Podcast – Episode 0265 – Myers-Briggs Judging Function Idealism

Download Episode Hereright click link and select “Save Link As…”

In this episode, Joel and Antonia talk about the idealism we develop around our judging functions.

In this podcast you’ll find:


In this episode Joel and Antonia talk about the idealism we develop around our judging functions. #myersbriggs #cognitivefunctions #MBTI


To subscribe to the podcast, please use the links below:

Subscribe with iTunes
Non-iTunes Link
Download The Android App
Subscribe on Soundcloud
Subscribe with Stitcher
Subscribe on Google Play
Subscribe with Facebook Messenger

If you like the podcast and want to help us out in return, please leave an honest rating and review on iTunes by clicking here. It will help the show and its ranking in iTunes immensely! We would be eternally grateful!

Want to learn more?

Discover Your Personal Genius


We want to hear from you. Leave your comments below…


Showing 30 comments
  • Erik Bland

    Thanks for sharing this content. I especially appreciate Antonia’s perspective on Ti idealism (not that Joel’s perspective was any less valid, but rather it didn’t resonate as much with me). As an INTJ, I also highly value concrete information, albeit in a different way.

    If I interpreted correctly (and if I didn’t, I apologize, as it’s not my objective to create conflict!), one of Antonia’s conclusions was that Ti’s version of idealism is to transmit information with complete perfection, such that the receiver will get the most precise possible replication of the sender’s message. She mentioned that INTJ’s, for example, may transmit information more concisely, but in smaller amounts (or, as I will think of, at lower resolution). I can agree with that.

    I think of all information as having partially subjective and partially objective components, and almost no information is 100% of either. If I want to communicate concisely, I often decide that the more subjective parts of the information are less relevant (more likely to cause errors in reception?), so I try to remove them, as best as I can identify them of course. This leaves a message that is more concise but also with lower resolution: the receiver will need to fill in the subjective bits on their own and decide how that information impacts them.

    I think perhaps part of the difficulty for me as an INTJ, in interacting with Ti, is that I can’t reach conclusions from the information as fast as it is being given to me. If I treat all information as being actionable, then I start questioning the relevance of pieces of a story that don’t seem to directly add to the overall message. It makes sense though, as Mosey commented, that that information is intended to allow me to get a closer approximation to the speaker’s experience and (hopefully) draw the same conclusions as they did.

    Unfortunately it probably frustrates the speaker that I can’t draw conclusions as fast as they would like. After all, to me the speaker’s words, no matter how accurate, are only a single perspective. How would someone else, even another Ti user, represent the story? The most fascinating thing to me is when multiple people have the same external experience but radically different internal experiences. To get a deeper picture, I like to look at how those different inner experiences arose from similar outer ones. But this means that I can’t draw a conclusion just from one story, even if it is a very accurate one. Instead I need to look at many stories.

    I have no conclusion here, these are just my thoughts.

  • Mosey

    As I, an INTP, listened to this podcast, I wanted to provide the clarity I got when you were talking about Ti/Accuracy. Antonia, you said that you talk a lot when you are working to transmit information (I don’t remember exactly what you said – I didn’t write it down…). For me this unlocked the idea that, when I tell someone everything about a topic (rather than the INTJ beautiful single statement), I am attempting to allow you to come to your own conclusion based on the data I give you. I can’t believe that you are coming to the the most accurate conclusion without all the data/information that I had when I decided something and I assume that if you have the same data, you’ll come to the same conclusion which is, of course, faulty thinking.
    This explains the complete frustration my husband and others have expressed when I do this in their vicinity. They can neither accept or understand it. Yet another opportunity to grow – and to let this go for other people unless they invite it. Maybe if I cut to the chase like an INTJ others will be less reluctant to listen to me.

  • Andrew

    ENTP here. I’m going to define accuracy and precision a bit different than you did in the podcast. If we are throwing darts, accuracy is how close you are to the Bull’s Eye. Precision, on the other hand, is how close your darts are to each other. So it is possible to be precise and not accurate, or accurate and not precise. if the Bull’s Eye is absolute truth, accuracy is how close what I am saying is to that absolute truth. Precision is how close what I am saying is to whatever it is I am trying to express.

    They seem like the same thing, but only because ideally, we want both of them. We want what we say to be both accurate (true) and precise (expressing efficiently and effectively what it is we are trying to express). But, at some point we realize that accuracy is a pipedream. are information is, as was said in the podcast, corrupted, inaccurate. So the only true hope that we can have is precision in what we say. That we say precisely what it is that we mean. That way if we say something incorrect, or if someone disagrees with us, like you, I’d rather rebuked/corrected for what I think/believe rather than someone misconstrue something I said and attack me for something that I don’t think. And then have to explain over and over again, trying with more and more precision, to explain what it is I was trying to say. Beating my head against a brick wall. 🙂

  • Rachel

    The way you guys described the Fi drive for purity at about 11 minutes in is absolutely the best articulation of this concept that I have heard. I COMPLETELY relate to Joel’s fussiness, but Antonia is so right in it showing up a little differently in INFPs. It’s this absolute need for me to express a perfect self, to show up most authentically, and have nothing distract from or tarnish that representation of myself. I can be a stubborn perfectionist sometimes, and other times, can’t be bothered to do anything above the minimum. It’s those times when the output involves some insertion of myself, some subjective input, that I go hardcore crazy about every last detail, and it never felt like it was entirely Te-driven. There’s something deep and fundamental and values-driven underlying that need for perfection. I have been aware of this tendency over the last year and a half and have never been able to find the language to convey it, so thank you for hitting the nail on the head. I feel affirmed, but also empowered to keep that behavior in check. You guys are brilliant, and please keep PH going eternally.

  • Gada

    Question about this idea of INTJs being succinct…
    I am wondering if you have any insight into whether this tends to be a learned strategy.
    I am an INTJ who frequently comes up against other people feeling like I’m giving unnecessary information;so I really identified with antonia’s experience. More and more, I try to practice only giving the relevant information because otherwise I spend so much time being told I’m overthinking things.
    I think people can get really emotionally upset by the ways INTJs think about things and we get tired of being told that what we are noticing doesn’t exist. It’s more effective not to explain too much detail just because other people really hate to have to hear it.
    I actually find it quite hurtful when I feel I am being open with a person by sharing all the relevant information and reasoning and they tell me that my approach to thinking’s about it is “too complicated.” I can easily be succinct but for me it is almost a form of emotional guardedness. I wonder if this is a common experience?

    • Catlyn

      Hi Gada,

      As a fellow INTJ, I have a few thoughts I’d like to share. When INTJ’s overshare information, I think it tends to be in situations that lack proper context. We don’t know how to answer the question succinctly because the question wasn’t framed well — too broad, too vague — so we answer ALL the questions that we imagine the person might be trying to ask. Hence, oversharing and overthinking.

      Context is so important for me to be able to actually find the requested information inside of myself. I think this is would be true for most INTJ’s, which is why we tend to ask that pesky question –“why do you want to know?” It’s not necessarily an attempt to withhold or guard information. I’m usually happy to share what I know. It’s literally a case of not being able to access the information properly until I know how it’s going to be used.

      By way of personal example: I used to work as a personal trainer and I had a client ask me about creatine in a very general way. I couldn’t answer his question until I knew more about WHY he was asking the question. I needed more context to answer his question properly.

      Inside of my mind, there’s a bookcase that holds all the information I currently possess about creatine. So when he asked me about creatine generally, I went to that bookcase in my mind. But now I need to know which shelf are we looking at in that bookcase. Are we looking at the shelf entitled “types and brands of creatine”? No. Ok, how about the shelf entitled “creatine dosing and supplementation protocols”? Ah, yes, that’s the one the client wants. Ok, now lets find the specific book on that shelf that you want. Do you want to know what So-And-So says about creatine supplementation, or what Other-So-And-So says about it? Both? Ok, sure.

      It was only by walking through that process with him that I could answer his question without oversharing. I hope that makes sense.

    • James

      Gada, I think what you’re experiencing is a person’s attempt to not feel vulnerable to your intuition. People generally as I’ve found tend to avoid vulnerability as it feels like weakness. It’s like being naked in public or with someone you don’t know. A lot of fear comes up around it especially when we can be so succinct or to say almost spot on with our awareness of others and their behavior or thoughts. We’ve spent so much time observing others that we pick up on behavior patterns almost second nature. Vulnerability can bring up many feelings many of them negative ones if that’s the outlook of being “seen” by others and fearing their judgment or criticism. Thoughts of shame or or inadequacy come up for many people when they experience the Ni soul penetration that we Ni doms tend to do.

      Your approach to thinking is not “too complicated” it’s spot on! The problem is with others not you so much as them having an agenda of not wanting to feel vulnerable. When you can accurately point out another’s agenda or why they tend to behave the way they behave, they feel like they’ve been found out. Anyone of of a high moral character and confidence that has their best interests and that of others in mind won’t mind being found out or seen as it were because it will feel like a relief to finally be understood that they mean well. Those that carry the heavy weight of a negative perspective on life and focus too much in the past or fear the future tend to not want to be seen because their inner critic is so active at judging themselves and when you point that out, it touches on those wounds and people recoil and or lash out or they gaslight and cause you to doubt yourself.

      To answer your question… I wonder if this is a common experience? Yes it is because we as humans tend to mirror each other, as we relate. What you love about someone else is what you love about yourself, what you hate about someone else is what you hate about yourself. The purpose of the relationship is to learn to love and accept everything we hate about ourselves and others, that is the fundamental reason why we get together in the first place with both platonic and romantic partnerships.

      Point is trust your intuition, you gut intuition. You aren’t wrong, and you will come full circle over and over again with the same conclusion.

      The key to getting what you want validated more often is to give what you want. You can be more open as an indirect way to encourage someone else to share with you what you share with them. The other way to get what you believe to be true and have that validated, is to ask questions. Therapists have to do this, and they too get tired of asking questions they already know the answer to, just as we do because most people do not say what they mean for fear of invoking a reprisal or having a bunch of negative feelings dumped on them and in turn hurting others or getting hurt in the process.

      Not everyone is as direct as we are, I’ve been direct with INTJ females only to have them do exactly as you’ve described and dance around the issue or gaslight me as if what I’m thinking or talking about is crazy or over complicated.

      Catlyn makes a valid point too in her experience, Ni covers all possibilities and we can’t seem sometimes to get to the bottom of it until we start to eliminate some facts, and narrow everything down into a bigger picture. It’s like someone giving us a puzzle that comes in a bag versus a box with a picture on it, we have no idea what it is until we start to put together the pieces of the puzzle, when some colors form we can see perhaps a partial image of the bigger picture form and then ask questions to form a bigger and clearer picture as we go along.

  • Justine G

    Very Interesting as always, but I would like to pull up a couple of things that bother me:

    1) I don’t know whether this is your intention, but it often comes across to me as if anyone prefering Fi/Te (over Fe/Ti) inevitably couldn’t care less what others think about them. I have historically cared too much about what others think (though have improved somewhat), and relate more to the Fi/Te axis, just NOT about this particular point. I think the need for others to like and accept us goes WELL beyond type, and has a lot to do with self-acceptance vs insecurity.

    2) I am having trouble parsing out the difference between Ti and Fi in terms of perfectly transmitting data and ideas vs perfectly transmitting intent. You intend someone to understand what you are trying to say, thus your intent is for them to grasp whatever idea or information you have in your mind as if you were trying to photocopy it. I know there is intent behind the intent (i.e. motivation), but at either level there is intent. If the receiver gets it ‘wrong’ and as a consequence thinks you’re stupid or terrible, this is because they misread either ‘immediate’ intent or underlying intent.

    Fi probably cares more about ‘the intent behind the intent’ than Ti, and is probably less picky about being technically correct in word-choice, particularly as they are most aware that words are not fully up to the job anyway. I’ve known myself use words that I almost immediately realised I wasn’t even sure what they meant, but because they sounded like the right word and the person appeared to know what I meant = job done.

    • Alex

      I don’t have any great insight about this, but this did happen recently…

      A Fi user friend told me that they worried about what someone thinks about their intention when they did something as simple as offer to do them a favor. The words had nothing to do with it- their meaning was plain. I’m a Ti user and I was confused about why this simple favor would cause her distress. She was assuming that the other person might be reading into the request in all sorts of different ways. I was of the assumption that someone would take her words at face value in such a simple situation, like I would have.

      This was a very simple situation, but I guess that generally MAYBE language is assumed to be the way to clarity for Ti…. and other factors like body language or invisible mind stuff that I don’t really understand play in more heavily with Fi. 🙂

      I kind of hear it when Joel’s voice gets softer and kinder sounding when he wants to clarify that “we aren’t trying to misrepresent anyone’s experience” and then Antonia get’s deeper, more direct, and goes off on a 10 paragraph essay.

      Certainly, when I feel I’ve been misunderstood (offended someone’s values, for example) my instinct is not try to patch the hole with a softer voice or body language…. it’s more like “more explanation” with a side dose of mimicking the empathetic vocal tone that I hear some other people use but which is a big learning curve for me right now. (That sounds really robotic or something but is like completely accurate… oh my)

      • Justine G

        Thanks for your comments.

        • Alex

          Actually I just thought of something… you described misinterpreted intent as “If the receiver gets it ‘wrong’ and as a consequence thinks you’re stupid or terrible.”

          I realized that that actually describes the Fe side of my polarity. My Ti ideal wants to transmit the data (using language) so that it “makes sense”. It doesn’t even fathom that anyone could possibly conflate clarity with adjectives like “stupid or terrible”. My Ti wants everyone to take information with a wide open, flexible mind that understands that everything is relative and changeable and additive and subtractive and is never one sided or deterministic. Even if I am pretty sure the information would be useful to the person I’m talking to, accuracy is completely open to accepting corrections. In other words, information that I transmit should NOT have intention, really. But I want it to be clearly transmitted so that the person will be able to understand it and use it correctly. But at its purest, it’s just because clarity is just awesome and satisfying.

          The judgement of what this information says about ME (my values and “intentions”) (e.g “transmitting this information makes me a terrible person”) I think comes from the Fe side of the polarity. Obviously they are inseparable, but if we are talking about Accuracy having an agenda, it definitely does not want to have to deal with social truths and the fact that “people are going to think I’m mean.”

          If I think my values/intent are being or are going to be misrepresented, it’s because I’ve gotten feedback from people that wakes me up to the disharmony that I caused. And then I’m just irritated because my Ti ideal just doesn’t even want to have to deal with that, because “people shouldn’t be adding all these layers of intent and implication onto information.”

          Information is a fantiastic, beautiful thing that I idealistically see as completely separate from the person themselves who are transmitting it. Non-idealistically, though, I don’t ignore context (like their biases and intentions) but I try very hard to parse out intention and information into a multi-noded system that can be viewed from different angles and be arranged and interpreted in different ways.

          I think that the example that Antonia used in the episode represented a Ti that was more closely tied to Fe (which would make sense since it’s her copilot/10year old). She talked a lot about the ideal being “info transmitted clearly to others so that they don’t misunderstand”, if I’m remembering correctly. I think it may have been easy to conflate the idea of “intention” with the desire to be understood, liked, and not viewed as offensive or stupid or unthoughtful.

          However i’m a Ti dominant and I remember finding that example to be a little less refined than how I would describe my experience with a “pure” Ti agenda. As I described above, since my Fe is “further away”, my ideal has always been “information is transmitted clearly because that’s freaking awesome and when things aren’t clear and modeled well it’s like basically physically painful.”

          Idk if this description of my experience clarifies anything about a broader population… but this topic has been on my mind since i read your question! I hope this makes sense because I didn’t realize how long this message got 🙂

          • Justine G

            Cheers – I like that you appear to realise that people should be given the chance to modify, add, subtract etc. from what they have said earlier, e.g. to correct, clarify, add new layers etc. And speaking personally, there’s times I would have liked to have felt freely able to say ‘that thing I said yesterday, on reflection that sounded pretty dumb, can I retract that now?’

            I sense you understood what I meant for about 50% of my post, and this leads me onto the problem of language, and particularly when communicating in text-only form. This ties in with what we mean by the word ‘intent’.

            Different people often interpret the same word somewhat differently, even when presented in the same context, and the more abstract the word, the more malleable the interpretation of the word becomes. I became particularly aware of this issue in the Myers-Briggs/Enneagram communities, as people are trying to explain highly abstract concepts.

            Thus when I used the word ‘intent’, I was in effect using 2 different meanings (albeit not simultaneously), which I may have failed to parse out sufficiently. The one meaning I intended appears to have been correctly ‘received’ by you, which relates to pesky things like underlying motivation, bias, manipulation etc. The other meaning I intended by ‘intent’ however, is basically illustrated in this very sentence. So this could be described as ‘the basic information, idea or meaning I want to transmit to your conscious mind, minus any extraneous underhand baggage that may (or may not) be attached’.

            Thus I intended you to understand what I meant by ‘intent’, only I complicated it by using 2 different meanings, which could be summarised as 1) ‘underlying’ intent and 2) ‘face-value’ or surface intent.

        • Alex

          (It doesn’t allow me to reply to your most recent post so I’m replying here)

          Ha. Yes it seems we are in the murky swamp of language lol. I think I get the other 50% of what you meant (or intended) now… hehe.

          You’re right, the abstract stuff is hard, especially when people are trying to talk about something that they have different perspectives on as a result of being different types. Like I feel that I have a very small understand of Ni, for example, and I know that people who use it are just totally on a different plane than me. Likewise when I talk to a friend of mine about Fi- there’s just so much she understands implicitly that I don’t get and it’s hard to translate that across types because it’s like we are using different languages 🙂

  • Eleanor

    I’m an INFJ and totally resonate with the way Antonia described Ti-Fe playing out when she’s misquoted. I also try to choose my words very carefully (partly why I like to write it down or send voicenotes and re-read/relisten to what I said to make sure it’s an accurate reflection of what I meant.) It therefore REALLY gets to me when I’m misquoted or misunderstood.

    My car model example of Fe-Ti conflict:
    I write an email clearly stating something (e.g. confirming an 11am appointment) and get a response that clearly shows they didn’t read it (e.g. Hi, I just wanted to ask if our 12pm meeting is still going ahead tomorrow). I feel a sense of despair because my parent Fe wants to maintain good vibes with that person but my child Ti is saying “don’t just correct the time -write ‘as per the email below’ so they realise they need to exercise their ability to read!” My parent Fe knows that the person may interpret it as “Idiot, why can’t you just read?! Which part of 11am did you confuse with 12pm?!” and my child Ti is saying “Good! Let them feel like an idiot. Sometimes the best way to help people is to point out their flaws. You can’t always be nice. Be HONEST…” Fe smiles the mixed smile of a parent whose 10 year old has made a very good point but they don’t fully want to admit it because they are trying to model good behaviour. Eventually, Fe compromises. Instead of saying “12pm is fine” (Extreme number 1) or “It’s 11am; what’s the point of me responding to your emails if you don’t read them?” (Extreme number 2), it settles for “Hi, I put 11am in the previous email and that’s what’s in my diary. Hope to see you then!” 😀

    • Eleanor

      PS. I know we aren’t Perceiving right now but I was thinking ahead about how Ni-Se play out in this scenario. I think Ni points out that Ti is right and also, isn’t it very characteristic of this person not to read emails properly? You really would be helping them improve AND improving other people’s experience of them if you highlight the fact that they don’t read things properly.

      Se says “reply right now”. It doesn’t have an opinion on what I say. It just wants to feel good by getting it out of the way (regardless of the different long-term outcomes of each of the 3 possible responses.)

    • Antonia Dodge

      This back and forth is why IxFJ types often become such gracious communicators. It’s a skill developed over many grueling hours of inner dialog.


  • Karen Goldner

    Please don’t make the podcasts TOO polished. I appreciate the sound quality, but the informal conversation is something I really enjoy. Don’t polish that away!

    You are terrific. I am one of your ESFP fans. Yes, we’re out there!

  • Mary

    This was fascinating. I’m an INFJ. I think the observation about the 10 year old was spot on. I found myself relating to the ideal of the perfect transmission of data even more than the ideal of a world where there is no conflict and everyone’s needs are met. For me the ideal of a world were everyone’s needs are meet is so deeply ingrained that desiring it is unconscious. Also, I often find myself exhausted trying to meet everyone’s needs, so I know that it can’t be done and that it is counterproductive to try too hard.

    But if there were the perfect transfer of data, everyone would have the information they need to get their own needs met. They could do it with minimal help from me, and I could go off somewhere by myself to be a perfect introvert and not have to worry about how everyone else is getting on in life.

    I also tend to connect to people cerebrally. My ideal world is full of people having deep emotional connections over calm, rational discussions.I think that is more because of the introverted intuition as a driver than because of the introverted thinking 10 year old. I hope a podcast on the perceiving functions and idealism is coming soon.

  • Drew

    [INFJ] I had a hard time grasping this episode, but really appreciated the discussion. It made me notice, as an Ni dominant, my idealism around foundational concepts as parts of larger systems. I’m very easily overwhelmed by problems or tasks when I see a brick out of place at the bottom level. If I’m not careful that can put me in a nihilistic space, thinking either “the system is broken and irreparable,” or “this isn’t a solution; this is just a bandaid.”

    I can’t wait to hear Antonia and Joel’s takes on perceiving functions’ idealism!

  • Patricia Eddishaw

    Hey Joel, keep up your *fussiness* lol. One reason I continue to follow your podcasts and writings is that I can count on them being consistently professional – both content and presentation. There are many people out there doing some good personality and growth work but they do not present professionally. You two stand out in that respect and, in my mind, it’s well worth taking the time to keep your *edge*.

  • Natalie

    Not at all to positively reinforce “fussiness” regarding sound quality (I didn’t hear any “echo” on this one), but I appreciate your commitment to it! Your content is always great and frequently exceptional… the great production quality puts you over & above others doing podcasts on similar subject matter. I search out podcasts on personality typology and often can’t listen because the sound quality is so bad and such a distraction Ii turn it off. You have a winning combo! Keep up the great work 🙂

  • Alex

    I feel like you all have definitely talked about introverted thinking in this way before, but maybe it was never so concise, because this podcast was just gold. (and very clearly communciated 🙂 )

    Antonia, you said “as an ENTP I connect based on information– cerebrally– I connect emotionally through a cerebral process, and so the idea of having cerebral disconnection means emotional disconnection.” As an INTP, I needed to be reminded of that clarification at the moment, so thanks– and also, I think that this connection point is where the ideal comes up more strongly for me…

    I’m not so anxious when people misunderstand “what I meant to say”– I mean, I care– I try hard when it is important, and I care deeply about transmission of clear information (I am also a communication designer (aka graphic designer) so it is even my job). I DEFINITELY info dump so that they understand ALLL of it (without thinking that might hurt their comprehension…).

    But I am pretty much zen about it unless it’s particularly important. I’m more interested in the fact that I myself have this beautiful, fun, accurate thought, and if people want to jump into the pool of info dump with me, then all the more fun for both of us. I do this thing all the time where I will ramble and then say “that probably made no sense, but anyways…” because I’ve just come to assume that they only understood half of what I said. And then often they are like “no I got it” and I’m all surprised that I had any coherance haha.

    But that’s where I get into idealism: When I transmit information clearly (success!) it’s like my brain is like **ding ding ding** **emotional connection!** and suddenly I think that this person and I will have this connection forever– that there will never be any discord and this connection will never fail. And then it does. Turns out they don’t want to have a cerebral connection after all, it was just a moment, or a couple of moments.

    On the flip side, if I struggle to connect with a friend because I can’t do it cerebrally the majority of the time (to my satisfaction), I start to resent all of the moments in between. If it’s not cerebral to my satisfaction, I’m grumpy, frustrated with THEM (why can’t THEY come to my side?). And frustrated with MYSELF (why can’t I go over to THEIR side– I just can’t figure out how it works over there!). We are friends, so connection should be effortless and perfect (ideal), and it should all be cerebral (ideal). It doesn’t matter how WELL thoughts are transmitted, but the fact that people even WANT to recieve them in the first place. And in my “ideal’s” view, everyone should WANT to recieve them, because why the hell wouldn’t they?

    Understanding my idealized view of information transmission and emotional connection is very helpful for me right now– It puts recent events into perspective.

    Side note– Antonia, your 10 paragraph oral essays are the reason that I listen, and your constant data refinement is the reason I’ve developed trust for your content. Don’t quit being you; Listening to other NTP (FEMALES!!!!) is not something I get enough of. 🙂 (I’m an NTP female, to clarify)

  • Bradley

    Okay so for Ti it’s accuracy, not precision.
    For Fi it’s authenticity, not purity.
    For Te it’s effectiveness, not efficiency.
    But what’s the ideal for Fe? Peace? Is there a better one word description of the Idealisation of harmony?


    • Alex

      “Peace” seems reasonable… It’s kind of like there’s a blanket of calm, externally, hiding the real unmet (potentially disruptive) needs beneath it.

    • Mark

      Peace feels like it muddies the water (IMO) because it can be inner/outer/world/whirled (HA!)

      Harmony denotes a cooperation, which is, from my understanding, what Fe is seeking – the emotional and ultimately social impact decisions have on the WHOLE. Fe is an outside world function. Peace can be either and more subjectively perceived by the individual. Harmony seems like it can be measured externally and more objectively.

      The idea of “How do I get everyone’s needs met?” is not subjective because you have to check-in with the people for whom you’re trying to meet needs. I have trouble imagining someone who uses Fe as a driver (ENFJ/ESFJ) quietly and peacefully meeting needs without doing so. That’s not just peace, IMO.

      For what it’s worth.

    • Antonia Dodge

      The only word that’s coming up for me is ‘utopia’.


      • Alex

        Ah… I like utopia!

        It implies that not only is everyone cooperating, but they have to cooperate because they are already all on one wavelength. This definitely resonates with me, and reflects something that I was saying in an above comment about my experience of ideals– my harmony 3 year old idealizes that everyone should be on the same wavelength (as me) so that we (I) can feel connected.

      • Jen

        Utopia is great. I’m an infj and a favorite reminder quote for myself is “You’re not God, this isn’t heaven, don’t be a jerk.” ~ a wise old Jesuit priest (of course… probably an NF!)

  • Michael Puett

    Dear Antonia,

    As a fellow ENTP I can tell you – you transmit data in the most crystal clear way. A lot of times Joel will say something somewhat ‘fluffy’, then you will repeat it in your own words and it will make so much more sense (sorry Joel, love you man!)

    I think something I have realized is that true communication is the biggest lie ever. Think of a tree. The tree that you have in your head is different than the tree I have in my head. No matter how hard you describe the detail of that tree, it will always be different in my head.

    So I think communication is fun, and important, but it will never be seen by your (or my) perspective.


    • Antonia Dodge

      Yup, I totally agree. Eventually I’ll be totally zen about it. 😛


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Contact Us

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Not readable? Change text. captcha txt