User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 97

  1. #41
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INfJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    With INFJs, I suspect that being wrong always has a "moral" component to it, that INTJs simply don't have.
    I think you may be right about this. There is a priority therein about how it effects others to INFJs- which probably accounts for the “bowing to whatever gods in abject humiliation asking for forgiveness for the hubris of ever thinking that we were right” drama (lol). It feels bad to realize we've been imposing our will on others. Real bad sometimes. (One of the things I appreciate about the NTPs I've known irl is that they help me lighten up- for which they should regularly be getting medals.)

    And maybe it’s more accurate to say I don’t believe there’s a quantitative difference to the experience than to simply say ‘all types experience having an attachment to being right’- because there definitely is a qualitative difference to the experience. It manifests in different ways for different types- different types have different reasons for that attachment. The point I was trying to make is that openness/being aware of the attachment has far more to do with an individual’s cultivated mindfulness than ‘type’. I absolutely believe you when you say you don’t experience it as state described- but that doesn’t mean Te doesn’t have its own version of that attachment. It's just human frailty.

    It seems to me like one of the reasons for Te to feel that attachment is power/authority. It’s about the power to steamroll and ‘win’ (?) authority through the sheer force of will rather than through dialogical consensus. I have noticed that generally TJs can be impervious to this in each other, and it all probably doesn't look like that to them- but (as someone who doesn’t experience ‘the attachment to being right’ that particular way, and so I can’t easily empathize*) it’s definitely there.

    *And I'm just throwing this out there, along the same vein, I suspect the "drama" is hard to stomach/empathize with because it's so foreign. God only knows I find steamrolling a real challenge to empathize with.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  2. #42
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    And maybe it’s more accurate to say I don’t believe there’s a quantitative difference to the experience than to simply say ‘all types experience having an attachment to being right’- because there definitely is a qualitative difference to the experience. It manifests in different ways for different types- different types have different reasons for that attachment. The point I was trying to make is that openness/being aware of the attachment has far more to do with an individual’s cultivated mindfulness than ‘type’. I absolutely believe you when you say you don’t experience it as state described- but that doesn’t mean Te doesn’t have its own version of that attachment. It's just human frailty.

    It seems to me like one of the reasons for Te to feel that attachment is power/authority. It’s about the power to steamroll and ‘win’ (?) authority through the sheer force of will rather than through dialogical consensus. I have noticed that generally TJs can be impervious to this in each other, and it all probably doesn't look like that to them- but (as someone who doesn’t experience ‘the attachment to being right’ that particular way, and so I can’t easily empathize*) it’s definitely there.
    This is where INFJs really get Te wrong. It feels like "steamrolling" to you, the same way Fe feels smarmy to Te. The communication of each side (Te/Fe) happens on a different qualitative level, and each side is usually (but not always) blind to the other side's concerns.

    The reason you don't see Te types complaining about "steamrolling" from other Te types is that Te types find a logistical consensus together, a kind of consensus to which a lot of Fe types appear to be blind. Te types communicate their "Te needs" to each other, get buy in, and move forward. Replace Te with Fe in that sentence, and it works the same way. The problem is that the "Te needs" aren't "people-motivated", if you will, are not "personal." So it looks like the Te types are just bumping and bruising their way through the world, to the Fe types: there is no obvious concern for people, for courtesy. There is, if you look for it, but it is very hard for Fe to see. Similarly, Te types are blind to Fe-style consensus: they can move forward with a plan, thinking everything is OK, but it falls apart because while there was a Te consensus, the Fe consensus was missing. In a business setting, wise managers learn to accommodate both styles (not that they recognize them by their typological terms).

    *And I'm just throwing this out there, along the same vein, I suspect the "drama" is hard to stomach/empathize with because it's so foreign. God only knows I find steamrolling a real challenge to empathize with.
    Right. And I bet "drama" isn't quite the right word for it, in your mind: it's about being courteous, finding consensus, and working with people instead of through them. Right? Te isn't steamrolling, it's instead a different kind of courtesy, a different kind of consensus, and a different way of working with people. But it feels like steamrolling because it lacks that personal touch, it lacks that moral sense that an Fe type is looking for.

    The reason for the distinction appears to be that Fe is personal, and therefore interactions via Fe deal more with willpower than interactions via Te. Te is impersonal (though not impartial), so there really isn't any feeling of forcing one's will upon the world. The world is already there, the world is fact, and all Te types can do is strive to know the facts. If my facts "beat" your facts, that isn't me imposing my will upon you, I just happen to have the better facts in that case. In a Te-style organization, it is not uncommon for low-level workers to make factual observations about what works and what doesn't, and the higher-ups saying, "Yeah, that makes sense. Let's upgrade our processes like you suggested." And it isn't about trying to make the low-level workers feel better, it's that a good idea (in Te land) is a good idea, no matter the source. It isn't judged based on who says it, but on whether it stands on its own merits. For whatever reason, it's difficult for some INFJs to see this, but I know it's not impossible, because when I get a chance to explain it to INFJ friends in person, most of them seem to get it, or at least explaining it somehow develops a rapport with them such that I can say things in Te ways and they don't get offended.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  3. #43
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    The interesting thing is that "wrongness" is being compared to "having the flu." To me, wrongness is not a state of being. It is not intrinsic to me. Rather, it is a state of knowledge. And if you're used to dealing with knowledge, then being right, sometimes, and being wrong, sometimes, is part of how people learn things, in general. For me, there are no emotions (or values) associated with it.
    All of us are wrong now and then, just like all of us come down with a cold/flu now and then. My analogy points to how willingly we linger in this state vs. do whatever we can to correct or even to avoid it. Illnesses exercise our immune system. As others have pointed out, being wrong is often the springboard for learning, provided we recognize our error. In any case, I find it hard to think of it as anything other than a transitory state, and ideally a very brief one. It may take a long time to overcome my ignorance, but I can let go of an incorrect position in a heartbeat, remaining in a noncommittal or agnostic state until I have enough information to develop a more correct position.


    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    It seems to me like one of the reasons for Te to feel that attachment is power/authority. It’s about the power to steamroll and ‘win’ (?) authority through the sheer force of will rather than through dialogical consensus. I have noticed that generally TJs can be impervious to this in each other, and it all probably doesn't look like that to them- but (as someone who doesn’t experience ‘the attachment to being right’ that particular way, and so I can’t easily empathize*) it’s definitely there.
    It may be a bit of a tangent, but I had to comment on the idea of detemining what is right through "dialogical consensus". This sounds like majority rule decision making, which may make sense if a group is choosing which movie to see, but can ride roughshod over the facts and practical considerations leading to unworkable and even harmful results. Sometimes the right or better answer corresponds to the position of a minority, or even an individual(@Uumlau's idea of who has the best facts).

    Quote Originally Posted by the state i am in View Post
    peacebaby, i understand you are trying to explain this, but what about how it could feel to someone else in my position? for instance, if you got in a fight with another person that escalated quite a bit, and then you went around talking about them in public, trying to establish facts about them that were gleaned from your uniquely privileged perspective (as a Je last, which you seem to use as evidence that you understand them the best), what would that feel like if you were in their shoes?

    =====================

    finally, for my needs, i don't need any peacemaking with umlau. i can speak for myself. i understand if you feel you have needed information and that, from a Te perspective, you have feel you have every right to interrupt to supply that. bc it's just information. others can test it for themselves. you're just putting it out there. you have the right to add whatever information you have that can direct where things go from here. but what about if the relationship between you and the person addressed is in a challenging place for both of you?
    I must be seriously missing something here. I saw no indication that @PeaceBaby advocates going around talking about people behind their back on the basis of whatever insights her inf Je might provide. I don't see her as trying to provide a peacemaker function here either, partly because it doesn't seem necessary. Her comments are hardly interruptions, just another perspective on the topic. I for one don't feel my share of the TeFi-oriented questions are being slighted in any way. As a Te aux, I can certainly vouch for this:

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    Yes, I think it is very INFJ'ish but more specifically, it's Fe in action. The veracity of information is very much tied to who delivers that information in the Fe world. There's this association of people and information in Fe that is much more "at the hip" than in the Te - Fi world. For Te - Fi, the two seem far more separated.
    although fortunately in my line of work we tend to separate the message from the messenger and judge information on its own merits.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  4. #44
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INfJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Right. And I bet "drama" isn't quite the right word for it, in your mind: it's about being courteous, finding consensus, and working with people instead of through them. Right?
    Well I'd be inclined to say it differently, but I believe the point is the same: it looks like something unreasonable from the outside, and consequently it's very hard to understand/empathize with.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Te isn't steamrolling, it's instead a different kind of courtesy, a different kind of consensus, and a different way of working with people. But it feels like steamrolling because it lacks that personal touch, it lacks that moral sense that an Fe type is looking for.
    I believe this is what I meant with this: I have noticed that generally TJs can be impervious to this in each other, and it all probably doesn't look like that to them- but (as someone who doesn’t experience ‘the attachment to being right’ that particular way, and so I can’t easily empathize*) it’s definitely there. When I say "it's definitely there"- I'm talking about the consequences, not the intentions. I believe more often than not there probably aren't intentions to "steamroll" per se.

    It seems to me like we’re just talking past each other at this point, totally missing what the other is trying to say. I can't even tell you how uninterested I am in getting into a "which type is more mindful of imposing their own priorities on others" conversation. So I’d just as soon drop it.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  5. #45
    I want my account deleted
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    The reason for the distinction appears to be that Fe is personal, and therefore interactions via Fe deal more with willpower than interactions via Te. Te is impersonal (though not impartial), so there really isn't any feeling of forcing one's will upon the world. The world is already there, the world is fact, and all Te types can do is strive to know the facts. If my facts "beat" your facts, that isn't me imposing my will upon you, I just happen to have the better facts in that case. In a Te-style organization, it is not uncommon for low-level workers to make factual observations about what works and what doesn't, and the higher-ups saying, "Yeah, that makes sense. Let's upgrade our processes like you suggested." And it isn't about trying to make the low-level workers feel better, it's that a good idea (in Te land) is a good idea, no matter the source. It isn't judged based on who says it, but on whether it stands on its own merits. For whatever reason, it's difficult for some INFJs to see this, but I know it's not impossible, because when I get a chance to explain it to INFJ friends in person, most of them seem to get it, or at least explaining it somehow develops a rapport with them such that I can say things in Te ways and they don't get offended.
    ^ ^ I feel like this puts into words something I was thinking but couldn't figure out precisely how to say. I was thinking something along these lines: "Fe is about human values, and human values don't have any clearly agreed-upon standard to assess what is a fact (or what is true) and what isn't. In contrast, while Te is not any sort of pure objectivity (IMO it's a culturally constructed format and only one kind of logic) - but even as an outsider to Te use, it seems to me that kind of logic (deductive/universalizing/etc) seems to have clear and obvious rules that people who use it already agree on." @uumlau, is this along the lines of what you're writing about here - am I understanding correctly?

    And I'm only speaking for myself in this next part but to be as blunt as possible on this point: I myself feel like the whole arena of human values, and this includes both Fi and Fe, is quite unfortunately ripe for interpersonal power struggles in ways that Te and Ti are probably not.

    (Not to say that Te and Ti don't have their own versions of bullshit nasty power struggles etc. I'm sure they do and maybe people with Te and Ti as aux functions might have a lot of interesting stuff to say about that, since they use the functions relatively well, but aren't completely immersed in them like a fish in water as with dominant functions).

    But anyway, for me as a Fe-aux/Ni-dom, I feel like there's something ungrounded-in-solid-reality about using human value systems as a means to assess facts or truth, and for me it feels like this whether it's introverted (Fi) or extroverted (Fe) versions.

    I myself personally would have a lot more respect for human value systems of any sort as a way to asses facts/truth if they were accountable to actual reality in some very clear and unshakeable way - for example, if they were deeply sourced in/emerging from something like ecosystems, and "wrongness" would show up in physical ways related to survival, wellness etc, occurring whether or not anyone decided to "believe it" or have an emotional narrative about it. But without that kind of hardcore grounding, using human values - again, in my view, Fe OR Fi, same basic means of assessment but different approach - using human values to assess for facts or truth seems to me to easily be a matter of who can impose their will, stay most stubbornly self-referentially/group-referentially tied to what they believe (narratives are quite often self-justifying), deceive and/or manipulate best.

    On reflection, I really don't think I could handle being a judging-dominant of any sort. And as far as Fi and Fe in particular .... yeah, from my perspective, there seems to me to be no way to actually get at truth/wrongness/accuracy from the space of human value systems (Fi or Fe), not in the cultural contexts I've encountered at least. But then again, if I was a Fi-dom or Fe-dom, I probably wouldn't feel this way to begin with.

  6. #46
    I want my account deleted
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    All of us are wrong now and then, just like all of us come down with a cold/flu now and then. My analogy points to how willingly we linger in this state vs. do whatever we can to correct or even to avoid it. Illnesses exercise our immune system. As others have pointed out, being wrong is often the springboard for learning, provided we recognize our error. In any case, I find it hard to think of it as anything other than a transitory state, and ideally a very brief one. It may take a long time to overcome my ignorance, but I can let go of an incorrect position in a heartbeat, remaining in a noncommittal or agnostic state until I have enough information to develop a more correct position.
    For me, this ^^ really clarifies what you meant by using the cold/flu virus metaphor. Thank you for posting that.

    (and also, just want to say that my own version of that noncommittal or agnostic state can be a really enjoyable space for me, allowing as it does a sort of awesome sluicing flow of information unfettered by the need to impose analysis ... and analysis comes only when there is enough information to warrant it and ... yeah, I love that space, just moving with the flow like the conclusion isn't mine at all but has a life of its own I'm supposed to discover, not create.

    *looks up and blinks* Oh hi everyone, did I say all that out loud and is it at all obvious that I'm kind of a research geek?

  7. #47
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    Well I'd be inclined to say it differently, but I believe the point is the same: it looks like something unreasonable from the outside, and consequently it's very hard to understand/empathize with.
    Exactly. In both directions.

    It seems to me like we’re just talking past each other at this point, totally missing what the other is trying to say. I can't even tell you how uninterested I am in getting into a "which type is more mindful of imposing their own priorities on others" conversation. So I’d just as soon drop it.
    I hope you understand that I am in no way indicating that any particular type is more mindful, but rather trying to bridge the gap between the two. That's useful on the Te side because it makes us aware that we might be perceived as steamrolling, that "about half" of the population is playing by different rules and we would do well to at least try to abide by those rules as well. I would hope that it's just as useful on the Fe side by making it clear that 1) Fe attempts to smooth things over or otherwise be agreeable can be seen as counterproductive in many cases, and 2) as much as a Te type of person might appear to be "grabbing power" from the ability of you or others to make decisions, it is frequently going to be the case that an objective fact that you don't see that has taken certain choices off the table. In my experience, if the particular objective fact is abstract enough (a common occurrence in economic matters, for example), Fe types appear to often maintain that human values should override the objective fact (presuming that they're made aware of it by whatever means), especially if the objective fact is particularly offensive. (This is a universal human debate, not a flaw in Fe or Te. Perhaps the human value should override the "objective fact"; the problem arises, however, that Fe types tend not to have an alternative "objective fact" for Te to substitute in place, but will just tend to assert the human value, because the "objective fact" Te realm is largely off their radar. And this is precisely why it behooves both types to be more aware of the others' methodologies ...)

    These are all cases of being differently mindful, which is what this typology is particularly adept at discerning. Perhaps regard them as "orthogonal value spaces", each side typically being aware/mindful of one space or the other, while being aware of the other space requires a much more active effort at being aware of oneself and others. There is something to be gained by both Te and Fe by becoming more mindful of the other's value space.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  8. #48
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Werebudgie View Post
    ^ ^ I feel like this puts into words something I was thinking but couldn't figure out precisely how to say. I was thinking something along these lines: "Fe is about human values, and human values don't have any clearly agreed-upon standard to assess what is a fact (or what is true) and what isn't. In contrast, while Te is not any sort of pure objectivity (IMO it's a culturally constructed format and only one kind of logic) - but even as an outsider to Te use, it seems to me that kind of logic (deductive/universalizing/etc) seems to have clear and obvious rules that people who use it already agree on." @uumlau, is this along the lines of what you're writing about here - am I understanding correctly?
    Yes, that sounds about right. I like the "seems to have clear and obvious rules that people who use it already agree on."

    There is a remarkable analog with what Hayek calls micro- vs macro- ethics. He notes that one set of ethics evolved around individuals living together and interacting on a daily basis, which I would say is roughly analogous to Fe: of course you decide things together with the group, for the group (family, tribe, though not larger than a small village). That's the micro-ethics. A different set of ethics evolved around strangers interacting with each other, especially in terms of commerce and trade, especially between disparate groups of individuals, perhaps separated by thousands of miles. In this set of macro-ethics, the concept of "property" has a much more significant meaning, and there developed ways of signaling the level of trust needed to allow exchange of property to take place.

    Note how the concept of "property" doesn't make much sense in the micro-ethical scale: in that small scale, it is appropriate that stuff be shared, because the group is in it together as a group. It would be remarkably selfish (and impractical, and wasteful, even from a Te point of view) for a hunter to claim all of a kill for himself, for example, and force others to buy it from him. But without a concept of property, things stop working on the macro-ethical scale. Recall that the macro-ethical scale is about interaction between strangers, and is about exchange and trade: without a concept of "this is mine and that is yours", the concept of trade is meaningless. Because these strangers are part of a community remote from your own, the concept of "sharing" is what has no meaning: the object(s) in question cannot be in both communities at once. It has to be in one or the other. Trade and commerce rules were developed in a spontaneous way to handle this issue. If a community didn't at least abide such rules externally (if not internally), it would be excluded from trading. Eventually, with civilization, communities became large enough that the macro-ethics became as common for most people as the micro-ethics, to the point that most people wouldn't see them as different things with different evolutionary causes.

    See how there are two parallel rules spaces, each of which is kind of unaware of the other? Or perhaps more aptly, kind of annoyed by the other? This micro- vs macro- ethics is a subset of the overall Fe/Te interaction, but perhaps it helps make the abstract more concrete.

    And I'm only speaking for myself in this next part but to be as blunt as possible on this point: I myself feel like the whole arena of human values, and this includes both Fi and Fe, is quite unfortunately ripe for interpersonal power struggles in ways that Te and Ti are probably not.

    (Not to say that Te and Ti don't have their own versions of bullshit nasty power struggles etc. I'm sure they do and maybe people with Te and Ti as aux functions might have a lot of interesting stuff to say about that, since they use the functions relatively well, but aren't completely immersed in them like a fish in water as with dominant functions).
    The are indeed power struggles. I would say, however, it matters what the power struggles are about. Fe and Fi appear (at least in threads around here) to have some very petty power struggles. Inevitably, one side hears the other as saying "My type is superior to yours," in whatever respect, and bam, you just have a stupid argument. The Te and Ti side occasionally gets into a similar argument, but it's more about which approach is "more correct", as opposed to "superior". Same thing, different emotional tone.

    But anyway, for me as a Fe-aux/Ni-dom, I feel like there's something ungrounded-in-solid-reality about using human value systems as a means to assess facts or truth, and for me it feels like this whether it's introverted (Fi) or extroverted (Fe) versions.

    I myself personally would have a lot more respect for human value systems of any sort as a way to asses facts/truth if they were accountable to actual reality in some very clear and unshakeable way - for example, if they were deeply sourced in/emerging from something like ecosystems, and "wrongness" would show up in physical ways related to survival, wellness etc, occurring whether or not anyone decided to "believe it" or have an emotional narrative about it. But without that kind of hardcore grounding, using human values - again, in my view, Fe OR Fi, same basic means of assessment but different approach - using human values to assess for facts or truth seems to me to easily be a matter of who can impose their will, stay most stubbornly self-referentially/group-referentially tied to what they believe (narratives are quite often self-justifying), deceive and/or manipulate best.

    On reflection, I really don't think I could handle being a judging-dominant of any sort. And as far as Fi and Fe in particular .... yeah, from my perspective, there seems to me to be no way to actually get at truth/wrongness/accuracy from the space of human value systems (Fi or Fe), not in the cultural contexts I've encountered at least. But then again, if I was a Fi-dom or Fe-dom, I probably wouldn't feel this way to begin with.
    I think what happens is that Fe and Te, in spite of the differences we've been discussing, are both about negotiating human cooperation. The problem arises, however, that Te does not see that cooperation as arising from "human values", while Fe does. Thus Fe sees "power plays" on the part of Te, because of the human value implications of Te choices, where Te sees no "power play": Te fully cooperated in Te terms, but not Fe terms, in this case.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  9. #49
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    I believe the OP was trying to say that INFJs should practice conscious willingness to take more risks, and should risk making mistakes in the process...and cut themselves some slack when they end up wrong...

    Risk/mistake aversion feels like INFJs practicing extreme hygiene so as not to end up ill...OP was trying to say that INFJs should not fear ending up ill...but try to strengthen their immune system when they end up ill/wrong so that they can recover faster (accept that they were mistaken and correct themselves rather than loathing) the next time...The loathing INFJs feel is more severe when their mistake also affects other people...I, for one, feel like I've failed them (others...the collective?) somehow..

    Do INTJs not feel any liability towards people who end up being adversely affected by their mistaken Ni-Te conclusions (if any)? Doesn't it (in severe cases) initiate some kind of traumatic/stressful self-loathing process? Like a shadow Ne process or something?

    I can't put my head completely around the thing about Fe being more concerned wrt Te on the messenger either...If someone gives me an information with conviction, I feel tempted to check on its veracity from other reputable sources (if it doesn't make sense at that instant)...Is putting emphasis on any sources' reputation specifically related to Fe? I analyse and crosscheck both data thru my Ti as well to see whether the former holds water...

    Regarding Fe and Te...Let's say there's this orchard with some healthy and some ill trees...And there's a village that depends entirely (and barely) on that orchard for sustenance...And you are the orchard keeper as well as the village headperson...How would you (Fe/Te) deal with the situation? Or what would be a better example to signify Fe/Te difference in dealing with the external world?

  10. #50
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    I believe the OP was trying to say that INFJs should practice conscious willingness to take more risks, and should risk making mistakes in the process...and cut themselves some slack when they end up wrong...
    I think this is an important point.

    In a way, the OP is saying, "Here is the path to incorporating the Te side of things," for Fe types, though perhaps not conceived in that way. That isn't to say that Te is "better", but rather than anyone is "better" who incorporates both perspectives, however maladroitly.

    Do INTJs not feel any liability towards people who end up being adversely affected by their mistaken Ni-Te conclusions (if any)? Doesn't it (in severe cases) initiate some kind of traumatic/stressful self-loathing process? Like a shadow Ne process or something?
    It depends on how those mistaken conclusions were arrived at. At some point, you have to make a conclusion and act on it: stasis is not an option, and non-decision would be a worse decision. The primary Te-remedy is to have feedback loops that find errors quickly enough that they can be corrected with relatively little pain/effort. Another way to put it might be, Te types feel responsibility for NOT finding errors soon enough. We'll still do our best to correct the errors, but it is always better to find them sooner rather than later. The responsibility is not so much expressed emotionally, but instead as re-evaluating processes such that they find errors sooner.

    This is perhaps why Te types tend not to have the same emotional reaction to "being wrong": our remedy is necessarily finding wrongness as soon as possible, which means we can't flinch from being wrong. Keep in mind, however, this is a logistical, more or less "objective" version of wrong, not a personal value of right or wrong.

    I can't put my head completely around the thing about Fe being more concerned wrt Te on the messenger either...If someone gives me an information with conviction, I feel tempted to check on its veracity from other reputable sources (if it doesn't make sense at that instant)...Is putting emphasis on any sources' reputation specifically related to Fe? I analyse and crosscheck both data thru my Ti as well to see whether the former holds water...
    I would say that, as regards Te and Ti, Te is more apt to believe empirical evidence, while Ti is more apt to believe the reliable theory. Both are potentially correct, in any given case. For Ti (and Fe), reliable theory must necessarily come from reputable sources, as "theory" is just a fancy name for opinion, in that worldview (in my opinion ). For Te, if theory doesn't match reality, it is almost always theory that must be rejected.

    Regarding Fe and Te...Let's say there's this orchard with some healthy and some ill trees...And there's a village that depends entirely (and barely) on that orchard for sustenance...And you are the orchard keeper as well as the village headperson...How would you (Fe/Te) deal with the situation? Or what would be a better example to signify Fe/Te difference in dealing with the external world?
    Fe would emphasize that everyone get equal access to the fruits of the orchard. Te would emphasize maximizing the output of the orchard, and not be so concerned with "equal access" so long as everyone got "enough." (As maximizing the output of the orchard might entail allowing knowledgeable people who contribute to maximizing output to have a greater share of said output as compensation for providing that knowledge.)

    Either extreme should be unwelcome, however. Share and share alike without regard to the orchard's output could kill the orchard, and hence the village. Maximizing output without regard to equity could destroy the village via politics (the have-nots rise up against the haves, and the orchard is lost in the conflict). The middle ground is perhaps, "sort of equitable" along with "sort of productive", not quite maximizing either.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

Similar Threads

  1. On opinion and being wrong
    By Octarine in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-09-2011, 12:16 AM
  2. Would you be willing to work for an organisation that..
    By Octarine in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-16-2011, 11:03 AM
  3. [Te] Can Te be wrong?
    By Blown Ghost in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-27-2010, 01:23 PM
  4. Can millions of years be wrong?
    By Salomé in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 05-08-2009, 10:16 PM
  5. Anybody willing to help me type my teachers?
    By LordPwnage in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-20-2008, 03:28 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO