<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FaithfulWife:<BR><B>Always happy to oblige. Self-examination is fun, isn't it? I'll bet it's especially fun for you! I personally keep wanting to examine my feelings (haha) and I find that using the Thinking part that I do have is like an enjoyable mind puzzle.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I've never really thought about whether self-examination is "fun" before. Asking me whether it's fun is a lot like asking me whether <I>breathing</I> is fun. Because I can't <I>not</I> do it for any significant length of time. My brain is continually engaged and it doesn't seem to have an off switch.<P>This is actually very frustrating at times. For example, I can't dance. My mind gets in the way. It tries to watch and control every move of every joint, which is far too much for the conscious mind to handle.<P>Even worse is what happens when I try to appreciate art. To me, most art is like a foreign language. I understand it enough to detect that there <I>is</I> meaning there; but it is rare for a work of art to speak to me directly, in the language of art itself. Just when I start to absorb the message, my brain jumps in and says "Hey, what's that all about, and how does it make you feel?" And it won't shut up when I try to shush it.<P>Sometimes I think I would be better off completely unaware that there even <I>is</I> this whole other world of meaning. But, the glimpses I get are very precious to me...<P>So for me, my Thinking part is both my greatest strength and my greatest curse, while my Feeling part is a source of wistful wonder.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Here's my request, though. If you discover anything new in this latest delve into yourself, please let me know what you found!</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Heh. Actually, the biggest surprise so far has been the discovery that I have revealed so <I>much</I> of myself. Specifically, I hadn't realized that my "veil" was so apparent.<P>It's really pretty funny. I mean, now that you point it out, it seems kind of obvious, but I would never have realized it on my own. This kind of blindness caused havoc in my relationship with my wife. What happens when you pair up one of the most thinking-dominated personality types with one of the most intuition-dominated personality types? I <I>loved</I> that my wife could open these kinds of windows for me, but she could never quite believe that someone with so much intelligence could be so oblivious to so much, and I think this contributed to her mistrust of me.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Here's the wierd thing, though, GDP. Spock may not have been any good at expressing himself emotionally, but he was darn clear about expressing himself intellectually and scientifically. I know you are trying to lead us into our own little thinking, but it would be darn fun to hear what YOU are thinking.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Maybe. Maybe not. I figured out more than two decades ago that the Golden Rule did not apply well to me, since doing something to someone else that I would appreciate being done to me (e.g. blunt speech) might well result in me causing terribly hurt feelings. And worse, I might not even notice, and thus not know to apologize.<P>This makes me cautious.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>I understand what you mean about the constant doubt and self evaluation, but I'd like to encourage you to be brave and share your thoughts with us anyway. Your mantra is: Yes, my analysis is accurate, and yes, it will is relevant to (so and so's) situation. Come on, say it with me: Yes, my analysis is accurate, and yes, it will is relevant to (so and so's) situation.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I had a rather strong (internal) reaction to a situation here a couple of weeks ago involving a woman who has posted here sporadically over the last year. I had alarm bells going off all over the place, and for a while it made me question the entire validity of this place and places like it. Should I have said anything? I don't know. I eventually chose not to. How <I>can</I> I know that my analysis is accurate? Saying it won't make it so. Also, in this case it was my <I>intuition</I> that set off the alarm bells, and I tend to doubt my intuition even more than my analysis.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Do you like the veil though? Is the veil sort of comforting? Or do you wish that people would take the time to glimpse under the veil now and then? Maybe if glimpsing under it too uncomfortable, learn the pattern and be able to peer through the veil?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't feel like I have any problem seeing through the veil myself. I just feel like no one can see <I>me</I>. I think the biggest part of the "problem" may just be that I am so aware of my own complexity that I don't believe anyone ever really knows me. I think that to me a significant part of the appeal of marriage was the hope that over decades of intimate relating I finally <I>would</I> be known by someone in all (or most) of my complexity. (Hmm. This may qualify as one of those discoveries you wanted me to let you know about, CJ.)<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>You said something startling, and I'd like to ask you about it. You said,(I'm paraphrasing here) that you feel emotional connections to people but you aren't able to demonstrate that in a way that other people can observe. Do you think that is a Thinker trait? Also, if you feel and emotional connection but can't demonstrate it, how would a person know that you feel it?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, that last question is really a statement of the problem, isn't it?<P>The problem is rooted in my inability to externalize my <I>own</I> feelings. If I can't even do <I>that</I>, then how can I ever hope to display <I>vicarious</I> feelings? I believe this problem <I>is</I> in large part a Thinker trait, or at least an INTP trait (since Thinking dominates in an INTP).<P>I do <I>have</I> feelings. I have <I>intense</I> feelings, and a strong awareness of them. But they are <I>inside</I> of me, and I don't know of any way to force their expression. Experience reveals that the activation energy required is very high.<P>This was another major obstacle in my marriage. My wife had a hard time believing that I really felt anything if I didn't somehow show it <I>directly</I>. No amount of indirect evidence seemed enough to convince her how I felt.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>BTW, if I'm being too nosy, you can say that straight to my face.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Heh. It's a deal.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>GDP, did it ever occur to you that there are other Thinkers out there who are trying to analyze their situation, but have somehow gotten stuck? Their logic is "out of whack" and not being able to make heads or tails of it is driving them crazy? Analysis IS sharing--so is understanding, and evaluating, and contemplating, and letting it rumble around in your head. The search for order IS a search that can be shared. Try. Okay?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Um...that isn't what I've been doing? At least some of the time?<P>Maybe not recently, come to think about it...<BR>

I only have a quick minute, but we were about to slip to page two, and we can't have that!! <P>Anyway, just a quick note: I'm thinking about your big, long post and will get back to ya later, but I wanted you to know something. Your Star Trek hint about BMW motorcycles was cute and all, but may I gently remind you that SCOTTY was the "beamer" and SPOCK was the logical science officer. Haha. (Or is it a "beemer"?) Anyway, very cute--nice try, but very illusive hint.<P>CJ<P>------------------<BR>Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.

Well, actually, my Spock reference didn't have anything to do with my admiration for BMW motorcycles. I'm afraid that my powers of rationalization, considerable though they may be, are not up to the task of making <I>that</I> dream seem realistic. Said powers are already strained to the breaking point just trying to convince me that contemplating getting <I>anything</I> is a good idea.<P>The connection I had in mind is much less cryptic than the one you made. In light of your ingenious interpretation, I fear that my hint was actually rather unsubtle...<P>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>I've never really thought about whether self-examination is "fun" before. Asking me whether it's fun is a lot like asking me whether breathing is fun. Because I can't not do it for any significant length of time. My brain is continually engaged and it doesn't seem to have an off switch.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>That is because you are a "Thinker", silly. You are MADE to think and contemplate and consider and evaluate (oh--I made a poem!). Do you ever wish that it had an off switch? Would it be nice to have your thoughts be quiet for a while?<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>This is actually very frustrating at times. For example, I can't dance. My mind gets in the way. It tries to watch and control every move of every joint, which is far too much for the conscious mind to handle.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well, then clearly you are created to just slow dance--there's something to be said for that, ya know. Swaying back and forth to the music is nice, and you know, not all white boys can jump (heehee). Why do you consider this a shortcoming, rather than considering it a strength? You have a formidable intellect, and you can perceive and figure things out that others would not even try to conquer! If you can't dance--OH WELL! I hear that Einstein couldn't sing opera <P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Even worse is what happens when I try to appreciate art. To me, most art is like a foreign language. I understand it enough to detect that there is meaning there; but it is rare for a work of art to speak to me directly, in the language of art itself. Just when I start to absorb the message, my brain jumps in and says "Hey, what's that all about, and how does it make you feel?" And it won't shut up when I try to shush it.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Have you ever tried to shush it, I mean made a conscientious effort to train your thoughts to be still and quiet? I have a confession to make to you--I am the ultimate intuitive feeling machine, and I have to train my brain to be still. And art is an illusive beast. I think many "artists" don't know real art from foo-foo art. This is my own personal opinion, but I think the whole POINT of art is to communicate a message to the viewer, and yet, sometimes the BEST art is not overly obvious with the message. I personally prefer the art that makes you think about it a while to figure out what the hidden message is, and then when you get it, it's like a prize between you and the artist.<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Sometimes I think I would be better off completely unaware that there even is this whole other world of meaning. But, the glimpses I get are very precious to me...</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Oh, no! Just imagine if you will, being in MY world. Everything is relative, it's all shades of gray, and EVERYTHING has a hidden meaning. Sometimes, I feel like I am drowning in it. People often ask me if I'm psychic (which I'm not), but being an INFP, I intuitively pick up on stuff and well...I describe it as having feelers out there picking up signals from people. But there is NO orderliness and no clear definition, and that drives me nuts sometimes. That's why I'm into accounting--because it's precise and defined and orderly and logical. That's comforting!<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>So for me, my Thinking part is both my greatest strength and my greatest curse, while my Feeling part is a source of wistful wonder.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, Mr. Spock, you have just run into a race that is nothing but feelings and emotions! Not only does this race not suppressed the feelings--I promote it! Does a logical person like you have any questions for a emotional wreck like me?<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Heh. Actually, the biggest surprise so far has been the discovery that I have revealed so much of myself. Specifically, I hadn't realized that my "veil" was so apparent. <P>It's really pretty funny. I mean, now that you point it out, it seems kind of obvious, but I would never have realized it on my own. This kind of blindness caused havoc in my relationship with my wife. What happens when you pair up one of the most thinking-dominated personality types with one of the most intuition-dominated personality types? I loved that my wife could open these kinds of windows for me, but she could never quite believe that someone with so much intelligence could be so oblivious to so much, and I think this contributed to her mistrust of me.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Oh, you have struck an interesting chord here, my friend. I wish somehow you could tell me more, but I'm not sure how to phrase the question. Like your wife, one thing I could never understand is how someone could analyze and evaluate all the time, but miss the obvious--such as I'm really hurt. It almost seems to me as if I have to light myself on fire in order to break through. Can we discuss this some more?<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>I figured out more than two decades ago that the Golden Rule did not apply well to me, since doing something to someone else that I would appreciate being done to me (e.g. blunt speech) might well result in me causing terribly hurt feelings. And worse, I might not even notice, and thus not know to apologize.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>I hear what you are saying, Mr. Oblivious, but it seems common sense to me that people would want to hear what you REALLY think vs. some sugar-coated version. I personally can take it SO much better if I know I will get the real truth every time--even if it does hurt me--than to have to play this game and try to figure out, "Now is that the real truth, or some portion of the truth, or just a plain old lie?" UGGHHH! THAT makes me crazy (okay--crazier!) Plus, I want to point out something to you. If we are talking along, and I can depend on you to speak your mind and really say what you think, and in so doing you hurt my feelings, isn't it MY job to tell you how I feel? Why do you assume it is your job to "just know"? Isn't part of being differentiated people being able to know yourself and not make your partner "read your mind"?<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>I had a rather strong (internal) reaction to a situation here a couple of weeks ago involving a woman who has posted here sporadically over the last year. I had alarm bells going off all over the place, and for a while it made me question the entire validity of this place and places like it. Should I have said anything? I don't know. I eventually chose not to. How can I know that my analysis is accurate? Saying it won't make it so. Also, in this case it was my intuition that set off the alarm bells, and I tend to doubt my intuition even more than my analysis.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>To quote my therapist, is your intuition and analysis at work usually fairly accurate? Is your intuition and analysis with your friends pretty on target? Is you intuition and analysis with other members of your family fairly dependable. THEN YOUR INTUITION AND ANALYSIS IS ACCURATE AND DEPENDABLE HERE TOO! For heaven's sake, GDP, learn to trust yourself. Would it surprise you to learn that I count you as one of my "wise council"? I bet a lot of other folks do too. The thing that more interests me, though, is what in the world made you doubt the validity of this site (and others like it). I would REALLY be interested to hear how you thought through this dilemna and what processes you used to reach your conclusion.<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>I don't feel like I have any problem seeing through the veil myself. I just feel like no one can see me. I think the biggest part of the "problem" may just be that I am so aware of my own complexity that I don't believe anyone ever really knows me. I think that to me a significant part of the appeal of marriage was the hope that over decades of intimate relating I finally would be known by someone in all (or most) of my complexity. (Hmm. This may qualify as one of those discoveries you wanted me to let you know about, CJ.)</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>(clapping hands and smiling ear-to-ear) I'm glad you thought of that...cool...keep going with it. If you feel like others can't see you, let me ask you this. Do you want others to see you, or is that revealing too much? Do you wish (or in logic terms, have you contemplated the possibility) that someone would take the time to get to see you, and then feel disappointed when people don't? I know you ARE indeed a very complex and contemplative individual, but do you think it stands in the way of people really seeing you?<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Well, that last question is really a statement of the problem, isn't it?<P>The problem is rooted in my inability to externalize my own feelings. If I can't even do that, then how can I ever hope to display vicarious feelings? I believe this problem is in large part a Thinker trait, or at least an INTP trait (since Thinking dominates in an INTP).<P>I do have feelings. I have intense feelings, and a strong awareness of them. But they are inside of me, and I don't know of any way to force their expression. Experience reveals that the activation energy required is very high.<P>This was another major obstacle in my marriage. My wife had a hard time believing that I really felt anything if I didn't somehow show it directly. No amount of indirect evidence seemed enough to convince her how I felt.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>I only have one question. Do you WANT to externalize your feelings, or is it more comfortable and easier to leave them in there? <P>Well, I have got to run. This is about all the Thinking my little Feeling brain can muster--haha. I'll write more tomorrow when it's not so late and I'm a little sharper witted. Ta ta!<P><BR>CJ<P>------------------<BR>Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.

Gee--did I kill ya? Hellooooooooooooo!<P>Somebody call 911! <P><BR>CJ<P>------------------<BR>Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FaithfulWife:<BR><B>Gee--did I kill ya? Hellooooooooooooo! Somebody call 911!</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sorry, but the physical world occasionally makes demands on me. Perhaps calling 411 would be more appropriate...<P>More later...<BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Do you ever wish that it had an off switch? Would it be nice to have your thoughts be quiet for a while?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Oh, yes. Sometimes I have been able to sit back and just <I>experience</I> something. I wish I could do that at will, and then do my analysis <I>afterward</I>. Having the analysis going on concurrent with the experience is so...distracting.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Well, then clearly you are created to just slow dance--there's something to be said for that, ya know. Swaying back and forth to the music is nice, and you know, not all white boys can jump (heehee). Why do you consider this a shortcoming, rather than considering it a strength? You have a formidable intellect, and you can perceive and figure things out that others would not even try to conquer! If you can't dance--OH WELL! I hear that Einstein couldn't sing opera</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, maybe <I>he</I> couldn't, but <I>I</I> can. Why shouldn't I be able to do anything and everything I want to? What do Einstein's limitations have to do with <I>me</I>, and do you know whether he even <I>tried</I> to sing opera, or wanted to? I understand he at least played a pretty mean violin. <P>Seriously, most strengths are also weaknesses, just as most weaknesses are also strengths. I realize that I have to accept the "bad" with the "good", and the fact is, I already have more talents than I have time to develop (partly because I have no <I>great</I> talent in any area, just a decent amount of talent in a number of areas).<P>But, the thing is, I <I>love</I> dance. I don't mean ballroom or dance club type dance, although I wish I could do that too. But I love to go to dance concerts. Dance is the one art form that seems to speak to me most directly, I think because of its tie-in with music. Music is a relatively left-brained art-form, albeit one with direct access to the emotions. I love music and what it does for me, but it doesn't open up new worlds for me like dance can. When movement is added to the music, somehow a whole layer of meaning gets added, and the wonderful thing about it is, <I>I can't articulate that meaning</I>!<P>That may seem like a strange thing to get excited about, but remember, the analytical part of my brain effectively serves as a <I>filter</I> for my conscious experience. Anything that allows me to bypass the filter is cause for celebration.<P>But merely to <I>watch</I> dance is like looking over the wall and seeing the forbidden land. I want to get out there <I>myself</I>. But I lack the skill, and apparently I lack the talent to obtain the skill, at least without more time and effort than I can afford.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Have you ever tried to shush it, I mean made a conscientious effort to train your thoughts to be still and quiet?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes and no. I have <I>experimented</I> with meditation techniques, but I have never sought training or made a concerted effort to push past my initial failures.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>This is my own personal opinion, but I think the whole POINT of art is to communicate a message to the viewer, and yet, sometimes the BEST art is not overly obvious with the message. I personally prefer the art that makes you think about it a while to figure out what the hidden message is, and then when you get it, it's like a prize between you and the artist.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>In my opinion, the best art doesn't so much hide a message as it sets up a <I>collaboration</I> between the artist and the audience.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Just imagine if you will, being in MY world. Everything is relative, it's all shades of gray, and EVERYTHING has a hidden meaning. Sometimes, I feel like I am drowning in it. People often ask me if I'm psychic (which I'm not), but being an INFP, I intuitively pick up on stuff and well...I describe it as having feelers out there picking up signals from people. But there is NO orderliness and no clear definition, and that drives me nuts sometimes.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, as an aid to understanding, I have devoted a great deal of time over quite a few years trying to imagine being in <I>my wife's</I> world, which doesn't sound a lot different from yours. <I>That</I> drove <I>me</I> nuts sometimes. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Well, Mr. Spock, you have just run into a race that is nothing but feelings and emotions! Not only does this race not suppressed the feelings--I promote it! Does a logical person like you have any questions for a emotional wreck like me?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, now, this is an interesting question, considering your response to my comment about my obliviousness:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Oh, you have struck an interesting chord here, my friend. I wish somehow you could tell me more, but I'm not sure how to phrase the question.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>My problem exactly. I wish somehow you could tell me more, but I'm not sure how to phrase the question. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Like your wife, one thing I could never understand is how someone could analyze and evaluate all the time, but miss the obvious--such as I'm really hurt. It almost seems to me as if I have to light myself on fire in order to break through. Can we discuss this some more?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Certainly we can discuss this some more, although this is a sufficiently substantive topic that another thread might be in order.<P>I will, however, mention this...<P>When my wife tried to tell me how she <I>felt</I>, I didn't know what to do about it. She didn't feel loved. She didn't feel accepted. She didn't feel that I wanted her around. So, I <I>told</I> her that I loved her and accepted her and that I wanted her with me. And I <I>told</I> her what I was doing to show her that I loved her and accepted her. But to her this was all "just" <I>words</I> and <I>facts</I>. Acknowledging and responding to her verbally wasn't what she wanted. I think she <I>really</I> wanted to <I>see</I> how I felt about it. She wanted to see my facial lines change, perhaps, or hear a catch in my breath. I don't know.<P>The problem is, asking me to do this is a lot like asking a deaf person to speak. It's not impossible, but it doesn't come naturally.<P>I think almost exclusively in words. For the most part, if I can't articulate something, I can't even think it. I can have no awareness of what I am feeling unless I can put a name to it; and once I have identified it, I have already experienced it. I live in an internal world where my words are as real as anything to me (which may help explain my dedication to truth and honesty), and most of the time external physical demonstrations are simply cut out of the loop.<P>Or, maybe I'm all wrong about what my wife wanted from me, and I remain entirely oblivious to the obvious...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>I hear what you are saying, Mr. Oblivious, but it seems common sense to me that people would want to hear what you REALLY think vs. some sugar-coated version. I personally can take it SO much better if I know I will get the real truth every time--even if it does hurt me--than to have to play this game and try to figure out, "Now is that the real truth, or some portion of the truth, or just a plain old lie?" UGGHHH! THAT makes me crazy (okay--crazier!) Plus, I want to point out something to you. If we are talking along, and I can depend on you to speak your mind and really say what you think, and in so doing you hurt my feelings, isn't it MY job to tell you how I feel? Why do you assume it is your job to "just know"? Isn't part of being differentiated people being able to know yourself and not make your partner "read your mind"?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes, that's part of being differentiated. But that doesn't mean that I should be insensitive to your feelings in the first place.<P>I try not to "sugar-coat" what I say. Instead, if I can't think of a way to deliver my message in a way that gives me reasonable confidence that that message (and not some other) will be received, I generally choose not to send the message at all. Even in the courtroom, the oath to tell the "whole truth" doesn't mean to divulge all the secrets of the universe. It means that you are not to mislead by being selective about what you say in response to a particular question. If someone actually <I>asks</I> me specifically what I think about something, they're going to get the "whole truth" all right. It's when I don't address a subject at all that they will be left wondering.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>To quote my therapist, is your intuition and analysis at work usually fairly accurate? Is your intuition and analysis with your friends pretty on target? Is you intuition and analysis with other members of your family fairly dependable. THEN YOUR INTUITION AND ANALYSIS IS ACCURATE AND DEPENDABLE HERE TOO! For heaven's sake, GDP, learn to trust yourself. Would it surprise you to learn that I count you as one of my "wise council"? I bet a lot of other folks do too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE></B><P>I have never tried to evaluate the dependability of my intuition. My intuition affects my analysis by suggesting models to work with, and thus it has a very powerful influence on my thinking. But I have very rarely (if ever) depended on my intuition alone for anything, and by the time I have arrived at a decision or a conclusion I am no longer sure how much of what went into it was intuition and how much was analysis.<P>I have considerable faith in my powers of analysis. I have found that I am pretty good at recognizing when my models are inadequate, if I have enough data. But that's always the problem, the classic INTP dilemma: when is the data enough?<P>On these faceless, anonymous boards, that question is a very big one indeed...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>The thing that more interests me, though, is what in the world made you doubt the validity of this site (and others like it). I would REALLY be interested to hear how you thought through this dilemna and what processes you used to reach your conclusion.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That will have to be the subject of another post, I think. But I don't claim to have reached a conclusion...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>If you feel like others can't see you, let me ask you this. Do you want others to see you, or is that revealing too much? Do you wish (or in logic terms, have you contemplated the possibility) that someone would take the time to get to see you, and then feel disappointed when people don't? I know you ARE indeed a very complex and contemplative individual, but do you think it stands in the way of people really seeing you?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I want to be loved, and loved for <I>who I am</I>. That means I want to be known <I>and understood</I> by those who love me. But there are actually quite a few people who see and know me rather well. My difficulty in connecting is more a problem when I want to reach out to others than it is when I want someone to reach out to me.<P>There are <I>some</I> things about me that are scary to reveal, not because I am ashamed of those aspects of myself, but because I don't think there are many people capable of understanding them. In that sense, my complexity gets in the way of people seeing the real me. But, you know, if I weren't <I>aware</I> of my own complexity, this wouldn't really bother me, would it?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Do you WANT to externalize your feelings, or is it more comfortable and easier to leave them in there?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The <I>only</I> motivation I would have for externalizing my feelings would be to connect better with people who expect that kind of display. I doubt that my own personal experience of my feelings would be enhanced. For example, I have not found that tears bring me any catharsis.<P>I <I>have</I> noticed that when I am extremely angry, a short burst of controlled violence serves as an effective internal pressure release (e.g. a single shout synchronized with a sharp blow to a wall, applied by the edge of a hand at a velocity insufficient to damage either the hand or the wall). But unfortunately, that particular externalization of my feelings turns out to have had an adverse effect on the quality of my interpersonal connection in the scenarios in which I employed it.<BR>

Gnome de Plume, <P>Do you ever feel like it's getting so thick in here that you want to wear waders? I do. It's a little like walking through sludge. Would you like to start some new threads just to discuss the new topics? One could be about how Thinkers can analyze everything but miss the obvious, and another could be about what in the world made you doubt the validity of this site, and the thought processes which you used to evaluate this dilemna. <P>Can I be totally honest with you--nearing bluntness even? I am emotionally worn tonight. Last night was a very sad, and painful night, and I'm tired of struggling. There's a little part of me that wishes I could just lay back and be loved without putting forth so much effort. Okay, I realize it's a pipe dream--I'm just blue and tired of the battle. I think I've eaten so much melon cauliflower salad that it's affecting my digestion! Heehee. Anyway, I'll get back on track tomorrow. Maybe I'll tackle your novella, and maybe I'll let you wait in anticipation But I will say one thing--you may not know it, but you notice everything. Maybe it takes you a little time to process the data and realize what you have just noticed, but I am amazed at the little things you catch onto. <P>That kind of conflicts with the oblivious scenario, and I don't understand how a person can be oblivious and notice everything all at the same time. I've seen it happen, so don't get me wrong; that just does not compute. <P>Meanwhile, remember when I said I wish I could ask you questions so I could understand better, but I didn't know how to phrase the question? I am going to think very hard of how to put the questions into words--okay, after I'm not so wiped out emotionally I'll think. (Heavy sigh) Gosh, this is so hard. Could I please just sit back and be an emotional mess tonight and pull myself together and analyze it tomorrow? Thanks.<P>CJ<P>------------------<BR>Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FaithfulWife:<BR><B>Can I be totally honest with you--nearing bluntness even?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>When talking to <I>me</I>, blunt is <I>good!</I> <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>I am emotionally worn tonight. Last night was a very sad, and painful night, and I'm tired of struggling. There's a little part of me that wishes I could just lay back and be loved without putting forth so much effort. Okay, I realize it's a pipe dream--I'm just blue and tired of the battle. I think I've eaten so much melon cauliflower salad that it's affecting my digestion! Heehee. Anyway, I'll get back on track tomorrow.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>{{{{{{CJ<P>I'm a long time getting back here again, but I hope you're feeling better, CJ. I know that for me, when those kind of feelings come, I just have to ride them out.<P>I'm a bit bothered by your saying you want to "be loved without putting forth so much effort". I haven't entirely worked out why (see, I'm stretching myself here, putting down half-baked thoughts). I don't believe that <I>any</I> amount of effort on my part can win someone else's love. I think I agree with Harley's love bank principles, and yet, filling someone's love bank is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to being loved. Putting in that effort is more an outgrowth of being lov<I>ing</I>, I think, and the real reason Harley's "love bank" works in the absence of mental health problems is that it keeps us from running out of gas, and allows feelings of gratitude and appreciation to bolster our commitment to love. Harley's principles are <I>useful</I>, but they are a gross over-simplification. Indeed, they are useful <I>because</I> they are an oversimplification, much like Bohr's model of atomic structure (in which electrons revolve around the atomic nucleus in circular orbits at specific distances) is useful because it makes the atom relatively easy to envision.<P>Now, actually, CJ, I suspect that all you meant by what you said was that (a) you wanted to be loved, and (b) you were tired because you were putting so much effort into making your marriage work, without apparent success. I don't know that you meant to imply anything else. But perhaps my little tangent there helps to illustrate one of the reasons we Thinker types can be so oblivious to feelings. Let an <I>idea</I> catch our attention, and it's hard for us to remember that anything else in the world is real - even our <I>own</I> feelings, let alone anyone else's!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Do you ever feel like it's getting so thick in here that you want to wear waders? I do. It's a little like walking through sludge.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Huh? Oh, yeah. I just wear my waders all the time. The old Boy Scout motto, you know: "Be Prepared."<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Would you like to start some new threads just to discuss the new topics? One could be about how Thinkers can analyze everything but miss the obvious, and another could be about what in the world made you doubt the validity of this site, and the thought processes which you used to evaluate this dilemna.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>OK. It's going to take me some time to get to it, as I seem to have an extraordinary number of demands on my time right now...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>I will say one thing--you may not know it, but you notice everything. Maybe it takes you a little time to process the data and realize what you have just noticed, but I am amazed at the little things you catch onto. <P>That kind of conflicts with the oblivious scenario, and I don't understand how a person can be oblivious and notice everything all at the same time. I've seen it happen, so don't get me wrong; that just does not compute.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually, it "computes" quite well, for the very reason you pointed out: it takes time to process the data. For a Thinker, there is <I>the data</I> and there is <I>the model</I>. Without the model, the data is meaningless.<P>Intuition bundles the model with the data at an unconscious level. So someone who operates primarily at the intuitive level is not even aware that a model exists. There is only "the obvious".<BR><p>[This message has been edited by GnomeDePlume (edited July 14, 2001).]

GNP...I was not going to post here, since this is basically you and FW, but...I use NLP a lot, too. I feel that language does drive everything, internally, and externally, too. Obviously, I share your inclination towards that type of analysis, and yes, it works well most of the time. The trouble is that some people aren't wired that way. It is counterproductive to apply that type of reasoning with someone who disagrees with your basic premise, and somewhat dishonet and manipulative to simply do it internally. It smacks of an attempt to brainwash, and not in a good way. People prefer if you respond to them in a 'language' that they understand, never mind the fact that you feel that your way is better, just respect their right to go about their business in their own way.<P>I think you are a highly intelligent, moral man in every sense, but I suspect that there are those in your life (as there are those in mine) who resent you for attempting to deal with them so clinically.<P>My XW used to explain abstract nouns with abstract nouns, and that 'did not compute' for me!<P>BTW, music is right brained, not left. The fact that is has mathematical structure lends some credence to left brain involvement, but I know of no source that indicates it, or art, or emotion, as a strictly left brain function. The ultimate goal, IMHO is for synchronicity, not a total division of hemispheric activity.<P>Take care, GNP...I enjoy reading about you and your process, and your insights are very helpful to me. -Mike<p>[This message has been edited by waiting_for_her (edited July 15, 2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by waiting_for_her:<BR><B>I feel that language does drive everything, internally, and externally, too. Obviously, I share your inclination towards that type of analysis, and yes, it works well most of the time. The trouble is that some people aren't wired that way. It is counterproductive to apply that type of reasoning with someone who disagrees with your basic premise, and somewhat dishonet and manipulative to simply do it internally. It smacks of an attempt to brainwash, and not in a good way. People prefer if you respond to them in a 'language' that they understand, never mind the fact that you feel that your way is better, just respect their right to go about their business in their own way.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm confused here, Mike. I certainly have not meant to imply that I think <I>my</I> way is the <I>best</I> way. A large part of what I have been trying to say is that I <I>recognize</I> the validity of other "languages", I want to <I>learn</I> those other languages, and I am frustrated by my failure to have done this in more than the most rudimentary way. Based on my past difficulties, I doubt that any other language will ever seem <I>natural</I> to me or that I will ever be able to <I>think</I> in any other language; but nevertheless I do <I>want</I> to speak to other people in a language they can understand, even if that means I must resort to relatively laborious translation.<P>How did I manage to convey a different message here?<P>And what do you mean by "It is counterproductive to apply that type of reasoning with someone who disagrees with your basic premise"? What premise are you referring to you, and who has disagreed with it?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>I think you are a highly intelligent, moral man in every sense, but I suspect that there are those in your life (as there are those in mine) who resent you for attempting to deal with them so clinically.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This is what I have specifically complained about: the difficulty I have in making a "connection" with other people. I am not <I>defending</I> my "clinical" approach, and I do not <I>attempt</I> to deal with people in that way. Rather, I <I>do</I> deal with people in that way, and I <I>attempt</I> to find <I>other</I> ways.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>BTW, music is right brained, not left. The fact that is has mathematical structure lends some credence to left brain involvement, but I know of no source that indicates it, or art, or emotion, as a strictly left brain function. The ultimate goal, IMHO is for synchronicity, not a total division of hemispheric activity.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What I said was, "Music is a relatively left-brained art-form, albeit one with direct access to the emotions." I did not mean to imply that music was "strictly" a left-brain function. But studies have shown that people in left-brain-dominated fields such as mathematics and engineering gravitate toward music for their artistic expression. There are a <I>lot</I> of amateur musicians in Silicon Valley, for example. I suspect that the mathematical qualities of music make it easier for a left-brain-dominant individual to cross over the hemispherical boundaries and achieve the synergy to which you refer.<BR>

As usual, I have jumped in on something that was none of my business and pontificated my misguided position...I am <B>sorry</B>.<P>I meant that when you are discussing something with someone who is primarily driven by emotions, it does little good to analyze in terms of models. I did not mean to imply that you did that, it was a generalization. Just an observation of why/how I fail to communicate, not meant as a dig.<P>Again, GNP, I am sorry to have done so in the first place, and only post now to let you know that.<P>Take care. -Mike

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B> Originally posted by waiting_for_her:<BR>I feel that language does drive everything, internally, and externally, too. Obviously, I share your inclination towards that type of analysis, and yes, it works well most of the time. The trouble is that some people aren't wired that way. It is counterproductive to apply that type of reasoning with someone who disagrees with your basic premise, and somewhat dishonet and manipulative to simply do it internally. It smacks of an attempt to brainwash, and not in a good way. People prefer if you respond to them in a 'language' that they understand, never mind the fact that you feel that your way is better, just respect their right to go about their business in their own way.<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>Original response from GDP:<BR>I'm confused here, Mike. I certainly have not meant to imply that I think my way is the best way. A large part of what I have been trying to say is that I recognize the validity of other "languages", I want to learn those other languages, and I am frustrated by my failure to have done this in more than the most rudimentary way. Based on my past difficulties, I doubt that any other language will ever seem natural to me or that I will ever be able to think in any other language; but nevertheless I do want to speak to other people in a language they can understand, even if that means I must resort to relatively laborious translation.<P>How did I manage to convey a different message here?<P>And what do you mean by "It is counterproductive to apply that type of reasoning with someone who disagrees with your basic premise"? What premise are you referring to you, and who has disagreed with it?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Was I sleeping? Did I miss an entire page of this thread or what? First, to waiting for her/Mike, I would say that this thread is open to anyone who wants to type a response, but I think so far I'm the only one who got GDP's "beemer" inference about a BMW motorcycle(haha). Anyway, I have to pipe in and say that I never once thought that GDP was applying analysis that was not more or less requested. See, I know that as an INFP, I am primarily driven by my feelings and my model is shaped by intuition, so as GDP so aptly pointed out, I usually am not conscious that there even IS a model, even though there is one. The fact is, I thought is would be a good thing if I could somehow learn more about the Thinker's world, and if I could somehow communicate to a Thinker more about a Feeler's world. You know--a mutual benefit kind of deal. To even suggest that it was manipulative or brainwashing is just so off base that I hardly know how to respond! I have never, ever once thought or felt that GDP is declaring that his way is right and my way is wrong; nor do I think or feel that I have ever done that. Rather, we have both acknowledged that our "languages" are different and we would like to know more about the other side. Being a Thinker will NEVER come naturally to me, but I do hope to learn more about it so that I can connect more effectively.<P>Secondly, GDP, I want to be crystal clear that I never ever got the message that Mike seems to have heard. I always was fairly clear that I was trying to describe, share and teach you about being a Feeler, just as you were trying to describe, share and teach me about being a Thinker. I never ever felt manipulated or brainwashed, and I have to honestly say that I do not understand what Mike is talking about. I never once felt that you were implying that you thought your way was the best way. I understood that, for the most part, you were trying to say that you recognized that there are other "languages", and you wished you could learn the other "languages" better, but you were frustrated with your lack of progress in being able to "speak" in the other languages in anything more than just the most rudimentary way. However, despite your frustration at your lack of progress, you nevertheless do want to speak to other people in a language they can understand, and so you were trying. Did I miss anything? <P>I'm totally confused as to what in the world has transpired here; however, I will speak only for myself and say that I have found this thread to be greatly enlightening for me. I wish I could contribute more to explaining my Feeling side of things for you, GDP, because your thoughts and explanations about the Thinking side have helped me to understand a LOT!! Like you, I do not naturally think that way or speak that language, but when I listen to that language now, I have at least a basis from which to start understanding. Not to mention, although I feel that my natural tendency is toward Feeling, talking to you tends to stretch my ability to Think (haha--that's sounds funny!), and I think that is a good thing. <P>Well, I'll respond to your original post in a bit. This was wierd.<P>CJ<P>------------------<BR>Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>I'm a long time getting back here again, but I hope you're feeling better, CJ. I know that for me, when those kind of feelings come, I just have to ride them out.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Ditto, my friend. Since I am very in touch with my feelings, I know that they come and they go, so I usually just "ride the wave" with these low points and let myself acknowledge that I do, indeed, feel drained. <P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>I'm a bit bothered by your saying you want to "be loved without putting forth so much effort". I haven't entirely worked out why (see, I'm stretching myself here, putting down half-baked thoughts). </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>I am so proud of you, I'm smiling ear to ear. I'm not sure if you will understand this or not, but part of the "fun" of analyzing, for me, is hearing the half-baked ideas and sort of brainstorming or working through the reasoning together. For example, when I hear the half-baked idea and then hear the step-by-step evaluation, it is very exciting. No, I'm not kidding!! So--kewl Now, let's continue...<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>I don't believe that any amount of effort on my part can win someone else's love. I think I agree with Harley's love bank principles, and yet, filling someone's love bank is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to being loved. Putting in that effort is more an outgrowth of being loving, I think, and the real reason Harley's "love bank" works in the absence of mental health problems is that it keeps us from running out of gas, and allows feelings of gratitude and appreciation to bolster our commitment to love. Harley's principles are useful, but they are a gross over-simplification. Indeed, they are useful because they are an oversimplification, much like Bohr's model of atomic structure (in which electrons revolve around the atomic nucleus in circular orbits at specific distances) is useful because it makes the atom relatively easy to envision.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Dude, some heavy stuff, so let's dig into this. I agree with you about the concept that no amount of effort on my part can "make" a person love me, so I hope that didn't throw you too far off track--well, a little off track, but it is a worthwhile pursuit. Anyway, long ago I realized that I could be the best wife and woman that I had the potential to be (totally filling his love bank), and I could still have a marriage lacking love, because even though I was "perfect" (meeting all ENs and avoiding all LBs) I could not do or change anything about him--including his "feelings". (Plus, who are we kidding--I'm FAR from perfect ) So, don't misunderstand, I get that. Like you, I think that Harley's principals are primarily useful because they are a quick and easy way of referring to a much deeper concept. For example, when you and I say the words, "Plan A", the Harley principal is to meet the emotional needs of your partner and avoid lovebusters--SUPER simplified way of expressing the much deeper concept of discovering the person and spouse that you have the capability of becoming, and then taking steps to become that person; then whether or not your spouse chooses to stay with you, you have become the whole person you are capable of being. In summary, it's a quick and easy way to communicate a whole plethora of ideas. <P>BTW, cute reference to Bohr's model of atomic structure. Do you mean to tell me that electrons DO NOT revolve around the atomic nucleus in circular orbits at specific distances? Haha. I slay me! Just for kicks, let's throw in a giggle about Euclidean geometry and really confuse everyone!<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B> Now, actually, CJ, I suspect that all you meant by what you said was that (a) you wanted to be loved, and (b) you were tired because you were putting so much effort into making your marriage work, without apparent success. I don't know that you meant to imply anything else. But perhaps my little tangent there helps to illustrate one of the reasons we Thinker types can be so oblivious to feelings. Let an idea catch our attention, and it's hard for us to remember that anything else in the world is real - even our own feelings, let alone anyone else's! </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Okay--point well taken. Here's a clue about the feeler types, myself included. If I say that "There's a little part of me that wishes I could just lay back and be loved without putting forth so much effort" that's usually all I mean. However, since I am Intuitive and Feeling, I incorrectly assume that everyone else has "feelers" to put out there--to empathize with the feeling of being soul weary, to acknowledge how tiring it can be to put forth effort without success, to sympathize with the desire to be loved, to see the need for some encouragement through words or actions, and to recognize the feeling of defeat. I honestly can't imagine how you can exist without "feelers"! <P>Anyway, your little tangent does indeed illustrate how you Thinkers can get stuck evaluating and analyzing the validity of something that may or may not even be there or be meant. The thing is, I find a lot of value in this whole process. For one thing, if you hadn't shared your half-baked idea, we might have never gone down this particular avenue of understanding, and I would never have had this glimpse into Thinker tangents, and you would have never been told about Feelers "feelers". This is highly valuable stuff, and even though it's off-topic, it's certainly worthy of discussion, analysis and understanding like this. <P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Would you like to start some new threads just to discuss the new topics? One could be about how Thinkers can analyze everything but miss the obvious, and another could be about what in the world made you doubt the validity of this site, and the thought processes which you used to evaluate this dilemna.<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>OK. It's going to take me some time to get to it, as I seem to have an extraordinary number of demands on my time right now...</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>GDP, you missed this question a little bit. What I was asking is, "Should other threads be started about these topics, or should we just talk about them here?" I did not mean that YOU should start new threads. BTW, normal people just say, "I'm really busy right now" vs. the extraordinary number of demands on your time--heehee. Should I call 411?<P><BR>Last but not least:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Actually, it "computes" quite well, for the very reason you pointed out: it takes time to process the data. For a Thinker, there is the data and there is the model. Without the model, the data is meaningless.<P>Intuition bundles the model with the data at an unconscious level. So someone who operates primarily at the intuitive level is not even aware that a model exists. There is only "the obvious".</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>OMG! Very EXCELLENT point! I had never looked at it that way, and once you point that out, it makes perfect sense. I know for a fact that often my intuition will tell me something for which I have absolutely no "factual" basis, and yet I have learned to trust my intuition because it is so strong. But underneath, without being conscious of it, what is in fact going on is that my intuition is modeling the data that I have gathered into what appears "obvious"! WOW! I'm serious--this is a biggy! I get it!!! (Doing a little happy dance) <P>Okay, so here's a good question for you, then. Since it had previously seemed to me that you noticed everything (that's gathering data, right?), and since part of the oblivious appearance is actually the attempt to process the data that you have gathered into meaningful interpretations, do you find that you gather a lot of superfluous data? If so, do you just save it for another day, and doesn't it take up a lot of harddrive space (haha)? Okay, I'm half serious here. How do you winnow through the data and what do you do with the chaff? <P>CJ<P>------------------<BR>Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.<p>[This message has been edited by FaithfulWife (edited July 16, 2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> How do you winnow through the data and what do you do with the chaff? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>save it just like you save the residuals in a mathematical regression model, because it is information, information which you know is valuable, but don't know how to analyze at the moment.<P>GDP,<BR>do you have a tendency to save books, articles, magazines for the valuable information that they contain?<P>

OMG! <P>I am surrounded!! Thinkers, Thinkers everywhere, and not a Feeler in sight!<P><BR> <P>------------------<BR>Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.

Oh yes CJ, there are "feelers" out here lurking! <P>In keeping up with this thread, my brain is starting to hurt but that's ok, my ol' brain needs stretched! I had NO clue how thinkers processed information. My first inpression was that they are somewhat aloof, now I understand much more.<P>Do you think "we" feelers make thinkers nuts by encouraging them to bypass their "filter"? Or is that just opposites doing their thing?<P>Ragamuffin<P>Me, according to a quick test on the internet, ESFP as I recall, that'll put WIFTTy over the edge!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by waiting_for_her:<BR><B>As usual, I have jumped in on something that was none of my business and pontificated my misguided position...I am <I>sorry</I>. <P>I meant that when you are discussing something with someone who is primarily driven by emotions, it does little good to analyze in terms of models. I did not mean to imply that you did that, it was a generalization. Just an observation of why/how I fail to communicate, not meant as a dig.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Mike, I have no objection whatsoever to your jumping in on this discussion, and if your position is misguided, my confusion over its applicability does not make it so. In fact, your point (if I now understand it) is a rather interesting one. You say that "with someone who is primarily driven by emotions, it does little good to analyze in terms of models", and looking back at your original post, I notice a phrase I had glossed over before: "It is counterproductive to apply that type of reasoning with someone who disagrees with your basic premise, <I>and somewhat dishonest and manipulative to simply do it internally</I>." (emphasis added to identify the significant phrase).<P>This position is particularly interesting to me, because I have been operating on the assumption that it <I>is</I> useful to analyze an emotion-driven person in terms of models. (Indeed, isn't that a big part of psychoanalysis?) I have devoted a great deal of time and energy to doing exactly that, and although my skill level has proven to be less than I would have wished, I still believe this approach has been helpful. If I have understood you correctly, why do you believe this approach is not legitimate? Why don't you think it will work, and what do you think is dishonest and manipulative about it?<BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhenIfindthetime:<BR><B>GDP, do you have a tendency to save books, articles, magazines for the valuable information that they contain?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ahem. <I>Me</I>, an information packrat? Nonsense! It's just that I have a somewhat large house, and not a lot of furniture, and I need <I>something</I> to fill up the space. Yeah, <I>that's</I> it...<BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FaithfulWife:<BR><B>Just for kicks, let's throw in a giggle about Euclidean geometry and really confuse everyone!</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, I'm not sure how much of a giggle this will get, but perhaps it's worth pointing out that what distinguishes Euclidean geometry from <I>non</I>-Euclidean geometry is the acceptance of Euclid's fifth postulate, which differs from the other four in that it is <I>intuitive</I> rather than logically demonstrable!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>If I say that "There's a little part of me that wishes I could just lay back and be loved without putting forth so much effort" that's usually all I mean. However, since I am Intuitive and Feeling, I incorrectly assume that everyone else has "feelers" to put out there--to empathize with the feeling of being soul weary, to acknowledge how tiring it can be to put forth effort without success, to sympathize with the desire to be loved, to see the need for some encouragement through words or actions, and to recognize the feeling of defeat. I honestly can't imagine how you can exist without "feelers"!</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually, I <I>do</I> have "feelers" and I am very capable of <I>empathy</I>. Or, at least, I am very capable of the "vicarious experience" part of empathy, and I do not <I>always</I> require the explicit communication of feelings in order to relate. If there are sufficient points of similarity between what someone else is going through and something I have experienced myself, I can make a pretty good guess as to what that person is feeling. Believe it or not, this is largely a <I>conscious</I> process, and if I cannot identify enough points of similarity I am left with nothing much more to say than "I can't imagine how you must feel."<P>Obviously, that form of empathy has significant limits. If you do not communicate your feelings to me, or at least enough facts that I can infer your feelings from them, it will take some pretty obvious cues for me to determine how you are feeling. I am actually rather proud of myself for my progress over the years in learning how to "read" my wife's feelings. I trained myself to keep an eye out for subtle physical cues that I had observed in past interactions (which is harder than it might seem, given my propensity to lose track of my environment and get caught up in the <I>ideas</I> of a conversation). As an example, I remember telling my wife about something I had learned that I thought she would be happy to know. But as I was talking, I noticed (eventually) that she had stopped shifting in her chair. (She's normally pretty squirmy.) Note that "my wife is not moving at the moment" is a datum fairly devoid of any inherent meaning. But after noting over several sample intervals that my wife <I>still</I> hadn't moved, I was able to match this behavior with observations made on other occasions, when similar behavior preceded an emotional outburst. From this <I>conscious</I> observation, I was able to deduce that my wife was upset, in spite of the fact that I had anticipated an entirely different reaction from her. (Unfortunately, this marvelous feat of observation and analysis failed to prevent another emotional outburst; but what the heck: I tried.)<P>I suspect that a feeling-intuitive person would probably have noticed that my wife was upset sooner than I did, and without even trying, and without knowing her nearly as well.<P>But the <I>really</I> difficult thing for me is to determine what "words or actions" will provide encouragement to you, and then to implement them in a convincing manner. As I said, showing my feelings is not something that comes naturally to me. And I'm a lousy actor. (Or, more precisely, I'm a moderately <I>good</I> actor within a very limited rage: I have a little bit of acting experience, and considering how wooden I am in real life, I have surprised people with my ability; but I have always been cast in roles that are compatible with my temperament.) Not too long ago, I tried to feign an outburst of anger, in order to demonstrate my actual behavior in certain interactions with my wife. I simply couldn't do it. I couldn't muster up the anger, and I couldn't fake it either.<P>Then again, come to think about it, maybe I'm being too hard on myself. A great deal of my self-evaluation has been done in the context of interactions with my wife, and I'm not sure that's a very valid context. How much of my failure to connect with her was my <I>own</I> failure? Perhaps I am allowing the self-doubt that developed in my marital relationship to affect my evaluation of other relationships. Hmm...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Okay, so here's a good question for you, then. Since it had previously seemed to me that you noticed everything (that's gathering data, right?), and since part of the oblivious appearance is actually the attempt to process the data that you have gathered into meaningful interpretations, do you find that you gather a lot of superfluous data? If so, do you just save it for another day, and doesn't it take up a lot of harddrive space (haha)? Okay, I'm half serious here. How do you winnow through the data and what do you do with the chaff?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually, I'm quite convinced that I <I>don't</I> notice everything. Since I can't be sure what data is significant unless I have complete confidence in my models, and since as an INTP I am <I>never</I> satisfied with my models, I am more concerned that I might be missing crucial data than that I might be gathering superfluous data. I want to notice and remember <I>everything</I>. There <I>is</I> no "chaff", only pieces that might belong to a different (and perhaps interrelated) puzzle.<P>Evaluating the data looks an awful lot like scientific analysis. I try to come up with models (which is where intuition is useful, as I said before), and then I check the data for a fit. The more data I have that fits, the more confidence I have in the model. If I have data that doesn't fit the model, I have to make an uncertain judgment: is it irrelevant (noise), is it tainted by factors I failed to observe (insufficient data), or is it an anomaly that will require modification (or abandonment) of the model?<P>Anomalous data that I have never been able to explain by any model tends to get flagged as "something I don't understand" and filed somewhere just at or below the level of conscious recollection. That is, I may or may not have devoted much consideration to the data, but if I come across a new model that might explain it, it tends to jump back into my consciousness pretty quickly. It is amazing how often I will read something, and I will then suddenly remember some long-"forgotten" event and have a Eureka moment.<P>It's all pretty haphazard, really. Thinking is heavily influenced by intuition and feelings. "Thinkers" just tend not to notice those influences, in much the same way as "Feelers" tend not to notice the models underlying their intuitions.<P>Or anyway, that's the world according to <I>me</I>. At least until tomorrow... <BR>