N/S reactions among feelers.
- Thread starter Dohavior
- Start date
SF people are...more emotional in the peripheral sense. Much more visible; the emotions more tangible, the values more grounded. Us NFs tend to have a more....visionary values, our emotions often layered or sometimes complex.
Both has their goods and bads.
(Of course, this is just me...)
I guess NT or rather any T type will find it easier to understand SF emotions/thoughts compared to NF ones. The latter are a bit more complex.
The NF stuff is just too hard to understand for Thinkers. Maybe NTs less so than STs, but it still counts for both.
SF stuff is much more straightforward and easier to understand.
The NF stuff is just too hard to understand for Thinkers. Maybe NTs less so than STs, but it still counts for both.
SF stuff is much more straightforward and easier to understand.
I have heard that term "visionary" thrown about everywhere, even used to describe ENTx types. Your explanation of a "peripheral sense" is interesting considering that is how I feel about my own emotions like long range estimates of repercussions.
I have heard it said of xSTx types that their cognitive skills are quite anachronistic. The trait is quite noticeable with their use of state of being verbs. Do you find the same of xSFx types?
I have never understood the whole T and F dichotomy. I'm not sure if it even applies to my personality.
I like to consider that at some level all communication is innately mutual. So any misunderstanding would be detrimental for both parties. Perhaps SF stuff is much easier to troubleshoot or reach a conclusion, but would either denote understanding?
It seems every time I bump into an ESFJ I find an elaborately woven web of red tape. Too many counter arguments and they usually feint psychosomatic illness. My last conversation culminated with me saying something along the lines of "What are you with the mafia? I just want a cup of coffee!"
Last edited:
ESFJs are crazy polite and all about social norms. Very expressive and forceful about those norms though.
And even then this sounds more like a (im)maturity thing.
No it doesn't denote understanding (well, that depends on how you define understanding), but it causes T types "to generally disregard NF opinions", because they are harder to understand than SF emotions.
True and absolute understanding is impossible. Everything less is on a scale.
What you say:
What I hear:
"ESFJs are politely crazy and all about social paranoia. Very presumptive and flexible about that paranoia though. And even then this sounds more like a sexual thing.
Yes it um err.. uh Fuck you! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jiaU0xbOKs"
What I hear:
"ESFJs are politely crazy and all about social paranoia. Very presumptive and flexible about that paranoia though. And even then this sounds more like a sexual thing.
Yes it um err.. uh Fuck you! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jiaU0xbOKs"
Your speech is a causality dilemma as it seems to be without direction. What caused you to say what was said are you questioning something I said? What are you trying to compare or contrast?
Are you reaffirming what I said?... that is so creepy. Do it again?
Last edited:
We'll walk through our conversation.
Your initial post:
I ignored your first question because I dont know the answer. I answered the second question.
Your reply to me has two parts. You start about mutuality and understanding. I had the idea that you countered my initial point with this question, but in hindsight that might not have been a correct assumption. And you describe your experiences of ESFJs.
I first answer/counter with my view of ESFJs, which differs (althoug not completely) from yours. I then state that I believe the ESFJs you met are immature or not well developed, because I think your description does not fit healty and developed ESFJs. "This" refers to the part I quoted from your message.
Secondly address your point about (mis)understanding. I state that it does not denote understanding and repeat my earlier point, because I believe it's still valid even though it doesn't denote understanding.
Here you state that you understand a different thing than what I actually wrote. You do this by repeating my text, but changing it. By doing so you put words in my mouth that I never used. The second part of your paraphrase it seems like I don't know what I talk about and to me the video seems to state that I'm naieve.
I don't like this and ask why you think so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, no. I don't think my speech has or is a causality dilemma, instead I believe you just failed to understand it.
And when you didn't understand what I was saying (and whether that was your, mine or both our fault), you didn't just ask what I meant, but you fall back on lowly rhetoric tactics where you put the other down by putting words in his mouth that were never said.
I prefer polite, constructive and reasonable discussions so I don't like your behaviour here.
Last edited:
Nothing you stated within context of this thread has any evidential personal insight beyond the bare bones textbook definition. None of which differed from anything I stated as such was only a matter of clarity. Quite a few of your messages were plagiarizing my own posts citing things in an inconsequent manner. There you go in your last post requoting me again ad nauseam.
You are naive if you think you can force a point across by water boarding your audience with spammy repetition to inflict Jaimas Vu.
I am glad you agree that one of us is clearly up to no good, but I would say that the culprit is you. You incriminated yourself stating you know the tricks of such trade and you lack my exonerated status of original post.
It is Dohavior not behaviour because I disagree with the antiquated Machiavellian principles often associated with that word. There is nothing empirical about pointing your finger and stating it is what it is, one must show results. You have been talking the talk now do walk the walk, got no room for hypocrites.
You are naive if you think you can force a point across by water boarding your audience with spammy repetition to inflict Jaimas Vu.
I am glad you agree that one of us is clearly up to no good, but I would say that the culprit is you. You incriminated yourself stating you know the tricks of such trade and you lack my exonerated status of original post.
It is Dohavior not behaviour because I disagree with the antiquated Machiavellian principles often associated with that word. There is nothing empirical about pointing your finger and stating it is what it is, one must show results. You have been talking the talk now do walk the walk, got no room for hypocrites.
Polite, constructive and reasonable a regular oxymoron soup of inductive fallacy waiting to happen what a euphemistic delight. How about you cut the crap and literate yourself enough to depict the exact problem here. Perhaps you don't face problems in other words you...
What else do you show ignorance to because you just don't know? However do you attempt to learn then? Oh wait you don't, you simply spew out textbook definitions at others attempting said task. Please don't get in my way.
Last edited:
Where was I inconsequent?
I was repeating and requoting a lot for clarity since we had some misunderstanding.
I repeat stuff for clarity. Besides, my ESFJ description wasn't anything repetition and yet you ridiculed it.
Then we'll agree to disagree there. I do not share your conclusion that I incriminate myself for knowing how one can incriminate himself. I don't doubt your initial intentions. I'm just puzzled as to why you ridiculed me with your paraphrasing.
Clever. How could I ever show results on such a subjective topic? I'm simply stating what I think/feel about it. You're welcome to disagree or convince me otherwise.
I don't see what walk I should do now. Please be less cryptic and more direct, so I can understand. I want to understand you.
You do have a point about the hypocrisy. I'm reasonable enough to admit that. Were my assumptions about the meaning of your posts correct? And if they weren't can you explain to me what they were instead? I apologise for this.
I don't know what you mean with a regular oxymoron soup of inductive fallacy or euphemistic delight means. I'm not a native speaker.
I cannot see the exact problem. Can you enlighten me?
I ignore or rather do not answer questions I know nothing about because I know nothing about it. My answer would be futile. I did know something about your other question so attempted to answer it. I learn by reading this thread and seeing answers of other people on questions I don't know.
How would you have me do it?
What is the over all INFJ opinion of SF types?
I could've fabricated a guess, but I can't really talk for INFJs. I did not value my potential guesses good enough to share them. Sometimes it's best to stay silent if you don't know anything.
I like textbook definitions, because it's stupid to invent the wheel again. Stand on the shoulders of giants
Use what knowledge exist and expand. In this case I didn't expand much, because I think the textbook definition is enough. I didn't know whether you were aware of said textbook definitions or not. I like to be clear so others can understand me. This is often a problem for Ni users, but I try my best. Repetition and textbook definitions are a part of this.
Apologies if I did not live up to the standard of the replies you like to see.
But for the future if you see someone repeating someone or spreading textbook definitions, just simply state your displeasure instead of what you did now. It will make the poster more willing to listen.
hypocrite, then stay silent and remove your posts.
You have done nothing but apologize and mope about with such meticulous pedantry all the while trying to subvert my speech. Infjs.com is a good forum you won't be abusing any sympathy here or playing the victim.
In the future if I ever encounter someone not accepting accountability for their faults I will steam roll them faster and more efficient than anything you have ever seen.
Hiding on the backs of giants, what an interesting metaphor for the anti intellectual movement.
I do not regret the posts that I posted. I made a mistake and apologised. I don't hide my mistakes.
Since when is admitting mistakes bad? I never changed the content of your quotes. I added my interpretation. I'd like you to tell me where I was wrong. If you don't, I'll assume I was right. This is me trying to understand you. And arguably, that's exactly what you did to me. The difference is that I didn't like the way you did it, ridiculing and painting me as naieve.
Your threats make me smile. Luckily I always accept my mistakes. If you can convince me that it was a mistake, that is. I believe you can still improve in this area.
You're welcome to check all my posts on the forum and scrutinise them. I'm sure I made mistakes. Please find them and steam roll me, I'll only learn from my mistakes.
I didn't know Google Scholar (who uses the quote on their homepage for quite a while) is from the anti intellectual movement.
A sentence represents a complete thought. How do you feel when such thoughts are arranged in this order? Something about you is conflicted is it not?
“An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.”
― O.A. Battista
A sentence does not represent a complete thought in my book. I use full stops to end a grammatical sentence or to make it more readable. Sometimes I also use it to emphasise something. I don't believe thoughts can directly be translated into a single sentence.
Even though you took the sentences out of their context, I still think they make perfect sense.
I disagree with Battista's definition of mistake. I see it as synonymous with error. I don't know him either, so words coming from him don't have any added value to me compared to words from anyone else.
You are wrong and you attempt to hide in metaphor, such a deeply systemic flaw.
dictionary.reference.come/browse/sentence?s=t
"A sentence is the largest grammatical unit in language. It communicates a complete thought"
You fail at this most rudimentary of grammatical rules that extends to all known languages of the world. Feinting non english is now no longer a plausible escape.
There is no breach of context it is a breach of narrative with you pointed out by me.
Well I just introduced you so now you know him. And he seems to disagree with you quite strongly, even wrote an entire book about the stuff. Do you often disagree with what you do not know? Is that why we are now having this conversation because you disagreed with me and sought to destroy my speech with your tautology and circular reasoning. You are thereby stomping upon what you do not know with the greatest of senility!
