INTP/INFJ derailment discussion

[slant]

I like the conversation to be in purely conceptual realm, but INFPs have a knack to bring it back to the personal (their stories, anecdotes etc.). Just recently one INFP girl was talking to me how she rescued and adopted this homeless dog and yadda yadda. I really couldn't care less.

I was like this when I was completely disassociated from my life.

Complete objectivity is literally impossible. We are all trapped in our perspective- it's rather absurd to think that you can somehow escape your own reality.

I don't know. A lot of "Ts" I've met have been severely traumatized, especially in childhood, and have dealt with that by completely detaching from themselves as a human being. That ain't good.

I sometimes wonder if T vs F is even a real thing, and more about an inability to express emotions due to either having low emotional intelligence or having experienced extreme trauma.


(NOTE: this thread is a splinter from the what creative things do you do thread)

 

[slant]

@Wyote whatev

 

[slant]

@ClevelandINTP

 

[Wyote]

@Wyote whatev

Just saw this thread right before you tagged me lol

Anyway, I go back and forth on this. I think there are people who end up on either side of the coin due to trauma, absolutely.
And also people who simply forge themselves too far in one direction or another.

But definitely when you see people too far on one side or the other, something traumatic is lurking under the surface.

 

[slant]

Just saw this thread right before you tagged me lol

Anyway, I go back and forth on this. I think there are people who end up on either side of the coin due to trauma, absolutely.
And also people who simply forge themselves too far in one direction or another.

But definitely when you see people too far on one side or the other, something traumatic is lurking under the surface.

Yeah I concede that it goes both ways, I've definitely see Fs who have no ability to regulate their emotions.

I used to test T but now I alllways test 50/50 split on F and T so maybe it's just hard for me to understand having a preference when I so easily use both.

 

[ClevelandINTP]

Derailment reminds me of painting. When I paint I get derailed and go off on creativity tangents

 

[philostam]

I was like this when I was completely disassociated from my life.

Complete objectivity is literally impossible. We are all trapped in our perspective- it's rather absurd to think that you can somehow escape your own reality.

I don't know. A lot of "Ts" I've met have been severely traumatized, especially in childhood, and have dealt with that by completely detaching from themselves as a human being. That ain't good.

I sometimes wonder if T vs F is even a real thing, and more about an inability to express emotions due to either having low emotional intelligence or having experienced extreme trauma.


(NOTE: this thread is a splinter from the what creative things do you do thread)

I think there is something to that, although you have people who underwent trauma and still growing up into Fs. In other words, it's too complicated to create some sort of narrative.

I actually like F approach, I simply do not enjoy listening to someone telling in detail how they rescued a puppy and how they felt. It's like, yeah, I get that you really *love* this puppy but can we move on? There is no insight to be gained here for me, or I am simply too blind to it. Either way.

I would say my Fe function is quite developed and I'm aware of importance of emotional health, relationships etc. I do not downplay that at all. I also enjoy talking about feelings, but it still has to have some conceptual value.

 

[slant]

Derailment reminds me of painting. When I paint I get derailed and go off on creativity tangents

so sorry for contributing to this site and going on tangents related to the discussion at hand

Is this you being cheeky or are you being belligerent? I could tell if I could hear your voice and see your face but over text there's no contextual clues

 

[java]

I sometimes wonder if T vs F is even a real thing, and more about an inability to express emotions due to either having low emotional intelligence or having experienced extreme trauma

I think it's definitely a real thing.

Personally, there are things feelers easily care about that have no grasp on me. I notice this the most in world problems, like hunger and poverty. If I see a poor person in the street, I might feel bad and sympathize with that person (and that's no guarantee, if I'm too distracted it probably won't shock me). But when I read about people struggling in poor countries, I have no emotional response. I only relate to it in a rational way, almost as if it was fiction. The problem is probably too abstract or too distant for me to respond emotionally, even if I see images or footage of it.

However, yes, there are probably traumatized people who self-report as thinkers, but have the emotional "potential" or "awareness" to be feelers. Are these people automatically good thinkers, though?

Now, regarding low emotional intelligence, can someone self-restrict the development of their own emotional intelligence, or does it happen as a side effect of using and developing other aspects of their personalities?

 

[philostam]

I think it's definitely a real thing.

Personally, there are things feelers easily care about that have no grasp on me. I notice this the most in world problems, like hunger and poverty. If I see a poor person in the street, I might feel bad and sympathize with that person (and that's no guarantee, if I'm too distracted it probably won't shock me). But when I read about people struggling in poor countries, I have no emotional response. I only relate to it in a rational way, almost as if it was fiction. The problem is probably too abstract or too distant for me to respond emotionally, even if I see images or footage of it.

However, yes, there are probably traumatized people who self-report as thinkers, but have the emotional "potential" or "awareness" to be feelers. Are these people automatically good thinkers, though?

Yeah, the same here.

I think to be a good thinker you need to have emotional part under control, otherwise you just become bitter, irrational, over-compensating etc. I really do believe those two are connected.

 

[slant]

I think there is something to that, although you have people who underwent trauma and still growing up into Fs. In other words, it's too complicated to create some sort of narrative.

I actually like F approach, I simply do not enjoy listening to someone telling in detail how they rescued a puppy and how they felt. It's like, yeah, I get that you really *love* this puppy but can we move on? There is no insight to be gained here for me, or I am simply too blind to it. Either way.

I would say my Fe function is quite developed and I'm aware of importance of emotional health, relationships etc. I do not downplay that at all. I also enjoy talking about feelings, but it still has to have some conceptual value.

Yeah I think reaction to trauma is very much to do with already preexisting

I think it's definitely a real thing.

Personally, there are things feelers easily care about that have no grasp on me. I notice this the most in world problems, like hunger and poverty. If I see a poor person in the street, I might feel bad and sympathize with that person (and that's no guarantee, if I'm too distracted it probably won't shock me). But when I read about people struggling in poor countries, I have no emotional response. I only relate to it in a rational way, almost as if it was fiction. The problem is probably too abstract or too distant for me to respond emotionally, even if I see images or footage of it.

However, yes, there are probably traumatized people who self-report as thinkers, but have the emotional "potential" or "awareness" to be feelers. Are these people automatically good thinkers, though?

Now, regarding low emotional intelligence, can someone self-restrict the development of their own emotional intelligence, or does it happen as a side effect of using and developing other aspects of their personalities?

I don't think anyone really feels bad reading about things. If you saw it though, would you? If you saw a small child dying from malaria right in front of your face, that is when human empathy kicks in as an evolutionary response. Lack of that is actually a sign of sociopathy or extreme disassociation.

Also, if you read extremely detailed and graphic reports of sexual assault or brutal torture on children, would that effect you emotionally?

 

[philostam]

Yeah, the same here.

I think to be a good thinker you need to have emotional part under control, otherwise you just become bitter, irrational, over-compensating etc. I really do believe those two are connected.

Sure, there are some exceptional people who can live in isolation and without any emotional support and still think clearly. But in majority it's gonna just derail into madness.

 

[java]

I don't think anyone really feels bad reading about things. If you saw it though, would you? If you saw a small child dying from malaria right in front of your face, that is when human empathy kicks in as an evolutionary response. Lack of that is actually a sign of sociopathy or extreme disassociation.

Also, if you read extremely detailed and graphic reports of sexual assault or brutal torture on children, would that effect you emotionally?

Yes, if you put me in an African village with starving people, I'll have an emotional response. But yeah, you mention evolution, and in my case, I think it happens a lot through the senses. If I'm not physically there, if I don't witness it with my senses, I think I'm much less likely to have an emotional response, and if I do, it won't overwhelm me. Using imagination or mind faculties only, I can't make that step into emotional territory. Perhaps that's what thinkers are.

I don't think I could be affected by reading such reports. Again, I would process that rationally, as a problem "out there", unrelated to me. I might think of solutions, I might think it's a bad state of affair, I will empathize, understand why it's a problem and why it's suffering for the people involved, but I won't sympathize and mimick their emotion. Te, I suppose?

 

[slant]

Yes, if you put me in an African village with starving people, I'll have an emotional response. But yeah, you mention evolution, and in my case, I think it happens a lot through the senses. If I'm not physically there, if I don't witness it with my senses, I think I'm much less likely to have an emotional response, and if I do, it won't overwhelm me. Using imagination or mind faculties only, I can't make that step into emotional territory. Perhaps that's what thinkers are.

I don't think I could be affected by reading such reports. Again, I would process that rationally, as a problem "out there", unrelated to me. I might think of solutions, I might think it's a bad state of affair, I will empathize, understand why it's a problem and why it's suffering for the people involved, but I won't sympathize and mimick their emotion. Te, I suppose?

Hmm.. So you can't imagine the same thing happening to you? I feel like that's basic empathy. But your empathy only works if you see it, if you read about it you just can't imagine what it's like?

Huh.

It never occurred to me that some people are incapable of that. I thought the natural response of reading about horrific things happening to others was to think about what if it happened to you.

 

[Asa]

Interesting topic, @slant.
You have a good point. I think I agree with @Wyote's assessment.

Anyway, I go back and forth on this. I think there are people who end up on either side of the coin due to trauma, absolutely.
And also people who simply forge themselves too far in one direction or another.

But definitely when you see people too far on one side or the other, something traumatic is lurking under the surface.

One of the aspects of MBTI is that we develop functions with age, which would mean Thinkers develop F, and Feelers develop T as we mature. Trauma could certainly inhibit that, and I've seen evidence for this "in the wild".

 

[java]

Hmm.. So you can't imagine the same thing happening to you? I feel like that's basic empathy. But your empathy only works if you see it, if you read about it you just can't imagine what it's like?

Huh.

It never occurred to me that some people are incapable of that. I thought the natural response of reading about horrific things happening to others was to think about what if it happened to you.

For clarification, "empathy" seems to mean a lot in English. In my native language, it only means understanding the pains of others, not feeling them. Feeling them is "sympathy". That's why we say psychologists need good empathy, but little sympathy, otherwise they start crying in the office too. But in English, apparently "empathy" means both understanding and feeling.

That being said, yes, I can imagine things happening to me, I can understand why they affect others negatively, I can have empathy for their experience, especially if it's something that happened to me as well, but it probably won't create a sympathic response in me, the emotion they feel won't happen inside me. For this to happen, I usually need to be there.

 

[slant]

For clarification, "empathy" seems to mean a lot in English. In my native language, it only means understanding the pains of others, not feeling them. Feeling them is "sympathy". That's why we say psychologists need good empathy, but little sympathy, otherwise they start crying in the office too. But in English, apparently "empathy" means both understanding and feeling.

That being said, yes, I can imagine things happening to me, I can understand why they affect others negatively, I can have empathy for their experience, especially if it's something that happened to me as well, but it probably won't create a sympathic response in me, the emotion they feel won't happen inside me. For this to happen, I usually need to be there.

I'm still not sure I understand what you're distinguishing.

(Warning, graphic)
I once read about HiFi murders that happened here in Utah... They made the hostages drink bleach and described the blood and blisters that happen when you do that. They shot then, too. But this one guy just wouldn't die. So to kill him, they took a ballpoint pin and smashed it into his ear canal by stomping on his head until it came out of his cheek. I guess it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I was fine until I read the ballpoint pen thing; to this day, if I think about it, I feel upset. That guy was the only guy who survived the incident and he watched a 16 year old get raped in front of him and his son tortured to death.

So you're saying the difference between feelers and thinkers is that a feelers will feel negative imagining these things, and a thinker can imagine these things happening but feel fine emotionally?

Isn't that like... disassociation?

When I was disassociated I never felt anything. I probably could have even hurt people and felt nothing. I'm just very confused as to how this is different than disassociation.

 

[Lady Jolanda]

It never occurred to me that some people are incapable of that. I thought the natural response of reading about horrific things happening to others was to think about what if it happened to you.

For an Fi-dom, I'm sure it is.

Using imagination or mind faculties only, I can't make that step into emotional territory. Perhaps that's what thinkers are.

Not necessarily. I know several INTPs who, independently of each other, mentioned that they can come up with a scene in their imagination and experience the emotions, as if the whole ordeal is happening in reality. Only to realize later, wait a minute, this hasn't actually happened. Why does it feel so real. Why do I have feelings at all over this. Brain, wtf.
I have this as well.

 

[Lady Jolanda]

Interesting.

I once read about HiFi murders that happened here in Utah... They made the hostages drink bleach and described the blood and blisters that happen when you do that. They shot then, too. But this one guy just wouldn't die.

This part of the story caused no reaction whatsoever.

So to kill him, they took a ballpoint pin and smashed it into his ear canal by stomping on his head until it came out of his cheek. I guess it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

This part however caused a vivid image, a shiver down my spine, and a slight gag reflex.

I'm not imagining what it would be like if this happened to me, just the graphic image of this happening to that unfortunate person is more than enough to make me a little queasy.

So what's the difference between the first and the second part? The first thing that comes to mind is that you told the second part much more lively, as if we're an active witness. The first part is more distant and descriptive. The second part conjured up an image for me, the first part did not.
How did you experience this?

 

[slant]

Interesting.


This part of the story caused no reaction whatsoever.


This part however caused a vivid image, a shiver down my spine, and a slight gag reflex.

I'm not imagining what it would be like if this happened to me, just the graphic image of this happening to that unfortunate person is more than enough to make me a little queasy.

So what's the difference between the first and the second part? The first thing that comes to mind is that you told the second part much more lively, as if we're an active witness. The first part is more distant and descriptive. The second part conjured up an image for me, the first part did not.
How did you experience this?

Same way. I thought "oh that's horrible" but was totally fine until the pen thing and I just had this intense reaction. And i guess it's not that I imagined it happening to me, but I could see the picture in my head. So I think pretty much same reaction as you. Wish I understood what the difference between F and T is supposed to be lol