IEIs/INFps feeling someone's language: meaning, tone, utility

[Ali]

I seem to (myself) to feel someone's of language. The words they use, the one's which have special meaning for them, the structure of language they commonly and specially utilize, the tone of voice and even the way they have written and structured their novels (umm only. this last one is impersonal, of course) It almost has an identifiable essence about it, a living feeling, very surreal.

And so often at times, I tend to adapt my language to theirs, the way they can hear/read me most like themselves. Often when needed, for way of genuine empathy or biting sarcasm, I will know precisely the language to use for the..deepest..effect.

I used to be surprised at the level of my ability to achieve this. It's also a crutch, because very rarely do I find myself communicating..'normally'. Also, when I have found myself together with people, for whom I had used very different 'languages' with each one of them, I found myself completely unable to speak - or some of them found myself to be talking so Differently - or I just relaxed and talked normally and surprised everybody.

Self-esteem issues aside, do other Infps (or with other experiences with infps) seem to identify with this ?

[Satan]

I don't think I'm INFp but I do that too. I had a discussion with a friend about it, because this guy was saying that it's "bad" to "change" your behaviour for other people. The girl I was talking to about it tried to say it was really bad to "not change" when you're interacting with different people. And seemed to get kind of defensive. I myself, change, but I don't uhh.. feel the need to defend myself?

Anyway ,..I seem to remember her saying something about having different behaviour for different people.

I probably use "my" language more than other peoples language. I just have different sets of "my" language.

[Satan]

Like for example if I'm trying to communicate something to someone, I'll generally tro and use their words. Their way of seeing things. Their way of expressing things etc. Try to understand where they're coming from. And make the right shifts.

Whereas if I'm just talking in general, then I kind of find that sometimes other people can kind of shift to my language.

Although, I remember when I was young, I used to get people "echoing" what I'd said afterwards.

Like when you're in a cave, and you say something. ANd you can hear the rebound ..

Alhough, at the same time sometimes in shops, I hear people kind of "repeating" what I said out loud quietly. Like they hear what I say clearly enough, but they need to resay it themselves to make it real or something.

But yeah it was strange. .. like I hadn't seem in a long time .. and he was acting like I had in previous moments .. so I kind of got to saw what I used to do in a way ?

[Satan]

One time I noticed the strange thing with my brother, he was copying/emulating behaviour / ways of talking etc that I had in the past ...

It was a kind of wind up regime. Although he didn't have the gusto, nor the force that I did when I did it.

Although he has this kind of skill, of being able to "translate" what I say, and make it seem more palatable.

Anyway, one time he did that, he was saying how he didn't know what to do ... or smoething .. but like he could "fix up" the brokenness of me doing something badly or something.

It's kind of like I can immediately do something badly, and then he kind of transform it into something better.

But it can seem weird because it's like he takes my actions/words sometimes .. and just kind of says them in a nicer way ..

But then at the same time he can also stick to my words etc. It makes me feel ilke I have more influence?

[Ali]

I think translating language to understand and copying behavior do not have to do necessarily with type. I focused on that only after

I seem to (myself) to feel someone's of language. The words they use, the one's which have special meaning for them, the structure of language they commonly and specially utilize, the tone of voice and even the way they have written and structured their novels (umm only. this last one is impersonal, of course) It almost has an identifiable essence about it, a living feeling, very surreal.

because with this it has a very odd touch to it

[Satan]

I think translating language to understand and copying behavior do not have to do necessarily with type. I focused on that only after



because with this it has a very odd touch to it

When I read stuff that somenoe I know well has written I can often get a feeling from it.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Umm I don't know, but I seem to know just what people want to hear. I kinda assumed everybody can do this though. I'm not sure.

[redbaron]

I seem to (myself) to feel someone's of language. The words they use, the one's which have special meaning for them, the structure of language they commonly and specially utilize, the tone of voice and even the way they have written and structured their novels (umm only. this last one is impersonal, of course) It almost has an identifiable essence about it, a living feeling, very surreal.

And so often at times, I tend to adapt my language to theirs, the way they can hear/read me most like themselves. Often when needed, for way of genuine empathy or biting sarcasm, I will know precisely the language to use for the..deepest..effect.

I used to be surprised at the level of my ability to achieve this. It's also a crutch, because very rarely do I find myself communicating..'normally'. Also, when I have found myself together with people, for whom I had used very different 'languages' with each one of them, I found myself completely unable to speak - or some of them found myself to be talking so Differently - or I just relaxed and talked normally and surprised everybody.

Self-esteem issues aside, do other Infps (or with other experiences with infps) seem to identify with this ?

Yes, I do this too. I'm really good at constructing written communication tailored to a particular person. I think I also do it in person to some extent but it's less obvious to me. I'm more conscious of it when writing (like an email).

[betterthan]

Most people do this, its like a subconcious thing, when you click with someone you 'mirror' each other.

But I am pretty unpredictable, I change how I act in accordance to my mood. I liek to be individual, and to fire people up but then I also like to click with people, so I try to up the ante on their emotional pitch so we match, which I read was way INFP.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Well I was always taught to treat people with basic respect, basically everybody likes to be preened so therefore I kinda talk to them how they talk to me. But if I just don't like the person, I will quit the mirroring thing.

I don't know if mirroring is a sign that you like the person or not, I think it's a basic sense of respect. When I like a person, it's more than just mirroring, my eyes will just light up and I'll act kinda like a school boy.

I'm slow to anger, and it's hard for me to flat-out hate a person, but when I do you'll know lol.

[tcaudilllg]

I can identify with that, Ali, but I'd probably explain it differently

Why not then?

Fe is message and its interpretation. The transmission of the message is mechanical; the structure underlying it is what we call language, its semantics. A person may be drawn to one message more than another, depending on their likes and dislikes. The interpretation of the message is what it means to you. Every message has a meaning... however there are both implicit meaning and conditioned meanings. Consider Mozart vs. Beethoven: Mozart's music carries an implicit, strongly emotional meaning which reflects the social communication of emotions. Beethoven's, in contrast, carries with it a meaning of the gut that not everyone understands. People who sympathize with Beethoven understand him -- those who rebel -- because they understand that acts of rebellion carry with them an innate, natural meaning. Looking at the meaning of rebellion myself, I recall memories of it as a romantic ideal... but I actually look at it as being without meaning.

In contrast, I find deep meaning in feelings that are shared by all people -- grief, loss, happiness, joy. Rebellion in contrast seems vainglorious and illusory. It may be used, but only as a last resort, and even then its only meaning is profound regret that an alternative was unavailable. We look upon our alter ego and see an illusion of ourselves; surely we apprehend a semblance of what something may mean to people who excel at being what we aspire to be -- the living reflection of our persona. But that is never what it means to us, not really.

[aka-kitsune]

Consider Mozart vs. Beethoven: Mozart's music carries an implicit, strongly emotional meaning which reflects the social communication of emotions. Beethoven's, in contrast, carries with it a meaning of the gut that not everyone understands. People who sympathize with Beethoven understand him -- those who rebel -- because they understand that acts of rebellion carry with them an innate, natural meaning. Looking at the meaning of rebellion myself, I recall memories of it as a romantic ideal... but I actually look at it as being without meaning.

Interesting example. I've always preferred Beethoven to Mozart implicitly, because I find Beethoven's music more personally complex, darker, and to have more dense emotional "weight". There is a lot of concentrated feeling that always evokes a strong response within me. Beethoven is truly a Romantic in the true sense of that movement. Mozart, in contrast seems too light, airy and insubstantial. The "People's Composer"...

"Social communication of emotions" is an interesting descriptor applied to Mozart. Would explain why I don't identify --.

I'm not sure why you'd equate Beethoven with rebellion, though. The way I'd think of it is more along the lines of Mozart (social) vs. Beethoven (individual). I always instinctively identify with the individual rather than the group.

[tcaudilllg]

Interesting example. I've always preferred Beethoven to Mozart implicitly, because I find Beethoven's music more personally complex, darker, and to have more dense emotional "weight". There is a lot of concentrated feeling that always evokes a strong response within me. Beethoven is truly a Romantic in the true sense of that movement. Mozart, in contrast seems too light, airy and insubstantial. The "People's Composer"...

"Social communication of emotions" is an interesting descriptor applied to Mozart. Would explain why I don't identify --.

I'm not sure why you'd equate Beethoven with rebellion, though. The way I'd think of it is more along the lines of Mozart (social) vs. Beethoven (individual). I always instinctively identify with the individual rather than the group.

Well Beethoven, from what I've been taught, tried specifically to break with precedents. If you notice his work, he plays with your expectations, building up to what you would rhythmically expect and then twists the outcome into something unexpected. If you find emotional meaning in that twist, then you find meaning in his music. If you find it arbitrary, even crass, then you don't get the meaning behind the message of rebellion against the conventions of his day. (and, to a larger extent, our natural tendency to expect of music a mathematical predicatability). Beethoven confuses our internal sense of order and exposes it to chaos.

The question of his politics is actually a relevant one concerning how his music is interpreted. If he was on the Right, then he was aiming for an exposure of conserved meanings; if on the Left, he wanted to introduce new meaning in reaction to the conserved.

[aka-kitsune]

Well Beethoven, from what I've been taught, tried specifically to break with precedents. If you notice his work, he plays with your expectations, building up to what you would rhythmically expect and then twists the outcome into something unexpected. If you find emotional meaning in that twist, then you find meaning in his music. If you find it arbitrary, even crass, then you don't get the meaning behind the message of rebellion against the conventions of his day. (and, to a larger extent, our natural tendency to expect of music a mathematical predicatability). Beethoven confuses our internal sense of order and exposes it to chaos.

The question of his politics is actually a relevant one concerning how his music is interpreted. If he was on the Right, then he was aiming for an exposure of conserved meanings; if on the Left, he wanted to introduce new meaning in reaction to the conserved.

Eh... I don't try to understand music in terms of its technical aspects. I just notice the effects it has and generally enjoy music that stirs in me an emotional reaction (but not revulsion). I can't say I always seek "pleasant" reactions, because I resonate very strongly with melancholic or mournful strains. A sense of pathos and yearning is attractive, as is a certain quality of unconventionality and subtlety.

I also like Chopin for these reasons.

[tcaudilllg]

Breaking down Fe into its component aspects, with regard to the ego and alter ego we can see that +Fe (signal) is shaped by -Fe (reception via counter-signal), and -Fe stimulated in response to -Fe.

In Beethoven's case (and yours, Aki), it breaks down to this:


Ego:
+Fe (change of message) vs -Fe (continuity of message; repetition of signal)
Alter ego:
-Fe (conserved meaning of the message) vs +Fe (change of meaning)

The + and - forms of Fe play off of each other between the ego and alter ego.

In as much as Beethoven wanted to construct a persona of himself in denial of his alter ego, changing the message meant changing the meaning: one could explore new meaning in music given changes in form. The old ways restrained the expression of music and thus, were to be criticized for restraining the human horizon. This was Beethoven's argument. But no matter how much the technique changed, the meanings remained the same because they were innately linked to the technique. The silver lining to this is that indeed, the meanings exposed were different from those already known, even if a given technique by necessity exposed the same meaning. You can't rehash the same tune -- even if its arrangement relative to other tunes is novel -- and expect a different meaning for that part of the piece. Belief in your persona, however, is want to fool you into believing that you can.

[crazedrat]

i think this has to do with having a heightened awareness of theory of mind coupled with a dampened awareness of reality . I know ever since I started studying socionics , this tendency has been developing in myself , & now it is to the point where it's ridiculous how differently I structure my language when with an ESTj compared with an ISFp . Before I got into psychology , I was a master of using this skill in debates where I was stressed out , vulnerable , or emotionally invested in .. I could word things so they seemed like they were flawless , & obvious , when infact they weren't . It was a skill I always loved using because people seemed so powerless against it . Nowdays I find myself less and less interested in using it because I care less for winning arguments . I think this is a positive development .. & I think this tendency is a personality flaw . That said , it is one of many . Restructuring language I think is a Ni skill . Ni sees the potential implications of words , & selects the ideal word for its subjective interests . ... In this case , yours is geared towards people and mine towards debate ... Fe vs. Te .. makes sense.
I think tcauds analysis that this is only effective in superficially masking the underlying fundamental implications of what you are saying and doing is important . Usually when I use my debate skill I succeed at shutting people up , pissing them off , forcing them into personally attacking me ; but rarely actually convincing them to see my point of view if they are originally opposed to it or don't get it . ....

[Phaedrus]

I've always preferred Beethoven to Mozart implicitly, because I find Beethoven's music more personally complex, darker, and to have more dense emotional "weight". There is a lot of concentrated feeling that always evokes a strong response within me. Beethoven is truly a Romantic in the true sense of that movement. Mozart, in contrast seems too light, airy and insubstantial. The "People's Composer"...

"Social communication of emotions" is an interesting descriptor applied to Mozart. Would explain why I don't identify --.

I'm not sure why you'd equate Beethoven with rebellion, though. The way I'd think of it is more along the lines of Mozart (social) vs. Beethoven (individual). I always instinctively identify with the individual rather than the group.

That is a correct observation and analysis.

Mozart was an extravert, an ENXp (most likely ENTp in my opinion), creative and ingenious, but light and airy as you say. He had Tourette's syndrome and most likely ADHD too.

Beethoven was most likely an introvert and is typed as INTp by Filatova, a typing that could be correct.

[tcaudilllg]

Beethoven was ENFj, it's well known. He was infamous for his rages.

I suspect INFp is very poor at distinguishing their alter ego Fe from their persona Fe. This should manifest in belief that one message can have many meanings. To actually have a sense of what a message definitively means, they need ENFj's recommendation. If you think about it, this tendency is reflected in poetry....

[Phaedrus]

Beethoven was ENFj, it's well known. He was infamous for his rages.

It is certainly not an established fact that Beethoven was an ENFj, and the kind of infamous rages you are talking about here are much more common in INTps (and rather typical for them too) than in ENFjs.

[aka-kitsune]

It is certainly not an established fact that Beethoven was an ENFj, and the kind of infamous rages you are talking about here are much more common in INTps (and rather typical for them too) than in ENFjs.

I tend to agree that Beethoven was likely an introvert. He's typed in and among enneagram circles as an E4, so likely ILI or IEI. EIE not relatively a good fit with E4s.

[crazedrat]

and the kind of infamous rages you are talking about here are much more common in INTps (and rather typical for them too) than in ENFjs.

yes , it is true ......
it's happening at all times inside , and manages to slip out now and then

[Phaedrus]

yes , it is true ......
it's happening at all times inside , and manages to slip out now and then

And the phenomenon is described in the literature too, at least in relation to the Fe PoLR (inferior function, Fe) in some INTP profiles in MBTT.

[Jarno]

Self-esteem issues aside, do other Infps (or with other experiences with infps) seem to identify with this ?

I always like to read and listen to infp language.

It's usually very highly developed. They are natural poets too.

I guess the feeling part is for INFP's specifically. I usually listen to the meaning of the words and compare if it fits the purpose of their comment.

[Froody Blue Gem]

When I hear people talking, I do tend to obsess over word usage. Maybe because of my love for vocab/English and being a general nut. Years later, I'll remember the way people worded things if it had a positive or negative impact on me, and I can repeat past conversations I've had with people. I may not remember the whole conversation, but I remember the concept, and key phrases that were said. If there is a certain interaction that made an impact on me that I'm trying to figure out, I will replay the words that the person used, word for word in my head, trying to find the meaning. I make it a point to take the environment into check with interacting in a group.

I may also think of alternate things they could have said, look up the official definitions of words. I probably am well aware of what the word means but the official dictionary definition can give new meaning to sentences. If I know a person well enough, I have a certain speech pattern I associate with them, and may find little quirks amusing. I repeat myself a lot when talking, partially because of being in my head a lot of the tie and being an awkward conversationalist.