![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
the middle preference theory
happy 2017! here is another theory i've been polishing up in my head.
basically all of the types would see this as a benefit in their ideal situation - not Always i guess but preferred but also not strcitly perscriptive. like mbti, the preference/comfort zone:
- nts: naturally prefer brainpower but then can be prone to idealize/be interested in situations wherein they won't need to overthink
- sfs: naturally prefer not needing to use brainpower but then can be prone to idealize/be interested in deep thinking
- nfs: naturally prefer needing to use emotional/heartstuff, but then can be prone to idealize/be interested in situations where they dont need to be emotionally involved
- sts: naturally prefer not needing emotional involvement, but then can be prone ot idealize/be interested in situations where they DO need to use their heartpower shit
nts nor sfs would not mind emotional investment or lack thereof; nfs nor sts would mind brainpower or lack thereof; but overall there is a leaning (nfs and nts particularly) and a compartmentalized, separate interest. i also think nfs and nts are more prone to get buried in their preference while sfs and sts would probably be more prone to diving into their space of "lack thereof" every so often - but neither is "healthier" or "better" or "worse" than the other, more that the amount of energy spent by any is pretty much equal.
i also think that in "different" situations these can give off their opposite vibes - an NT with nothing to think about can suddenly have the physical behaviors/clumsiness/etc. of an SF; an SF with a lot of knowledge can start rattling off what they think/know with the sound of an NT. an NF who needs to Do or has a task/necessity that requires no emotion can suddenly switch into an impersonal ST mode, while an ST who is deeply emotionally affected or hurt/etc can relay or switch to a heart-sleeved NF.
basically all of the types would see this as a benefit in their ideal situation - not Always i guess but preferred but also not strcitly perscriptive. like mbti, the preference/comfort zone:
- nts: naturally prefer brainpower but then can be prone to idealize/be interested in situations wherein they won't need to overthink
- sfs: naturally prefer not needing to use brainpower but then can be prone to idealize/be interested in deep thinking
- nfs: naturally prefer needing to use emotional/heartstuff, but then can be prone to idealize/be interested in situations where they dont need to be emotionally involved
- sts: naturally prefer not needing emotional involvement, but then can be prone ot idealize/be interested in situations where they DO need to use their heartpower shit
nts nor sfs would not mind emotional investment or lack thereof; nfs nor sts would mind brainpower or lack thereof; but overall there is a leaning (nfs and nts particularly) and a compartmentalized, separate interest. i also think nfs and nts are more prone to get buried in their preference while sfs and sts would probably be more prone to diving into their space of "lack thereof" every so often - but neither is "healthier" or "better" or "worse" than the other, more that the amount of energy spent by any is pretty much equal.
i also think that in "different" situations these can give off their opposite vibes - an NT with nothing to think about can suddenly have the physical behaviors/clumsiness/etc. of an SF; an SF with a lot of knowledge can start rattling off what they think/know with the sound of an NT. an NF who needs to Do or has a task/necessity that requires no emotion can suddenly switch into an impersonal ST mode, while an ST who is deeply emotionally affected or hurt/etc can relay or switch to a heart-sleeved NF.