Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Psychology and MBTI' started by Ren, Nov 6, 2019.
Yes, this is more like it. It describes my relationship with Fe as well.
Thanks man. I knew you would.
I'm uncomfortable identifying any of the functions with gender. I think my attitude comes from the over-identification of Fe with the feminine, which is both misunderstanding what it's actually about, and the damage it does to F-oriented men who end up mistyping themselves as a consequence, or feeling unhappy in their own skins as a result. But .... Se is an irrational perceiving function that just is - I can't see how men can be any better at seeing the outside world that women, or how it fits men better than women. I can see the way that there may be a gender bias in the way the world is interpreted through the various judging functions, but not in its primordial perception?
Can you remember when I had all that bother with my type last winter, John? I'd typed myself INFJ, then got pulled over to INTJ mostly due to the doubts expressed by my ex... I actually felt some relief, if you recall, that I was able to relax into my masculinity with an INTJ typing. As it stands, I don't feel unhappy in my own skin, but I don't think I would care either way what people typed me as these days.
That's funny, because I see Fe as more masculine than Fi. Well, at least Fe doms compared to Fi doms. Perhaps I am using this word "masculine" in a wrong way...Ofc women can good as seeing and controlling the outside world. But wouldn't you say Se women (let's say STPs) are less feminine than Si women?
Ti types, lol. I don't mean it as scorn.
I do, very well. Actually I think you are a great example of what Thomas was saying earlier - because you seem to be very typical INTJ to me, but use many other functions pretty damn well too. I should add that while I don't think the functions are intrinsically gendered, men and women do express them in gender-typical ways.
Not really, I would see ISFP women as usually extremely feminine, way more than ISFJ for example. Se is neither masculine nor feminine, but maybe it has the power of expressing either vividly.
I don't know, guys. I think men and women come in many male and female ways in which the functions show, furthermore I would agree more to this direction if we would switch from stereotypes of what is female and male to the impressions of what is yin and yang. Meaning Se seems yang and Si more yin. At least, imo that would resonate a little more with me.
Well, yeah, that's because Fi is the most feminine of all functions in my book. I mean, all introverted functions are more feminine than their extraverted counterparts...But I feel I am getting into slippery territory here, and I am not in best condition or environment to think about it more deeply.
Ah! I see what you mean. Not that the functions themselves have a gender content as such, but that which ones people use and how they use them can colour our perception of how we see them on a male/feemale spectrum. But is this girl any the less feminine because she's using a lot of Se?
Yeah but even so, we could control for Fi by taking INFP and ISFP in comparison. According to your logic, INFP should be more feminine since NeSi vs. SeNi, and yet it's clearly not the case. ISFP women tend to be the most feminine of all, whereas INFP women are more likely to be a little eccentric, zany, not as exquisitely made up, etc. Anyway, this is just to show that your argument about Se doesn't hold upon closer scrutiny, it's shaky at best imo.
Oh, but I think ISFP are more masculine than INFP, so the argument stands for me. Perhaps not if you compare ISFP woman witn an INFP man. But if you compare ISFP woman with INFP woman, I think INFP are more feminine on average.
Hard to say, maybe she reads Proust at night
Se has mostly in the moment, impulsive, literal, raw, even territorial. It has feminine and masculine versions, but it is the epitome of the reckless male stereotype. It is worse with higher testosterone, but can be manifest in those with under developed frontal lobes.
Case in point: I've just gone out in a light jacket because I'm generally somewhat unaware of my Se surroundings. It's far too cold for the clothes I've put on, and I'm not even a young lady on the town. But I tend to just force my body to handle whatever I put it through without consideration of its needs. Is this 'wrap up warm' instinct an example of Se being 'feminine' and soft to itself? Considerate of its environment and sensitive to the needs of the body? Is a lack of Se therefore something 'tougher' and more masculine?
This reminds me of the opposite case, namely that many Se-dom men care so much about their appearance that they seem stylish to the point of being unmanly to me. Like pretty boys. I think that's very manly Hos
Or maybe just rewatches Monty Python's Summarising Proust Competion Both my wife and I enjoy our food to the same extent. Women may express ungoverned sensuality in less spectacular ways than men, but can still let it sweep them along without any judging control - there's plenty of that about in the streets of my home town on a Friday evening . Or more respectably, heading off to sun, sea and sand holidays.
Hmmm, let's then take all the ESFP men in Paris, with their slender bodies and effete manners, and force them into battle against the Spartans at Thermopylae. I look forward to seeing their impulsive, raw, territorial ardour at play!