Introverted Feeling, Extraverted Feeling and Inferior Feeling

(From here.)

I'm sick currently, so I'm going to try to keep this short.

Today, Thinkgeek shared some retro posters on smart phone etiquette. I personally enjoyed them immensely (and wouldn't mind getting my own copies of them) but I noticed on Thinkgeek, that the posters were somewhat controversial. One person in particular seemed to take offense to it, and after having posted four prior comments, quoted:

"Nothing more rapidly inclines a person to go into a monastery than reading a book on etiquette. There are so many trivial ways in which it is possible to commit some social sin."

I thought that providing this quote in response to the posters was a marvelous example of inferior Extraverted Feeling. Not surprising, since I would imagine that Thinkgeek, as a site, attracts a lot of NTS (as NTs are over-represented among "geeky" professions). Although I'm no stranger to anxiety about making a social faux pas, for me it's on a much more refined scale. This, to me, seemed like really obvious stuff. I think that to find reading such a thing to be so excruciating as to generate the "I have no idea what's acceptable, I give up" response indicates not just inferior Extraverted Feeling (which it most certainly does) but also just how out of step the inferior function can be. When something is your inferior function, it's like you have this one area that everyone else seems to have "down." You seem to be at a child-like level, in the sense that in this one area, be it thinking, feeling, sensing or intuition, you still stumble with it to the point where those who have it more developed in their personality can't quite wrap their mind around why this is so hard for you.

So, I thought with Extraverted Feeling, the following could make for a good "cheat sheet":

Dominant Extraverted Feeling: The most classic manifestation of Extraverted Feeling. One has an awareness of and conformity to social norms, and they generally expect the same from others. A dominant Extraverted Feeling type probably wouldn't need a guide to etiquette and might find it hard to understand why others do as well. There is a smoothness here that facilitates the creating of bonds with others and harmonious social situations

Auxiliary Extraverted Feeling: The intensity with which one sees social norms as binding may be the same, but they may be less accurate than dominant Extraverted Feeling types. For example, a lot of auxiliary Extraverted Feeling types (and I've seen this in both ISFJ and INFJ)will have an idea about what ought to be a social value and then act as if it already is a social value. This is one reason why they might be confused with Introverted Feeling types, but Introverted Feeling types are less forceful about their beliefs and they also don't try to universalize it the way auxiliary Extraverted Feeling types do. Also, auxiliary Extraverted Feeling types may be concerned with behaving appropriately (which they may not always succeed at, especially when they confuse their values for societal values) but that doesn't mean that they conform or try to be "normal." They can have all sorts of unconventional interests, styles, means of expression, etc. Rather, they seek to commit themselves to groups that reflect their values, which they then work hard to impress upon the world.

Dominant Introverted Feeling: They may march to the beat of their own drummer, but they are still concerned with others' feelings and values. They won't sacrifice their own values to do so, but also won't devalue social norms (unless said norms directly conflict with their own values) the way IxTP types do. Rather, they may consider values something personal and individual and, for that reason, tend to express their values to others less than IxFJ types do. Something I have noticed in Introverted Feeling types: many go through phases of suddenly standing up for their values. IxFPs are often described as accommodating and then taking a sudden hard line with one specific value. What I've seen more often is IxFPs being quiet and self-contained, to the point where most people don't really know what they value, until something triggers it, and then they're suddenly vocal about it for a short period of time. However, even when aligning themselves with a group, they will never take on the group's values to the extent that FJs will. At the end of the day it's personal values, not group norms, that matter to FP. In this sense, their approach to social norms could be seen somewhere in-between IxFJs and IxTPs.


Inferior Extraverted Feeling: The person is fairly oblivious to social norms, but unlike IxFPs who may sometimes seem eccentric while at the same time being concerned about offending others, the person with inferior Extraverted Feeling more actively resents it. To them, most Extraverted Feeling stuff seems like perfunctory and pointless rules that others are just foisting upon them. Of all the types, these two struggle with even noticing social norms the most which may explain the resentment.

You could probably take the general principles laid out here and translate them to any function.

More on Type and Emotion

More and more, I understand the explanation that "feeling types aren't more emotional than thinking types to mean a few things:

(1)Both types are equally prone to being emotional however...
(2)Feeling types are more aware of others' feelings because...
(3)They are more aware of their own emotions.

I've lost track of how many times I've seen thinking types clearly upset about something, particularly something involving another person--such as being slighted, insulted, hurt or rejected--while fervently denying it. This ranges from complaining openly about the other person, visibly sulking or shouting that they aren't upset. To be fair, some thinking types may not be aware of it. Just as they tend to miss the subtle emotional cues from others, they tend to tune out the information their own emotions are telling them. Perhaps they just don't want to talk about it, or perhaps they don't think it's worth dwelling on, or maybe they just aren't as aware of their feelings. Others, however, get the message quite clearly. (Especially feeling types.)

Feeling types, by contrast, are both aware of their own feelings and that of others. They may try to address the issue with the other person and resolve it. They may do this because they notice the other person is upset, or they may do it because they, themselves, are upset, and hope talking about it will alleviate the situation. Or, they may be uncomfortable bringing it up but will usually make it clear that the other party has hurt them in some way. This can range from obvious awkward discomfort to gossip and, in some extreme cases, ostracizing. However, the feeling type always knows they're upset, and if they don't express it to you (either directly or indirectly) will at least express it to a close confidante. They do, however, usually want to talk about it.

So, while you can see that both types are emotional, the statement "Feeling types aren't more emotional than Thinking types" can be misleading, or at least unhelpful. The reason it's unhelpful is that if you're seeking to type yourself, you may conclude the extent to which you see yourself as emotional is irrelevant. It's not. The extent to which others see you as emotional may be irrelevant (after all, INFPs can seem very unemotional to others but still feel that way inside) but the extent to which you see yourself as emotional and the extent to which you notice and are concerned with others' emotions can say quite a bit.

Attitudes Towards Arguing

I've added a poll. I'm interested in how the various information gathering/decision making couplings approach arguments.

I make a distinction between an argument and a squabble or conflict. I define it as follows:

Argument: a debate or heated discussion about some idea or other (politics, science, technology, film, art, religion, philosophy, literature, etc). Although people disagree, the discussion is not intended to be personal in nature and the focus of the discussion is on the different views, not on who did what.

It is not:

A squabble: a personal disagreement in which grievances of a personal nature (whose feelings are hurt, who did or did not do what and so forth) are aired.

Nor is it a:

Town Meeting: a gathering of people that are trying to reach a decision that will be followed by action, such as a staff meeting or condo board meeting or any other situation where personal agendas and self-interest may come in to play.

In other words, it is an intellectual discussion about some matter on which two or more people disagree.

Youtube, NT Women and Gender Bias

So, I've been perusing the many MBTI-related Youtube videos. It mostly consists of hobbyists explaining how they experience their type. It's unclear how many of them have taken the MBTI or gone through a verification process, but it's still interesting to see their perspective on it. What's disconcerting though, is the sheer volume of type-correcting. What's particularly troublesome is that (a)these are self-identified NT males re-typing self-identified NT females as SF and (b) that they appear to be doing so based on superficial things that women are typically pressured to do, such as spending time on hair and make-up or behaving in a more extraverted manner.

What I'm about to say I say as a woman that does not spend time on her hair or make-up. (I wear lipstick, and not much else.) I'm not bringing my type into this, but rather, saying it to explain what it's like to be a woman that doesn't spend a lot of time on hair and make-up in order to convey why some NT women might conclude it was logical to spend time on such things...even if they didn't care that much about it themselves. To live in my world is to constantly get sidewise glances as I'm walking down the street by less unkempt women. It's to constantly get students writing on evaluations that it was my fault they couldn't learn philosophy because my "disheveled" appearance rendered them incapable of paying attention in class. It's to dread going to the hairdresser (and consequently go only once a year) because, being a woman, I get pressured to let them do all sorts of things with product and straightener and other forms of torture, and frequently getting snarky comments when I refuse. It's, when I come from the salon, going to a regular restaurant and having a well-meaning waitress telling me that I "look feminine now." The best part of living in Detroit was going to The Bronx when they had a woman doing five dollar haircuts on Thursday nights. It was usually a whole lot of hipster guys that hated going to the salon...and me. I got to have a couple of drinks, she did my hair quickly and I never had to worry about getting hassled for not being more into beauty and fashion. Bear in mind this is nothing compared to what I experienced as a child, but I'm not going into that, because I try not to look too closely at my childhood.

To give you an idea, this is what I look like when I come from the salon. My hair only ever looks like this when I leave the salon:

Not bad, huh? If only I had the patience to actually get it to look like that again. I don't even blow dry my hair. Instead, I like to (hastily)toss it into pigtails, which causes it to look like this:

Still, not too bad, although I can't always wear it in pigtails. Sometimes I'm just tired and don't want to bother, other times it's a situation (like teaching) where I don't want the youthful look of pigtails. Here's an old picture of me in Brazil, but seriously, I've seen myself in the mirror when I'm at home, so that's not the traipsing-through-the-Amazon syndrome. (Also, this was pre-foot problems and pre-40 metabolism so add a "few" pounds when you look at the photo.)

(Yes, that is a sloth I'm holding.)

Now, I've never been good at conforming, so I pretty much don't bother trying. I understand, though, that if you were better at it, or had a sister in the same household that was good at it and trained you at an early age, or just forced yourself because you wanted more success and less hassle, you might be a bit better at it. It's worth noting that when I attended an MBTI workshop, one of the women who seemed like she spent the most time on her hair and make-up was an INTJ. (The only INTP was an elderly guy, so I can't really comment on INTP women.) It makes sense if you think about it. INTJs are driven to succeed, and success in the corporate world for women often means conforming to female standards of beauty. The INFPs, by contrast, were almost "granola."

Similarly, women are generally expected to be friendlier than men. In a national sample, there were slightly more introverted men than extraverted, with most preferring T. With women, though, there were slightly more extraverted women than men, with most preferring F. Sensing was the majority preference in both groups, and both groups showed a slightly higher percentage of J than P. If you add it up, then, the dominant type for males would be ISTJ whereas the dominant type for females would be ESFJ. In other words, INTP women in the United States are the typological opposite of their gender.

Although INTPs tend to be evaluated somewhat negatively when male, females are evaluated almost entirely negatively. In Portraits of Type, Thorne and Gough relay the following data of adjectives used to describe INTPs.

For males:
-Tends to be rebellious and nonconforming
-Thinks and associates with ideas in unusual ways; has unconventional thought processes
-Genuinely values intellectual and cognitive matters
-Values own independence and autonomy
-Is critical, skeptical, not easily impressed
Adjectives: original, imaginative, complicated, hasty, rebellious, high strung, individualistic, restless, self-centered, temperamental.

If you're interested in the enneagram, you'll no doubt recognize that INTP men are described in a very "five-ish" sort of way. If you're not, you'll still probably recognize the "eccentric professor" archetype.

By contrast, let's take a look at how INTP women are described:

-Is basically distrustful of people in general, questions their motivations
-Keeps people at a distance; avoids close interpersonal relationships
-Is subtly negativistic, tends to undermine and obstruct or sabotage
-Tends to be self-defensive
-Extrapunitive, tends to transfer or project blame
Adjectives: distrustful, sulky, evasive, indifferent, resentful, defensive, wary, unfriendly, tense, aloof.

If you're interested in the enneagram, you'll no doubt notice the more "sixish" picture of INTP women. If you aren't, you still likely noticed that, while INTP men have a mix of negative qualities and some very positive traits, INTP women are rated almost entirely negatively. In particular, whereas INTP men have their intellectual contributions recognized, that seems wholly overlooked in description of INTP women. Bearing that in mind, clearly, it's not a stretch that an INTP woman might conclude, after a bit of dispassionate consideration on how to best reach her goals, that she might need to imitate her FJ counterparts somewhat. This can be in terms of physical appearance or it can be in terms of affecting a degree of warmth and sociability that may mask a more detached interior. To then use those very same adaptive characteristics to refute her type is to place her in the double-bind that independent women are so often prone to: if she doesn't conform at least a little bit to her gender, then she is perceived very negatively and has a much harder go of things. However, if she does conform, her intense rational mind is not taken seriously by her male peers.

Informal Poll: Type and the Arts

In previous posts, I've mentioned how interests and careers aren't useful in determining type. I've also mentioned how N and P seem to correlate heavily with the arts. I got to thinking that type might play a role in either (a)why a person engages in a certain creative activity and (b)which avenues they take when attempting to make a living in their art form of choice. I'm going to temporarily allow Open ID commenting so that people without google accounts can answer. Please answer the following questions:


(1)What, at this moment, do you consider your Myers-Briggs type to be? If you are unsure on any of the preferences please ONLY list the preferences you are sure of. In other words, if you are confident that you prefer introversion and feeling but are unsure on both N/S and J/P please just write "IF". (Or IxFx, I?F?, etc.) It would also be helpful if you mentioned how you came to determine your type. (e.g. did you take the MBTI? Did you take a free test, and if so which one? Did a specific author help you figure out your type, and if so, which one? Did you talk to someone on a message board?)

(2)What area(s) of the arts do you engage in? Please be as specific as possible. So, don't just put theatre, specify whether you are involved with playwriting, directing, puppetry, etc. If you are in the fine arts, mention whether you are a painter, a photographer, in graphic design, etc. This is especially important if you're in the fine arts. I'm construing the arts fairly broadly so creative writing, music, theatre, fine arts, dance and any other art form not mentioned would be relevant here.

(3)If you had to pick a single reason as to why you pursue your chosen area of the arts, what would it be? In other words, why this art form as opposed to another? (e.g. you're talented, you've been doing it since you were a kid, you make money at it, you want to affect others with your work,etc.)I'm looking for extrinsic reasons here.

(4)Is your chosen art form (a)a current career (b)a college major which you hope to someday make a career (c) a hobby or (d)a passion supported by a day job?

(5)In your chosen art form, if you had to pick a single reason why you enjoy it, what would it be? Here, I'm looking for more intrinsic reasons. (e.g. self-expression, reconceptualizing the world, visual problem solving, catharsis, etc)

Thanks!

Judging: On Making and Keeping Plans

So, a lot of the descriptions of the judging preference describes J as "making and keeping plans." In other words, judging types want closure and so once they make plans they tend to keep them. This seems to distinguish them from Ps who may hesitate to make plans or may make plans but easily change them.

Of course, everyone changes plans occasionally. The take-away seems to be that J-types see changing plans as a bigger deal than P-types, so the J-types may be harder to persuade. Generally, extraverted judging types need to have either their values (ESFJ, ENFJ) or the logic of the decision (ESTJ, ENTJ) appealed to in some way. Introverted judging types, having their dominant function be one of the irrational functions (sensing and intuition) are more naturally oriented to taking in new data, and therefore, new data can influence them. However, it should be noted that this is against the backdrop of a personality that otherwise seems rigid and immune to influence. The MBTI Manual describes the IJ types as "the decisive introverts" and describes them as follows:

IJs are introspective, persevering, hard to convince or change, unless compelling data is provided that override a decision or conclusion...they can therefore appear to others to be adamant and inflexible. However, since their perceiving function is the dominant, most crucial one, they will a relinquish a conclusion if provided with new information that contradicts the conclusion, even when it seems to other people that the IJ's decision is firm and intractable.

Since IJs are called "The Decisive Introverts," and since they do seem inflexible to others at times, we can assume that they tend to stick by decisions most of the time. It can be assumed that the new data would have to be significant, and really would need to contradict the previously considered data to persuade them.

By contrast, introverted types are described as "The Adaptable Introverts" and are known for having many changes in one's life course. New geographic locations, new jobs, new careers, new relationships may all be part of the picture. That's because they are constantly using their auxiliary to take in new information, so a matter is never quite settled. When an IP type is unhappy with a situation, they may start considering other alternatives. However, all four will generally be seen by others as being flexible, while tending to feel a greater sense of resolve internally than they usually show. This is the type that is normally adaptable but really digs in their heels on certain issues, after which they can seem quite stubborn. Much like The Decisive Extraverts, you need to appeal to either their values (INFP, ISFP) or logic (INTP, ISTP) to persuade them. The implication, also, is that while usually seeming adaptable, they will suddenly shift if something either offends their logic or values.

So, what does all of this mean?

In a loose sense, making and sticking to plans may relate to judging, since those with a preference for perceiving may both hesitate to make plans and feel a bit confined by them once they do, wanting to be open to new opportunities. When a perceiving type changes plans, it's usually because some other, more appealing opportunity has presented itself. However, for IJs, they'll normally seem pretty reliable (even predictable) but when they change plans, it's not because some other option is more attractive, but rather, some new bit of data has made them reconsider the soundness of the previous decision.

An interesting aside: I've noticed that a lot of introverted judging types, when struggling with anxiety, will tend to make plans quickly but abandon them just as quickly. I wonder if, when feeling particularly anxious, they still desire closure initially, but have a harder time filtering out extraneous data and so are quicker to determine that the new information has changed the previous decision?

One Way in Which I Use Extraverted Feeling

I mentioned in a previous post that I didn't think I was that good at Extraverted Feeling. Well, my gifts seemed to go over better than expected (only one of them really crossed the "dorky" line). Still, I've been thinking about my use of the Extraverted Feeling. In addition to using it neurotically (such as worrying about offending others) I am most aware of when I use it negatively (such as getting offended, particularly when receiving rude service). However, I've begun thinking about how I use it positively.

One way I use it positively, which is very merged with Introverted Intuition, is by knowing things about people. For example:

(1)Just last night, I had a dream that my husband was stuck in Kansas City. As he sometimes travels for work and can have bad luck with airports sometimes, this dream horrified him a bit. (He has seen instances where bits of my dreams came true.) He just got back from the store. On his way in, he ran into one of our neighbors. Apparently, said neighbor was stuck in Kansas City and was just getting back.

(2)During Occupy Wall Street, I saw a photo of a woman being beaten by the cops. She had claimed to be pregnant and was taken to the hospital. The photo went around a lot. I looked at the photo when suddenly the thought popped into my head she grew up in the foster care system. I wanted to find out more about the case. I stumbled across a small Spokane newspaper which had picked up an article from a larger Seattle paper. For the article, the reporter had talked to her foster mother. (Sadly, the young woman in the photo had some personal difficulties and the foster mother was quoted suggesting the pregnancy had been fictitious.) Apparently, my intuition had been spot-on when I'd identified her as having been in foster care.

(3)Awhile back, I had a dream that an acquaintance was sitting next to me on a plane, telling me how they had just got married. In reality, I had previously seen said acquaintance around several times and they'd never mentioned an engagement, so I just dismissed it as just a funny dream. Next time I saw the person, they had a ring on their finger. They had, in fact, been in engaged and got married--they just were very private about it and had only let close friends in on the secret.

You'll notice that all of these ways of knowing things about people are both trivial and in regards to people I'm not very close to. They're about people who are socially, but not personally, connected--a neighbor, an acquaintance and a news story that was big among my social circle at the time. That's how it works for me. There's an objective quality in the sense that these are social, but not necessarily personal connections(Extraverted Feeling). They're also rather trivial in a way. They're things about people's lives, but not substantial stuff, and so it's hard to tell when it's an intuition versus a random thought or merely symbolic dream.

Interestingly, my mother is an ISFJ and has dreams come true but they often involve major life events, such as someone dying and her finding out later that the old friend really did die. Marie-Louise von Franz talks about this as something that happens with sensing types whose inferior function is intuition. It tends to be tied up in major events (and, in some cases, can even be about something catastrophic). To Sensing types, sudden feelings about people can be overpowering precisely because it's so unconscious. When intuition is habitual, you're used to having as many misses as hits and are more likely to dismiss it. It's interesting that it was my ENTP husband that instantly locked on to it as probably being prophetic. He noticed that it was the truly mundane dreams that wind up being the ones that have some sort of eerie connection to a corresponding reality.

How to Tell if You're an NT or an NF

If you're confused about your type, here are some guidelines to help you decide. I think it's probably best to look at the combo of information processing and judging, since these together may be more informative than preference alone.

Here are the terms given by the MBTI Manual to describe each coupling:

NF:The Enthusiastic and Insightful Types

NT: The Logical and Ingenious Types

SF: The Sympathetic and Friendly Types

ST: The Practical and Matter-of-fact Types

I'm going to discuss the NT and NF types then come back later for the ST and SF types. I can't promise it will be my next post, but rest assured, it will be in the foreseeable future.

I. The NF Types

NFs tend to place their focus on "possibilities for people." I think this means everything from being a novelist with the goal of connecting with others through writing (motive is important here) to being a therapist or a teacher. There is a strong orientation towards communication, as well as an attraction to theories of human or social behavior. Usually, the connection to these things is more interpersonal and values-based than logical. Logic may be employed, but it never dictates what the NF holds to be important. The MBTI manual describes these types as "attracted to new projects, things that have never happened but might be made to happen, or truths that have not yet come to light." Truth here is multi-faceted and inclusive of different viewpoints as opposed to being categorical. It tends to be more tied to meaning and subjectivity.

II. The NT Types

The NT types share the NF's focus on possibilities and patterns, but here the beauty of the thing comes not through subjective meaning but rather through the extent to which the thing follows the rules of logic, and exemplifies a clearly defined and objective truth. Information and ideas are evaluated from a detached, impersonal perspective and it is their seeming cogency that matters. An idea that is incoherent simply isn't worth talking about or investing time in, no matter how much potential for meaning it may have. For this reason, NTs may at times seem to restrict the scope of inquiry more than NFs. The perspective is that it is better to limit what may be explored and maintain coherence than it is to embrace the inscrutable and never be certain about one's understanding.

I Suck at Fe...

So, I just finished wrapping my husband's gifts:

I'm not sure if you can tell by this picture, but I'm terrible at wrapping presents. It's very haphazard. Hopefully, I'm better at selecting gifts than I am at wrapping them. I know that a couple of gifts are things he wanted but some of them might be a bit too...dorky. (And he's an ENTP in the IT industry. :P) We'll see. I was raised in a "fanboy" household, where obsession about all things sci-fi and superheroes was the norm. I developed more of a fascination for the supernatural myself. (This was my favorite comic book as a kid, for example.) None of this, of course, has to do with Extraverted Feeling. After all, I've known my share of ISFJ fan girls. What is Extraverted Feeling, though, is knowing what the other person wants. Is it exactly right? Will they love it? Hate it? Is it too dorky? Not dorky enough? Yeah, see, I suck at that.

Even more than that, though, I suck at knowing what will and will not offend people. I only experience this neurotically, where I'm not quite sure, and I can really miss the mark--being concerned about things I don't need to be concerned about only to completely step in it and do something that completely pisses the person off where (if I can even figure out what the offense is, which I can't always do) I can't quite figure out what the big deal is. That's not to say that I don't care (I think I'm a lot more concerned about this than my ENTP husband, for example, who seems better at Extraverted Feeling than I am, but only bothers with it in certain types of situations). It just is such a totally different sort of way of thinking than I'm accustomed to. To me, it seems like imposing standards and trying to pressure someone into conformity. This imposition can range from having a negative attitude towards people who see social norms as a bit more optional (or may have trouble seeing them at all) to dictating what really ought to be a matter of choice. (This, of course, is not the case for all FJs, but it is one manifestation of the function.)

Type and Conflict

I stumbled across this today.

I found it interesting. It got me thinking about how I am in conflict situations. If it's a close friend, romantic partner or otherwise someone that I care about, I can very much fit the description of FJ:

Once engaged in a conflict, FJs can be intense and emotional and will encourage others to share their feelings and opinions in the hope that this will lead to a resolution. Typically they will equate success in a conflict with the relationships remaining intact and there being no lingering bitterness.

On the other hand, when dealing with things of a more public nature, that's less the case. I often feel like I hide behind logic a bit. My tactic when dealing with conflict with someone where there isn't some sort of important connection is to be as emotionally detached and as logical as possible. I don't generally show too much of myself and the absolute last thing I want in a situation like this is to show anything personal. If the other person tries to make it personal (as in, personal attacks) I'll generally calmly and firmly reiterate my position in a way that implies that it will not be changed, then pull back from the discussion.

I'm usually this way when dealing with people in business situations (such as real estate agents when we were looking for a place or other condo board members). In fact, I'm generally so logical and objective in discussions that, based on some of the debates on the condo board email list, one of my neighbors actually thought I was a lawyer! (As in, suggested I might provide my services for a matter we were dealing with.)

When teaching, I've needed to soften my approach a bit more. If there is a matter where I consider myself to be clearly in the right (such as a grade appeal) I've tended to take more of a TJ approach:

When they are involved in a conflict, their primary need is for closure or resolution—to have it over and done with. They may tend to overlook the emotional content in conflict even though strong emotion does exist.

I've had to learn that this is something that just isn't effective when teaching. For example, when a student comes to me with a grade complaint when they haven't followed the parameters of the assignment (such as skipping the argument portion, when I've specified it should constitute half of the paper) I've learned that it's better in the long run to take the time to discuss the issue in-depth with the student. I'm unlikely to significantly alter the grade (although I might consider allowing the option for re-writes if enough students seemed confused by the parameters) but approachability and accessibility are an important part of the learning process, and so a softer approach can be helpful here.

I'll add, too, since I try to stay detached during disagreements in a professional or public capacity, if I do admit a personal reaction to what's being said, it usually means I in some way consider the person to be a friend. Usually, I'll only do so if the person seems to be crossing a line. In those instances, one would be wise to listen. Fighting dirty* generally won't be tolerated.




*Fighting dirty involves, in my mind, things like personal attacks, repeated moral judgments, and overt and/or insidious forms of peer pressure.