User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 97

  1. #51
    So she did. small.wonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    976

    Default

    I'd rather be wrong than beliggerant any time. I honestly think desire for truth is one of the reasons I actually am right more often than not-- because I'm willing to listen. Entitled, self righteous individuals are much more often hypocritical and wrong in my opinion because they will talk themselves in circles just to prove they are right (which usually does the opposite). I'm the first to admit it when I'm wrong, to do otherwise is childish, dishonorable and false to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    I guess the question is: do we want to win an argument or do we wish to make a friend?
    I care for neither, only finding truth (even if it's not what I initially thought). The authentic desire for truth requires openess, willingness to hear and actually consider before making a judgement call.
    Find my Enneagram writing here. Also, I'd love for you to take my six question Enneagram surveyEnneagram survey!✨

  2. #52
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    So for INTJs, Ni comes up with concepts and Te tries to apply them to and verify them in the external environment to see whether they hold true?

    And for INFJs, Ni comes up with concepts and Ti tries to analyze them to see if/why they hold true?

    So INTJs require an external structure/framework to verify any kind of new information presented to themselves either by internal or external sources? But it's not practical to initiate that verification process for anyone giving you a new concept/idea? There has to be some kind of internal evaluation and shortlisting process?

    The bolded part somehow sounds as if INFJs dismiss information coming from certain sources...without even taking it into consideration...Perhaps, I take it into consideration anyway and I take it under evaluation (if the person offering it sounds very convinced of its veracity) but give more weight to already available information by credible/reputable sources when doing the evaluation...I do not necessarily dismiss the information based on the qualifications of the messenger...I do not necessarily assign it the same weight that I'd do to information from a credible source either...

    I daily digest new information on the internet from numerous sites that lack initial credibility (or are anonymous) but if the information presented makes sense to me (or my existing framework of understanding things) I accept the information as well as assign a certain crebility to that particular site or author...So reputation does not necessarily precede the reception of information in my case...

    I am missing the point tried to be made here in regards to INFJs...Is it something like "I as an INFJ define my self worth in terms of my reliability and reputation therefore I also define other people's worth in terms of reliability and reputation...?"...I value reliability in others (reputation I don't care as much) but I usually give them the benefit of doubt in terms of reliability initially by default until they prove it otherwise...

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    My priorities would be to optimize the number of survivors (by increasing food output, optimizing rations, decreasing dissent/chaos)...

    If the it turned out that there weren't enough food everyone, Te would be at much more ease then Fe I believe on deciding which members of the collective would be sacrificed to ensure still optimum potential number of survivors...Making tough calls is not Fe's forte perhaps...
    Last edited by yeghor; 02-12-2014 at 01:24 PM. Reason: Blue added

  3. #53
    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
    So for INTJs, Ni comes up with concepts and Te tries to apply them to and verify them in the external environment to see whether they hold true?
    More or less. I occasionally chime in to remind people that treating functions as entities that "do things" is just a convenient verbal shorthand. In reality, Ni and Te are a particular frame of mind: think of a landscape with rivers and hills and so on - the hills don't move the water in particular paths focusing on the rivers, but rather water flows in that manner around that layout of land.

    And for INFJs, Ni comes up with concepts and Ti tries to analyze them to see if/why they hold true?
    No, INFJs use Fe for this purpose. Particularly analytical INFJs swear that they "use a lot of Ti", but really, it's just more Ni, not Ti, in most cases. Ti is a part of the landscape, but it is not a significant part of the landscape.

    So INTJs require an external structure/framework to verify any kind of new information presented to themselves either by internal or external sources?
    More or less.

    But it's not practical to initiate that verification process for anyone giving you a new concept/idea?
    New ideas aren't as common as you think. Ni pattern-matches and goes, "Oh, THAT stupid idea, rearing its head again."


    There has to be some kind of internal evaluation and shortlisting process?
    I would say that INTJs use "patterns" and "anti-patterns" to filter incoming ideas. This concept is prevalent in software development, and appears to exist in other business realms. Patterns are useful devices to say, "We'll use this standard solution to solve this standard problem." Anti-patterns, I find, are even more useful. People are always coming up with new ideas, new ways of doing things ... except they aren't new. You dig a bit and find the anti-pattern, and the existence of the anti-pattern means that no matter how clever the idea, it won't work ... kind of like automatically rejecting all perpetual motion machines at the patent office.

    I believe INFJs use the same kind of filtering mechanism, except the elements of the pattern you guys see is rather different from what I see.

    The bolded part somehow sounds as if INFJs dismiss information coming from certain sources...without even taking it into consideration...Perhaps, I take it into consideration anyway and I take it under evaluation (if the person offering it sounds very convinced of its veracity) but give more weight to already available information by credible/reputable sources when doing the evaluation...I do not necessarily dismiss the information based on the qualifications of the messenger...I do not necessarily assign it the same weight that I'd do to information from a credible source either...

    I daily digest new information on the internet from numerous sites that lack initial credibility (or are anonymous) but if the information presented makes sense to me (or my existing framework of understanding things) I accept the information as well as assign a certain crebility to that particular site or author...So reputation does not necessarily precede the reception of information in my case...

    I am missing the point tried to be made here in regards to INFJs...Is it something like "I as an INFJ define my self worth in terms of my reliability and reputation therefore I also define other people's worth in terms of reliability and reputation...?"...I value reliability in others (reputation I don't care as much) but I usually give them the benefit of doubt in terms of reliability initially by default until they prove it otherwise...
    The primary point is that Fe prioritizes the people-concerns over the logistical concerns. In part, that means that they derive much of their clues as to what is true and what is not true from the people whom they trust. This is NOT an irrational approach. In fact, it is generally the most sane approach. No one person can embody the whole of human knowledge, and thus even Te types need to trust particular sources.

    The difference is that Te doesn't rely "as much" on personal traits, such as credibility, but more on impersonal traits, such as utility.

    My priorities would be to optimize the number of survivors (by increasing food output, optimizing rations, decreasing dissent/chaos)...

    If the it turned out that there weren't enough food everyone, Te would be at much more ease then Fe I believe on deciding which members of the collective would be sacrificed to ensure still optimum potential number of survivors...Making tough calls is not Fe's forte perhaps...
    I find it interesting that you're thinking in terms of number of survivors, while I was assuming allocation based on there being more than enough (for now), but wanting to avoid the possibility of killing the goose that lays golden eggs.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

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

  4. #54
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,686

    Default

    There are a few things interferring with this convo- one being that I think the criteria of 'things to be right about' which occurs to us (Fs) is a bit different. I'm getting the impression that what you and Coriolis are talking about may apply in work environments where interaction with someone revolves around completing some objective task- because the more one focuses on the messy interpersonal sidelines (which may not necessarily exist if one keeps a work relationship strictly work related- or even if all relationships are basically kept at some 'objective' distance), the less "my facts 'beat' your facts" can objectively apply.


    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    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 ...)
    The reason it seems to me like we're talking past one another is that I'd find it hard to believe you were actually asserting one type is 'more mindful'...yet that's what the argument sounds like to me. Ergo: I must not be understanding it correctly.

    It sounds to me like you are saying a Te dom/aux never latches onto a 'fact' for irrational reasons, dogmatically sticking to it (and imposing it on others) because it fee-e-els like TRUTH. I will buy that sometimes when an Te dom/aux dogmatically clings to something without being able/willing to explain why- yes, sometimes it's because they know something the other person doesn't, and it's just too difficult to stop and explain. I get that. I experience it myself as Pi dom. *And* I will buy that this is far, far more often the case with you, Coriolis, and some other Te dom/aux here in the forum (as well as some I know irl). But I don't buy that it's never about an irrational attachment to 'being right' for Te, or about just *needing* power/authority to soothe the ego- especially where e8 Te doms are concerned.

    In short, it seems to me like you're description is a 'best case scenario' of Te. In theory, I totally get what you're saying. [And I am feeling like a hypocrite right now, because I think I actually often do this exact thing with Fe- I'll argue 'best case scenario' of how it works because it'll seem like describing what goes wrong with it is a bad way to define it.] But in practice, I find it too difficult to believe that all Te dom/aux are truly about "my facts 'beat' your facts" without some irrational element/attachment occasionally interfering.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  5. #55
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    The bolded part somehow sounds as if INFJs dismiss information coming from certain sources...without even taking it into consideration...
    I could post the cure to cancer right now and you'd likely skim past it!
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  6. #56
    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
    There are a few things interferring with this convo- one being that I think the criteria of 'things to be right about' which occurs to us (Fs) is a bit different. I'm getting the impression that what you and Coriolis are talking about may apply in work environments where interaction with someone revolves around completing some objective task- because the more one focuses on the messy interpersonal sidelines (which may not necessarily exist if one keeps a work relationship strictly work related- or even if all relationships are basically kept at some 'objective' distance), the less "my facts 'beat' your facts" can objectively apply.
    Yeah, it's more of a work-environment thing. But note that work environments are not without their drama, and people like Coriolis and me tend to avoid work environments that generate drama. It's all part of the same thing. If we're not in a realm where it's "facts vs facts", then we move to one where it does apply. The corollary, of course, is not being to good with interpersonal relationships. Or marketing. :p

    The reason it seems to me like we're talking past one another is that I'd find it hard to believe you were actually asserting one type is 'more mindful'...yet that's what the argument sounds like to me. Ergo: I must not be understanding it correctly.

    It sounds to me like you are saying a Te dom/aux never latches onto a 'fact' for irrational reasons, dogmatically sticking to it (and imposing it on others) because it fee-e-els like TRUTH. I will buy that sometimes when an Te dom/aux dogmatically clings to something without being able/willing to explain why- yes, sometimes it's because they know something the other person doesn't, and it's just too difficult to stop and explain. I get that. I experience it myself as Pi dom. *And* I will buy that this is far, far more often the case with you, Coriolis, and some other Te dom/aux here in the forum (as well as some I know irl). But I don't buy that it's never about an irrational attachment to 'being right' for Te, or about just *needing* power/authority to soothe the ego- especially where e8 Te doms are concerned.

    In short, it seems to me like you're description is a 'best case scenario' of Te. In theory, I totally get what you're saying. [And I am feeling like a hypocrite right now, because I think I actually often do this exact thing with Fe- I'll argue 'best case scenario' of how it works because it'll seem like describing what goes wrong with it is a bad way to define it.] But in practice, I find it too difficult to believe that all Te dom/aux are truly about "my facts 'beat' your facts" without some irrational element/attachment occasionally interfering.
    Yeah, the part that is being left out are the Te-style feedback mechanisms. Fe also has feedback mechanisms, but they're personal. In the Te case, it's fact-checking, error-finding, quality assurance testing, that sort of thing. There is an ongoing process of coming up with ideas, and demonstrating whether they're good or bad. The ultimate proof, in Te land, is whether it works. This particularly annoys Ti types, because they hate to see what looks like a Rube Goldberg contraption "working." (Truth be told, INTJs hate the Rube Goldberg constructions, too, but we make it our mission to replace the piece of the contraption with smooth-working engines/processes.) In any event, if idea A works, and idea B doesn't, then idea A wins. On to ideas C and D.

    Interestingly, opinion often comes into play, because while, for example, something like a database ought to be self-consistent and logical, the database has to hold real-world data. A bad decision early on w/r to how to store the data can have huge costs later on. But when you're talking about how to put the database together, you get nothing but opinions about what kind of data structures would be more applicable to the business model(s). There is no way to "prove" that you're right. At best, it's like I discuss elsewhere with respect to "patterns": I can point out that certain structures are demonstrably an anti-pattern, or argue that the follow standard industry practices very closely, but in the end it's all opinion. And this is where having good error-feedback loops comes into play. We've made our best guess, according to opinion. Now we have to fix the problems our choices created as early as possible, before they become solidified in the overall framework.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

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

  7. #57
    I want my account deleted
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Yes, that sounds about right. I like the "seems to have clear and obvious rules that people who use it already agree on."
    Thanks for letting me know I was relatively accurate!

    Interesting distinction betwen micro and macro ethics! That makes a lot of sense to me conceptually. However: I will say that in lived practice, I haven't found Fe (or Fi for that matter but that's to be expected) to be useful in truly supporting the kind of collective ethos you describe with the micro-ethics. I think in my cultural context (I live in the United States), a lot of that skill set and ethos has been made culturally inaccessible.

    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.
    I suspect that this would really cause stress between Fe-doms and Te-doms! In my case, Fe isn't core to my organic perception, so I have a bit of distance. I still don't much like the feel of Te, though. But Fe-aux in a broken/diseased cultural context isn't a picnic for me either, so my Te aversion may also be sourced to Ti in me.

    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.
    Ah! This makes sense. Values are about what is "best" where logic is about what is correct. *nods*

    Though I will say that from what I can see so far, this particular site seems to bring out the very worst in INFJ-INFP interactions. Do you see INTJ-INTP struggles around correctness coming up a lot in the NT forum?

    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.
    For me, the key to understanding this, as it shows up in INTJs at least, has been seeing Te as basically its own value system with its own terms. Not the same kind of system as a Fe approach, but structurally similar enough to a value system for me to have a grasp on it. That said, it's not a system that feels good to me to try to assimilate/use. I mean, we haven't even gotten into Te versus Ti - I'm a seriously Ti thinker, and my Ti-tert has gotten pretty well-developed over the years. In me, Ti is associated with inductive, qualitative very context-specific analyses. Given that, I think Ti would be better used in that micro-context you describe and Ti analyses would not really register as correct/useful/efficient in the macro-context - does that make sense to you?

  8. #58
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    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?
    The only liabilty I feel toward others is to correct the error as quickly and completely as possible, and ideally, take some measures to prevent it from happening again. To the extent that I actually feel bad about the situation (and I usually do), it is self-directed, amounting to disappointment in myself at my poor judgment, rather than anything focused on the others affected.

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    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?
    I would wonder why we are so reliant on this single source of livelihood, and look into diversifying our activities for more sustainable income in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    So INTJs require an external structure/framework to verify any kind of new information presented to themselves either by internal or external sources? But it's not practical to initiate that verification process for anyone giving you a new concept/idea? There has to be some kind of internal evaluation and shortlisting process?
    Internal consistency checking goes far to weed out flawed or irrelevant information. Other than that, the pattern checking @uumlau mentioned is very important. When these don't suffice, we will do our homework.

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    There are a few things interferring with this convo- one being that I think the criteria of 'things to be right about' which occurs to us (Fs) is a bit different. I'm getting the impression that what you and Coriolis are talking about may apply in work environments where interaction with someone revolves around completing some objective task- because the more one focuses on the messy interpersonal sidelines (which may not necessarily exist if one keeps a work relationship strictly work related- or even if all relationships are basically kept at some 'objective' distance), the less "my facts 'beat' your facts" can objectively apply.
    The thing is, INTJs and perhaps other TJs, tend to keep much more objective distance in relationships overall, such that all but the most intimate will look very much like professional relationships, and even the most intimate will still have some element of that. I for one have no patience with "messy interpersonal sidelines" even in my personal life. I find it just saps my energy and frustrates me, with no benefit to anyone. Very little cannot be expressed in terms of an objective task, even if there is much more to it than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    It sounds to me like you are saying a Te dom/aux never latches onto a 'fact' for irrational reasons, dogmatically sticking to it (and imposing it on others) because it fee-e-els like TRUTH. I will buy that sometimes when an Te dom/aux dogmatically clings to something without being able/willing to explain why- yes, sometimes it's because they know something the other person doesn't, and it's just too difficult to stop and explain. I get that. I experience it myself as Pi dom. *And* I will buy that this is far, far more often the case with you, Coriolis, and some other Te dom/aux here in the forum (as well as some I know irl). But I don't buy that it's never about an irrational attachment to 'being right' for Te, or about just *needing* power/authority to soothe the ego- especially where e8 Te doms are concerned.
    I think when we insist on our facts it is less based on feeling than because it is often not clear just whose facts are best. Until this is made clear, the other person's insistance on their facts has no more objective justification than ours, while on the other hand, ours is driven by Ni processes we have learned to trust.
    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...

  9. #59
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    '
    I don't understand this. It sounds like willful ignorance - clinging to poor choices even once you have realized your error. Did you mean something else?

    I don't like to be wrong, but that motivates me to adjust my opinions in the face of conflicting evidence. I will abandon a position shown to be wrong, or at least adjust my position to account for the new information. Anything else is just self-delusion, or just plain lies.


    This is how I operate as well. As for the highlighted, when the efforts are not invisible, they are often dismissed as unnecessary. The fact that this behavior precipitates crises is, unfortunately, not enough to cure the attitude for the next time.
    Agreed completely.

    One wag has written that all of human history can be incorporated into the following two questions:

    1) "What could *possibly* go wrong?"

    ...to be followed shortly by

    2) "But how was *I* supposed to know?"

    # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

    Or, in the words of Robert Heinlein:

    Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

    This is known as “bad luck.”
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  10. #60
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by small.wonder View Post
    I care for neither, only finding truth (even if it's not what I initially thought). The authentic desire for truth requires openess, willingness to hear and actually consider before making a judgement call.
    So you don't care to win an argument or make a friend, you only care for the truth.

    But the truth will never hold your hand. The truth will never look into your eyes. The truth will never kiss you.

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