Discussions about relationships and Ti/Fe vs. Te/Fi differences

[Joy]

Not sure where to put this thread...

When people have conversations about personal things with me, the INTjs speak about their actual relationships in general terms, describing the people involved by traits and leaving me to decide what those traits mean (I get the impression that they expect me to see some sort of social value or value based on the role they would play in a relationship with the iNTj). When they look for answers it's about more general social things, what the circumstances or individual traits mean to the role of those involved, or how to know what they should want (based on social roles).

When Te types (and Gamma Fi friends) I've been close to speak to me about personal things, they're speaking about their actual relationships and the specifics about what's going on, often wanting to know why someone is behaving they way they are and wanting to understand how important they are or were to the other person.

From my perspective, it's a very noticeable difference. Have other people noticed this as well?

[tcaudilllg]

Yes.

[detail]

I have noticed it's not the case. Again, is not only about status. I guess it will eventually find it's way into your head. I had INTjs, ESFjs, ISFps, INFps, ESTps talking to me about relationships the way you described it is for . I also heard the more social approach used by INFjs, ENFps, ESFps, ENTjs, INTps and ISTps. It depends on the context of the discussion and on other personnality traits, like for example how one is in tune with the concept of "group of people".

[Joy]

Yes.

I think INTjs also tend to describe their perception of the way someone was expressing her/himself, but my Te and Fi friends describe actual events.

[Joy]

is not only about status

No, it's not about "status". That would be very un-Alpha. It does have to do with roles though. But more so about expressing oneself and "reading" other people's internal states.

[detail]

is not only about status

No, it's not about "status". That would be very un-Alpha. It does have to do with roles though. But more so about expressing oneself and "reading" other people's internal states.

In any case, it doesn't work. Unless we choose to ignore my observations, which we won't, won't we?

[Joy]

What doesn't work?

[detail]

The INTj// generalization you present in this thread.

[Joy]

I edited it. And it's not a generalization, it's an observation.

[detail]

No, it's a generalization based on your observations. My own observations contradict yours, thus falsifying the generalization. Pretty simple.

[Joy]

So then we agree to disagree.

[detail]

On what?

[Joy]

The INTj// observations I presented in this thread.

[detail]

We don't disagree, we observed different things. If you want to ignore it it's your choice, anyways i wouldn't disagree as i don't think one needs a reason to hold a belief. As long as you don't pretend it's a fact through hasty generalization it's ok.

[Joy]

There are very few things I consider to be fact. Anything involving socionics can be safely excluded.

[detail]

Then preach all you want, as long as people know these are your beliefs.

[Nevero]

bump. any other comparisons and tips on how they are different?