an emotionally unhinged INFJ.

QED: I'd throw a fit if an INFJ joined my discussion group.

Also there's a lot that you need to learn in life which you can't learn from pondering alone alone,

Hence, I go to school and come to INTPf.

or chances are you'll never really develop those lower stack functions properly and end up stuck in a sollipsistic loop shut off from the world.

Whoa, whoa, slow down. We're just talking about discussion groups and how type affects interests: if I wanted to develop my Fe, then I'd watch Oprah.

And again Ne, your main remedy against this loop, unlike Ti, it requires stimuli.

Neither INFJs nor ESFPs have Ne-- especially not the latter; again, you're veering off into a new idea before finishing the first.

-Duxwing

 

[scorpiomover]

Regarding the ESFP, I don't think that you've ever really been to a Sensor board. It's such a different place: facts and experience rule the day, and topics are largely about hot rods and hot babes. Admittedly, I stayed on one for three years and had a reasonably good time cutting my debating teeth-- I have never found a better-read, more factually-loaded group of ISTJs and ISTPs. But in time I wore on them, and they threw me out. Being in a group with a (stereotypical-- but that much is implied) ESFP would drive me nuts.

It's odd that you say that. I've also been threatened with being thrown out of groups, for being too argumentative. But it wasn't because they had nothing worthwhile hearing. It was because I was behaving too arrogantly, for anyone to tolerate, not even INTPs.

Have you considered that your style of communication might be non-conducive to discussion and debate?

When you're my age, most Ni-dom's are almost pure Ni. No Je, just Ni. They're very good friends and confidants, but their meandering, indirect, illogical, Ni makes them very difficult to debate with. Here's a story that describes how my debates with INFJ's usually go.

[Up curtain]
[INFJ and INTP are talking about modus ponens]
INTP: P therefore Q, Q, therefore P.
INFJ: Just as the sky is bright if the sun is shining, if the sun is shining, the sky is bright.
INTP: Eh?
INFJ: Your way of reasoning is so linear and slow.
INTP: It's called logic! Use it!
INFJ: But can't you see all the possibilities and limitations to logic? How we cannot become robots, addicted to the mechanical! That we must not worship--
INTP: --Strawman! When did I say that?
INFJ: (eyebrow twitch) That's just like you, ignoring pertinent arguments that don't fit your lens.
INTP: (oblivious to twitch) Hypocrite! You just rejected logic because it didn't float your boat! You're so illogical!
INFJ: (beat, furious) I'M A-FIRIN' MY FE-ZAR! BLOOOOOOOARRRRGH!
[2 CONES of FLAME shoot out of INFJ into INTP]
INTP: (whimpering) But I thought we were friends!
INFJ: (Ni-doorslam)
[Exit INFJ]
[Down Curtain]

The INFJ lets their Ni-ghtmares take control of them, the INTP is clueless to the INFJ's valid analogy (albeit, an unexplained one) the INFJ tries to emotionally strong-arm the INTP and the INTP just cranks up the pressure in response, the INFJ won't follow straight logic, the INTP misses emotional cues, and the discussion ends in third-degree burns, broken friendships, and an emotionally unhinged INFJ.

QED: I'd throw a fit if an INFJ joined my discussion group.

You can talk to people who are older. Besides, usually the problem with young INFJs, is too little confidence to fully express themselves.

Anyway, the problem of lack of communication tends to be the same when you get older. The major difference, is that as an INTP matures, he realises that other types know things he never thought of, and then he learns to make the effort to try to understand them better, to insult people less often, and less vociferously, so that he doesn't piss people off to the point that no-one wants to talk to him, and to work very hard to understand someone else's POV, who doesn't already think like him. After all, someone who thinks like him, probably doesn't know that much that he doesn't already know, and so has little he can learn from, while those who don't think like him, usually have a lot to teach him, because they deduce and infer many avenues of thought that he never even considered.

Whoa, whoa, slow down. We're just talking about discussion groups and how type affects interests: if I wanted to develop my Fe, then I'd watch Oprah.

I watched Oprah for a while, Didn't help me develop my Fe. Oprah is just a platform for people to speak about the things that they are into, that also touches on the emotional.

If you want to develop your Fe, then listen to HOW other people talk, and pay close attention to how your STYLE of communication affects their reactions and responses. Fe is very much not about WHAT you say, and everything about HOW YOU SAY IT.

 

[Duxwing]

It's odd that you say that. I've also been threatened with being thrown out of groups, for being too argumentative. But it wasn't because they had nothing worthwhile hearing. It was because I was behaving too arrogantly, for anyone to tolerate, not even INTPs.

Have you considered that your style of communication might be non-conducive to discussion and debate?

Yes, and I'm working on it.

You can talk to people who are older. Besides, usually the problem with young INFJs, is too little confidence to fully express themselves.

Anyway, the problem of lack of communication tends to be the same when you get older. The major difference, is that as an INTP matures, he realises that other types know things he never thought of, and then he learns to make the effort to try to understand them better, to insult people less often, and less vociferously, so that he doesn't piss people off to the point that no-one wants to talk to him, and to work very hard to understand someone else's POV, who doesn't already think like him. After all, someone who thinks like him, probably doesn't know that much that he doesn't already know, and so has little he can learn from, while those who don't think like him, usually have a lot to teach him, because they deduce and infer many avenues of thought that he never even considered.

Did I ever say that I was perfect?

I watched Oprah for a while, Didn't help me develop my Fe. Oprah is just a platform for people to speak about the things that they are into, that also touches on the emotional.

If you want to develop your Fe, then listen to HOW other people talk, and pay close attention to how your STYLE of communication affects their reactions and responses. Fe is very much not about WHAT you say, and everything about HOW YOU SAY IT.

To do what's described in the bottom paragraph one can do what's described in the top one, but I've never watched Oprah; perhaps you can suggest a better show?

-Duxwing

 

[Hadoblado]

perhaps you can suggest a better show?

-Duxwing

Adventure Time. All of the feels.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Regarding the ESFP, I don't think that you've ever really been to a Sensor board. It's such a different place: facts and experience rule the day, and topics are largely about hot rods and hot babes. Admittedly, I stayed on one for three years and had a reasonably good time cutting my debating teeth-- I have never found a better-read, more factually-loaded group of ISTJs and ISTPs. But in time I wore on them, and they threw me out. Being in a group with a (stereotypical-- but that much is implied) ESFP would drive me nuts.



When you're my age, most Ni-dom's are almost pure Ni. No Je, just Ni. They're very good friends and confidants, but their meandering, indirect, illogical, Ni makes them very difficult to debate with. Here's a story that describes how my debates with INFJ's usually go.

[Up curtain]
[INFJ and INTP are talking about modus ponens]
INTP: P therefore Q, Q, therefore P.
INFJ: Just as the sky is bright if the sun is shining, if the sun is shining, the sky is bright.
INTP: Eh?
INFJ: Your way of reasoning is so linear and slow.
INTP: It's called logic! Use it!
INFJ: But can't you see all the possibilities and limitations to logic? How we cannot become robots, addicted to the mechanical! That we must not worship--
INTP: --Strawman! When did I say that?
INFJ: (eyebrow twitch) That's just like you, ignoring pertinent arguments that don't fit your lens.
INTP: (oblivious to twitch) Hypocrite! You just rejected logic because it didn't float your boat! You're so illogical!
INFJ: (beat, furious) I'M A-FIRIN' MY FE-ZAR! BLOOOOOOOARRRRGH!
[2 CONES of FLAME shoot out of INFJ into INTP]
INTP: (whimpering) But I thought we were friends!
INFJ: (Ni-doorslam)
[Exit INFJ]
[Down Curtain]

The INFJ lets their Ni-ghtmares take control of them, the INTP is clueless to the INFJ's valid analogy (albeit, an unexplained one) the INFJ tries to emotionally strong-arm the INTP and the INTP just cranks up the pressure in response, the INFJ won't follow straight logic, the INTP misses emotional cues, and the discussion ends in third-degree burns, broken friendships, and an emotionally unhinged INFJ.

QED: I'd throw a fit if an INFJ joined my discussion group.



Hence, I go to school and come to INTPf.



Whoa, whoa, slow down. We're just talking about discussion groups and how type affects interests: if I wanted to develop my Fe, then I'd watch Oprah.



Neither INFJs nor ESFPs have Ne-- especially not the latter; again, you're veering off into a new idea before finishing the first.

-Duxwing

Dat convo

But seriously, I'm 23 not 54, I remember my days in upper secondary school very well. Yes young people overuse their doms but they hardly only use their doms (if that was the case no young person would hang out with any other young person besides those that share their doms) and the convo you're describing may accurately portray an encounter you've had but it's really not much more than anecdotal evidence, I could counter by mentioning that I had (and have) two close INTP friends when I was your age and we got along fine and discussed tons of stuff. So if an INFJ can't explain him/herself better than in your convo then said INFJ is a retard.

It feels like you're making your own social inaptitude, outsider status, and boredom with people to be something that's all about typology when the truth of the matter is you probably just need to practice hanging out with people a bit more. I know I found people to be more interesting once I started to understand whats actually going on in their heads and how they make sense of things.

And no it's really not something you can study theoretically.

 

[Duxwing]

Dat convo

"I'm a FIRIN' MA Fe-ZAR! BLOOOOOOOOOARRRRGH!"

But seriously, I'm 23 not 54, I remember my days in upper secondary school very well. Yes young people overuse their doms but they hardly only use their doms (if that was the case no young person would hang out with any other young person besides those that share their doms) and the convo you're describing may accurately portray an encounter you've had but it's really not much more than anecdotal evidence, I could counter by mentioning that I had (and have) two close INTP friends when I was your age and we got along fine and discussed tons of stuff. So if an INFJ can't explain him/herself better than in your convo then said INFJ is a retard.

It's actually a compilation of all my conversations with INFJs on this board.

It feels like you're making your own social inaptitude, outsider status, and boredom with people to be something that's all about typology when the truth of the matter is you probably just need to practice hanging out with people a bit more.

You're trying to shoehorn a global, universal perspective on what is a very specific issue for me. Why do you think that I'm socially inept outsider who is bored with people? My entire point was that experience tells me that having a bunch of 16-year-old INTPs, INFJs, and ESFPs in a discussion group will lead to frustration and misunderstanding as each type overuses its dominant and underuses its auxiliary while expecting wildly different things from the other types.

I know I found people to be more interesting once I started to understand whats actually going on in their heads and how they make sense of things.

That doesn't change how they understand things, though, and the nature of understanding is the problem. For example, if the ESFP keeps trying to sway opinion with charm, or the INFJ endlessly drifts from topic to topic, or the INTP doesn't notice when he or she is being abrasive, then everyone will be frustrated no matter how well they understand each other.

And no it's really not something you can study theoretically.

That much is obvious.

-Duxwing

 

[Cherry Cola]

"I'm a FIRIN' MA Fe-ZAR! BLOOOOOOOOOARRRRGH!"





It's actually a compilation of all my conversations with INFJs on this board.



You're trying to shoehorn a global, universal perspective on what is a very specific issue for me. Why do you think that I'm socially inept outsider who is bored with people? My entire point was that experience tells me that having a bunch of 16-year-old INTPs, INFJs, and ESFPs in a discussion group will lead to frustration and misunderstanding as each type overuses its dominant and underuses its auxiliary while expecting wildly different things from the other types.



That doesn't change how they understand things, though, and the nature of understanding is the problem. For example, if the ESFP keeps trying to sway opinion with charm, or the INFJ endlessly drifts from topic to topic, or the INTP doesn't notice when he or she is being abrasive, then everyone will be frustrated no matter how well they understand each other.



That much is obvious.

-Duxwing

Group work in school is overrated and part of the extravert bias that plagues western society. Yet you're not really just talking about group work, since as you said you're basing your judgements on all of your conversations with INFJ's on this board.

Everyone experiences their issues as if though they were specific, you're doing your own shoehorning blaming it all on typology. It's no exact science and you're applying it way too rigorously and tbh without a proper understanding of the types themselves. Drifting endlessly from topic to topic is more of an Ne than an Ni thing for instance.

I'm basing my conclusion on the fact that your posts sound a lot like any other frustrated intelligent introverted teenagers issues with feeling alienated among other people because they are not on the same level.

 

[Duxwing]

Group work in school is overrated and part of the extravert bias that plagues western society.

OK. Sure. ESTJ's hand my butt to me in Socratic Seminars, but I didn't mention ESTJs, now did I?

Yet you're not really just talking about group work, since as you said you're basing your judgements on all of your conversations with INFJ's on this board.

[NOTE: The following is not intended as type bashing, and I'm eager to fill any gaps in my analysis ]

I've never been able to find an INFJ in real life, but I know quite a few INFJs here:

Lyra
Da Blob
The Introvert
Radiant Shadow
subwayrider

All of them displayed the same sorts of behaviors, some to a greater degree than others: topic drifting, indirect arguments, rigidity in beliefs, unwarranted global perspective, emotional displays, attempts to use empathy to discredit their opponent (i.e., "You're only saying that because you're thoughts/feelings are X; therefore, you are wrong.") leaps of logic, etc.

Can I conclusively say that all of these people are like this because they are INFJs? No, and I don't intend to. Instead, I'm noting that such behaviors have been highly correlated with being INFJ in my experience.

Everyone experiences their issues as if though they were specific, you're doing your own shoehorning blaming it all on typology.

I didn't blame it all on typology. If you meet five people with red hair and they have squeaky voices, then what kind of voice will you expect the sixth redhead to have? By induction, high and squeaky. And since I can never meet all of the INFJs that have ever lived, I cannot deduct.

It's no exact science

Did I ever assert as much?

and you're applying it way too rigorously

What is the limit of rigor?

and tbh without a proper understanding of the types themselves.

And you, then, are a guru? Teach me!

Drifting endlessly from topic to topic is more of an Ne than an Ni thing for instance.

@Architect would beg to differ.

I'm basing my conclusion on the fact that your posts sound a lot like any other frustrated intelligent introverted teenagers issues with feeling alienated among other people because they are not on the same level.

Eh? I don't really feel alienated, nor am I frustrated that often.

-Duxwing

 

[scorpiomover]

Yes, and I'm working on it.

Good for you.

Did I ever say that I was perfect?

No, and it's refreshing to read you admit it. One of the things that I observed over the years, was the smarter and more knowledgeable a person was on a topic, the more they stressed how little they knew about that topic, compared to how much that they needed to learn.

To do what's described in the bottom paragraph one can do what's described in the top one, but I've never watched Oprah; perhaps you can suggest a better show?

Unfortunately, no. I've watched a LOT of TV. Almost none gave me ideas for either empathy (Fi) or sympathy (Fe).

What really made a breakthrough for me, was group therapy, because then, instead of getting a therapist's views on how I should behave, I got to see and hear how others' emotional behaviour were critiqued by others, in the context of therapy, where issues of one's feelings and insecurities can be discussed openly, without fear, and without need to hide them. Big eye-opener for me in so many ways.

Apart from that, I'd recommend 3 books:

1) Transactional Analysis. It's not a perfect system, but the fundamentals of how people behave, i,e, in terms of transactional sequences that they play out, is really accurate, and scary once you realise all those little things that most people gloss over as stupid comments that don't mean anything, are actually part of a sequence of transactions.

2) "Games People Play", by Eric Berne, M.D. Read TA first, then this. This is the manual of the most common transactional sequences that people follow.

3) "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. This one was recommended to me, by my Social Construct Psychotherapy, who ran a therapy group for learning "Sociality", aka empathy and social skills. He said that everything in understanding socialising, empathy and social skills, is in that book. He even invited me to test his theory, which I did, and he answered every example of types of social skills and empathy by referring to sections from the book. I've also put some of it into practice. Scary just how powerfully any one of those ideas actually works.

 

[Duxwing]

Good for you.

No, and it's refreshing to read you admit it. One of the things that I observed over the years, was the smarter and more knowledgeable a person was on a topic, the more they stressed how little they knew about that topic, compared to how much that they needed to learn.

I'll accept that back-handed compliment. As for the better educated being aware of their own ignorance, I see two reasons: noticing that other subfields exist in a given field as a matter of trivial yet important fact, and realizing the gaps in the knowledge that education acquires much like one can only notice a hole in one's floor after it's been put in.

Unfortunately, no. I've watched a LOT of TV. Almost none gave me ideas for either empathy (Fi) or sympathy (Fe).

And raise you another: And it shows. Why is Fi empathy, and Fe sympathy?

What really made a breakthrough for me, was group therapy, because then, instead of getting a therapist's views on how I should behave, I got to see and hear how others' emotional behaviour were critiqued by others, in the context of therapy, where issues of one's feelings and insecurities can be discussed openly, without fear, and without need to hide them. Big eye-opener for me in so many ways.

I've been to group therapy, too. And yes, it is a huge eye-opener. The real problems aren't the ones that you know about but are too lazy to work on, but the ones that you have no idea about. To make an analogy:

A charging Cape Buffalo is dangerous; a silent elephant ambling behind you is deadly.

Apart from that, I'd recommend 3 books:

1) Transactional Analysis. It's not a perfect system, but the fundamentals of how people behave, i,e, in terms of transactional sequences that they play out, is really accurate, and scary once you realise all those little things that most people gloss over as stupid comments that don't mean anything, are actually part of a sequence of transactions.

Noted, and already partially applied. I've tried 'putting in,' but I don't get much out. Am I giving them the wrong things?

2) "Games People Play", by Eric Berne, M.D. Read TA first, then this. This is the manual of the most common transactional sequences that people follow.

Noted, and already partially read via Wikipedia. I'll have to go further in depth to reap the real benefits, though.

3) "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. This one was recommended to me, by my Social Construct Psychotherapy, who ran a therapy group for learning "Sociality", aka empathy and social skills. He said that everything in understanding socialising, empathy and social skills, is in that book. He even invited me to test his theory, which I did, and he answered every example of types of social skills and empathy by referring to sections from the book. I've also put some of it into practice. Scary just how powerfully any one of those ideas actually works.

So powerful that's been parodied! I'll definitely look into that.

-Duxwing

 

[scorpiomover]

OK. Sure. ESTJ's hand my butt to me in Socratic Seminars, but I didn't mention ESTJs, now did I?

Sounds very interesting. What exactly do you mean by "Socratic Seminars"? What exactly do you do in them? What are the rules of what you can and cannot do? What are you encouraged to do in them? What are you discouraged from doing in them?

Also, why do those who are Te-doms with Si to help, able to best you so easily in these seminars?

[NOTE: The following is not intended as type bashing, and I'm eager to fill any gaps in my analysis ]

Good that you said that. I'm trying to fill in gaps for you. If you disagree, by all means, state your reasons. But let's keep it to an open-minded discussion, and keep it clear of a long debate. Debate can be fun. But it takes ages to get to useful truth, if you're not trying to fight over anything, and here, I'm not, and so, I gather, are you. So here, discussion will help more.

I've never been able to find an INFJ in real life, but I know quite a few INFJs here:

Lyra
Da Blob
The Introvert
Radiant Shadow
subwayrider

All of them displayed the same sorts of behaviors, some to a greater degree than others: topic drifting, indirect arguments, rigidity in beliefs, unwarranted global perspective, emotional displays, attempts to use empathy to discredit their opponent (i.e., "You're only saying that because you're thoughts/feelings are X; therefore, you are wrong.") leaps of logic, etc.

Can I conclusively say that all of these people are like this because they are INFJs? No, and I don't intend to. Instead, I'm noting that such behaviors have been highly correlated with being INFJ in my experience.

Hmm. I've read a few of Da Blob's posts. He seems very INTP. Also The Introvert's posts don't seem to be like an INFJ to me. I didn't get any of that impression from them.

Both Ti-doms and Ni-doms can do all of the above.

But Ti is very different to Ni.

Ti is deductive elimination. A cannot be true, and B cannot be true, and C cannot be true, etc, until the only thing that can be true, is Z.

Ni is inductive holism. A is true, and is like Z. B is true, and like Z. C is true, and like Z, etc. So it's most probably also true that Z is also true.

INTPs do drift from topic to topic, drawing different conclusions each time, and then finally adding them together to get to their end conclusion, which, by this point, often surprises them, and they think is pretty important and new, but sounds pretty simple to others. Usually, many wonder why they had to go all round the moon, to prove a very simple point.

INFJs also drift from topic to topic. But every time, they keep pointing out how their Ni hypothesis is confirmed by each topic. After a while, it feels like they keep making the same point, over and over again.

Once you look for the styles, if the poster is using the first method or the second, it becomes easy to spot.

I didn't blame it all on typology. If you meet five people with red hair and they have squeaky voices, then what kind of voice will you expect the sixth redhead to have? By induction, high and squeaky. And since I can never meet all of the INFJs that have ever lived, I cannot deduct.

But that is inductive holism, not deductive elimination.

What is the limit of rigor?

Ultimately? The Munchausen Trilemma, and with it, epistemological nihilism, the realisation that almost everything cannot be proved for certain.

@Architect would beg to differ.

He's a lot older. He's had many years to hone his Ti-Ne ideas. By the point he's his age, which is close to mine, INTPs become very sure of what they've reasoned out already, which makes them seem very much like INTJs (See Personality Junkie on INTPs).

 

[Architect]

He's a lot older. He's had many years to hone his Ti-Ne ideas. By the point he's his age, which is close to mine, INTPs become very sure of what they've reasoned out already, which makes them seem very much like INTJs (See Personality Junkie on INTPs).

You've got it.

 

[Duxwing]

Sounds very interesting. What exactly do you mean by "Socratic Seminars"? What exactly do you do in them? What are the rules of what you can and cannot do? What are you encouraged to do in them? What are you discouraged from doing in them?

We discuss questions about a topic that we studied the night before, and the rules are:

--Respect logic
--No debating
--Ask new and interesting questions to spur more discussion

Also, why do those who are Te-doms with Si to help, able to best you so easily in these seminars?

Te is all about external logic: the expression of ideas. When assisted by Si, it's like a machine-gun of facts with a bottomless magazine, and considering that our discussions pertain mostly to matters of fact-- rather than the logical validity of theorems-- they need little else. Also, being Te-dominant means that they're, as far as I understand, better at expressing their ideas in a social setting and building up (and tearing down) points in the moment. I need time to process ideas internally, but once I've found a "loose thread" in another person's argument I yank on it with all my might, asking questions and pointing out flaws (mostly in the form of "not necessarily") in an effort to tear their idea to shreds. And I would, too, if my English teacher would get off my back and let me finish the 'kill'.

But no, they want "discussion," which means demonstrating that you've read the stupid, boring, lousy book that the teacher assigned and not getting too deep into fine points of logic that ultimately undermine others arguments. Other problems include, but are not limited to: I'm an introvert, not typically good at standing up, apropo of nothing-- and especially with my 'logical buzzsaw' tied behind my back-- and holding forth against some rather aggressive people. My voice fades, my points get lost, and I'm left fumbling for words while the class laughs and moves on. However, if they tried to go toe-to-toe with me on any topic that doesn't amount to "Did you read X, Y, and Z?" then I could rip their ideas into bits by using Ne as a "baloney detector".

But what really ends up putting the nail in my coffin is that they and I are both T-doms, and to the rest of the world, that's seemingly all that counts. Two thinkers step up, books and theories in hand: one wins, and the other gets tossed into the dustbin of history. But that might just be my pride talking.

Good that you said that. I'm trying to fill in gaps for you. If you disagree, by all means, state your reasons. But let's keep it to an open-minded discussion, and keep it clear of a long debate. Debate can be fun. But it takes ages to get to useful truth, if you're not trying to fight over anything, and here, I'm not, and so, I gather, are you. So here, discussion will help more.

Indeed.

Hmm. I've read a few of Da Blob's posts. He seems very INTP. Also The Introvert's posts don't seem to be like an INFJ to me. I didn't get any of that impression from them.

Try reading his debates. He just won't listen to reason (INFJ: Ni>Fe>Ti).

Both Ti-doms and Ni-doms can do all of the above.

But Ti is very different to Ni.

Ti is deductive elimination. A cannot be true, and B cannot be true, and C cannot be true, etc, until the only thing that can be true, is Z.

Ni is inductive holism. A is true, and is like Z. B is true, and like Z. C is true, and like Z, etc. So it's most probably also true that Z is also true.

INTPs do drift from topic to topic, drawing different conclusions each time, and then finally adding them together to get to their end conclusion, which, by this point, often surprises them, and they think is pretty important and new, but sounds pretty simple to others. Usually, many wonder why they had to go all round the moon, to prove a very simple point.

We're like nomads, going where the givens take us.

INFJs also drift from topic to topic. But every time, they keep pointing out how their Ni hypothesis is confirmed by each topic. After a while, it feels like they keep making the same point, over and over again.

I'll look for that.

Once you look for the styles, if the poster is using the first method or the second, it becomes easy to spot.

Really? Hmm. I'll take a look, then.

But that is inductive holism, not deductive elimination.

Just plain old induction necessitated by the practical impossibility deduction in this case.

Ultimately? The Munchausen Trilemma, and with it, epistemological nihilism, the realisation that almost everything cannot be proved for certain.

Huh. I never knew that the problem of absolute proof had a name. Darn! That could have been my theory! ... had I lived back then.

He's a lot older. He's had many years to hone his Ti-Ne ideas. By the point he's his age, which is close to mine, INTPs become very sure of what they've reasoned out already, which makes them seem very much like INTJs (See Personality Junkie on INTPs).

While that may be true, I was only trying to point out that his wife is INFJ, thus giving him (ten years?) of first-hand and intimate experience with them.

-Duxwing

 

[scorpiomover]

I'll accept that back-handed compliment. As for the better educated being aware of their own ignorance, I see two reasons: noticing that other subfields exist in a given field as a matter of trivial yet important fact, and realizing the gaps in the knowledge that education acquires much like one can only notice a hole in one's floor after it's been put in.

Exactly.

And raise you another: And it shows. Why is Fi empathy, and Fe sympathy?

Well, it was another poster, an INTJ, IIRC, who pointed this out to me. But essentially, it's that Fe tries to grapple with how others are feeling, which is also called empathy, but is in actually accurately descibed by what people mean by "sympathy", becoming synchronised with other people's empathic feelings.

Fi is more about getting in touch with how you are feeling, your desires, your feelings, what makes you feel comfortable. This is self-empathy.

I've been to group therapy, too. And yes, it is a huge eye-opener. The real problems aren't the ones that you know about but are too lazy to work on, but the ones that you have no idea about. To make an analogy:

A charging Cape Buffalo is dangerous; a silent elephant ambling behind you is deadly.

Yes. I learned that Fe-doms can get really narked at others who disgree with them, because the Fe-dom sees the lack of support as a sign that the other person doesn't care enough to support them, when often, it's just that the other person does want to support them, but not on the Fe-dom's stance on that issue, because they don't happen to agree with him, and think there is nothing that requires supporting. Leads to Fe-doms blowing up over nothing, a lot of the time.

That experience in therapy, also taught me, that as long as you start to disagree with an Fe-dom, by reasssuring him that you do support him emotionally, then he or she will happily be willing to agree when he/she is wrong. E.G. "Look. I'll happily support you to the hilt. But here, you just don't happen to be right. But about all those other things that you think, that are right, such as X, Y, and Z, (which can be almost anything, even totally trivial things), I was happy to support you, and would happily do so again."

FYI, if you talk emotionally, like "I like you", "you make me feel good", "I enjoyed my time with you", it's FEEDS Fe-doms. It's like expressing your emotions are like a drug to them. Feed them their drug of choice, and they'll be happy to please you.

Noted, and already partially applied. I've tried 'putting in,' but I don't get much out. Am I giving them the wrong things?

Well, TA is all about how people follow pre-set patterns of behaviour, that require 2 or more people.

There is an excellent scene in "eXistenZ", which, IMHO, is one of the most marvellous films ever. Watch this: eXistenZ: Part 5 of 10. The scene with D'Arcy Nader It's an excellent explanation of how people behave transactionally, and why TA is so useful. It's missing a bit, which really would have explained things perfectly. But the bit I really wanted to show you, which is the bit where they first speak to the guy behind the counter, seems to have been removed. But this will have to suffice. Pay close attention to how D'Arcy Nader behaves, especially in response to what Ted and Allegra say to him, and Allegra's explanation of his behaviour. Then go out into the world, and see how many times you can spot people acting like D'Arcy Nader, and see how they behave in response to different things said to them, in the same context.

Noted, and already partially read via Wikipedia. I'll have to go further in depth to reap the real benefits, though.

It's seriously advanced TA. Like a playbook for people's transactions. Think of it like the social equivalent of your list of logical fallacies that you memorised. Once you have them memorised in your head, you can go walking through your day, spotting them happening all the time. You'll see your classmates play them, your friends, your teachers, your family. You'll even catch yourself playing some of those games, from time to time. Suddenly, the world makes a LOT more sense.

 

[Duxwing]

Exactly.

Well, it was another poster, an INTJ, IIRC, who pointed this out to me. But essentially, it's that Fe tries to grapple with how others are feeling, which is also called empathy, but is in actually accurately descibed by what people mean by "sympathy", becoming synchronised with other people's empathic feelings.

Fi is more about getting in touch with how you are feeling, your desires, your feelings, what makes you feel comfortable. This is self-empathy.

Perhaps it could be better called being in touch with ones emotions?

Yes. I learned that Fe-doms can get really narked at others who disgree with them, because the Fe-dom sees the lack of support as a sign that the other person doesn't care enough to support them, when often, it's just that the other person does want to support them, but not on the Fe-dom's stance on that issue, because they don't happen to agree with him, and think there is nothing that requires supporting. Leads to Fe-doms blowing up over nothing, a lot of the time.

That experience in therapy, also taught me, that as long as you start to disagree with an Fe-dom, by reasssuring him that you do support him emotionally, then he or she will happily be willing to agree when he/she is wrong. E.G. "Look. I'll happily support you to the hilt. But here, you just don't happen to be right. But about all those other things that you think, that are right, such as X, Y, and Z, (which can be almost anything, even totally trivial things), I was happy to support you, and would happily do so again."

FYI, if you talk emotionally, like "I like you", "you make me feel good", "I enjoyed my time with you", it's FEEDS Fe-doms. It's like expressing your emotions are like a drug to them. Feed them their drug of choice, and they'll be happy to please you.

That last part is so true for my ESFJ anatomy teacher. She's so sweet and energetic, but she's told me that she just loves positive affirmation.

Well, TA is all about how people follow pre-set patterns of behaviour, that require 2 or more people.

There is an excellent scene in "eXistenZ", which, IMHO, is one of the most marvellous films ever. Watch this: eXistenZ: Part 5 of 10. The scene with D'Arcy Nader It's an excellent explanation of how people behave transactionally, and why TA is so useful. It's missing a bit, which really would have explained things perfectly. But the bit I really wanted to show you, which is the bit where they first speak to the guy behind the counter, seems to have been removed. But this will have to suffice. Pay close attention to how D'Arcy Nader behaves, especially in response to what Ted and Allegra say to him, and Allegra's explanation of his behaviour. Then go out into the world, and see how many times you can spot people acting like D'Arcy Nader, and see how they behave in response to different things said to them, in the same context.

The video is blocked on copyright grounds.

It's seriously advanced TA. Like a playbook for people's transactions. Think of it like the social equivalent of your list of logical fallacies that you memorised. Once you have them memorised in your head, you can go walking through your day, spotting them happening all the time. You'll see your classmates play them, your friends, your teachers, your family. You'll even catch yourself playing some of those games, from time to time. Suddenly, the world makes a LOT more sense.

*looks for his jaw*

-Duxwing

 

[Brontosaurie]

For example, if the ESFP keeps trying to sway opinion with charm, or the INFJ endlessly drifts from topic to topic, or the INTP doesn't notice when he or she is being abrasive, then everyone will be frustrated no matter how well they understand each other.

anyone who doesn't do all of those is boring

 

[Duxwing]

anyone who doesn't do all of those is boring

Hahaha.

-Duxwing

 

[The Introvert]

Nitpicking here, but I saw someone say topic drifting is either Ne or Ni.

I would have to disagree, and point out that it really differs from person to person. I mean, think about it; Ne and Ni, although different in specifics, serve the same function. Whether or not your intuition is introverted or extroverted bears no weight on someone having a short attention span.

 

[Duxwing]

Nitpicking here, but I saw someone say topic drifting is either Ne or Ni.

I would have to disagree, and point out that it really differs from person to person. I mean, think about it; Ne and Ni, although different in specifics, serve the same function. Whether or not your intuition is introverted or extroverted bears no weight on someone having a short attention span.

Not necessarily. Intuition could lead someone to see many possibilities extending off from one statement, and being an N-dom would make that effect more apparent.

-Duxwing

 

[The Introvert]

Not necessarily. Intuition could lead someone to see many possibilities extending off from one statement, and being an N-dom would make that effect more apparent.

-Duxwing

Yes, N-dom! Ni or Ne shouldn't really make that much of a difference; if it did, then I argue Ne is more apparent.

 

[Duxwing]

Yes, N-dom! Ni or Ne shouldn't really make that much of a difference; if it did, then I argue Ne is more apparent.

Why would Ne be more apparent? To my knowledge, Ni, unlike Ne and unlike language, is non-linear, thereby achieving greater 'drift' as opposed to Ne's tendency to derail.

-Duxwing

 

[EyeSeeCold]

You could 'carry' while also teaching a person to eventually think for their own self, "give a man a fish..."; it doesn't have to be purely one-sided and parasitic. People could even provide different but complementary strengths for each other.

For educational instructors, it's their job to carry others intellectually(and arguably socially, to some extent), what they seem to get out of it is the joy of having the chance to see their students succeed and exceed their expectations, and a paycheck.

Nitpicking here, but I saw someone say topic drifting is either Ne or Ni.

I would have to disagree, and point out that it really differs from person to person. I mean, think about it; Ne and Ni, although different in specifics, serve the same function. Whether or not your intuition is introverted or extroverted bears no weight on someone having a short attention span.

It's interesting that even in having a short attention span and not being able to concentrate on one thing, it could be because of either hyperactivity or lethargy(ADD-PI). Likewise I think 'topic drifting' could apply equally to Ne and Ni in their own contexts.