Public Service Announcement to Paranoid Fi doms

[PeaceBaby]

The word you're looking for is "elicit", by the way. Amusing that you should mention "illicit responses" in the midst of a discussion about censorship, though.

LOL, that is too funny - I am tired!

Because INFPs are the only people who continually misread extreme emotion into my writing.

Well, you use extreme words. What else do you expect?

 

[simulatedworld]

Well, you use extreme words. What else do you expect?

Did you ever consider that automatically associating extreme words with extreme emotion is an Fi-biased phenomenon?

Of course I've come to expect it from INFPs--in fact, your histrionic responses encourage me to keep doing it. I don't intend to convince you of anything--just to entertain myself and others who are equally agitated with FiNe's tendency to imagine hostility when none is there.

 

[OrangeAppled]

It's addressed to paranoid Fi doms. If you're not a paranoid Fi dom, you have no reason to believe it's directed at you.

And please, this thread is a far cry from the ludicrous conspiracy theories we've heard from them. Good try, but no.

Good try at attempting to deny this is not just another pathetic display of your bias against INFPs, but no, this thread is still ridiculous.

The INFPs you describe are by far the exception and not the rule, and making any association between the function Fi and that behavior (which you DO in the OP, so stop with the stupid cop out that's it's not making gross generalizations) is faulty reasoning. All but a mere few INFPs on this board seem to enjoy relating to others through MBTI and don't express any feeing of threat on their individuality. There is far more empirical evidence of that than whatever ridiculous feelings/motives you're trying to ascribe to INFPs (healthy or not), as if your opinion and observations are more valid than anyone else's :rolli:.

And there have been more than a few members of other types who have ranted against MBTI, a certain Te-dom coming to mind.... Funny how no one makes a thread implying their dominant function is somehow to blame. You always come across as very eager to criticize NFPs.

Simulatedworld, you're not a God. Stop blowing yourself up so much, you aren't the judge as to what is considered balanced or reasonable. And you aren't the judge as to how people think and view typology, so nice try. Your attempts have just made me realize that I hate dicks with big egoes. bye.

Seriously. Funny how it's okay for the ENTP to project feeling onto INFPs. The hypocrisy continues...

 

[Amargith]

So this is all for 'entertainment' right? To draw attention? Not to actually learn something from each other? You find each others buttons and continually poke at it?

So, when does this game get old already?

 

[simulatedworld]

Good try at attempting to deny this is not just another pathetic display of your bias against INFPs, but no, this thread is still ridiculous.

The INFPs you describe are by far the exception and not the rule, and making any association between the function Fi and that behavior (which you DO in the OP, so stop with the stupid cop out that's it's not making gross generalizations) is faulty reasoning. All but a mere few INFPs on this board seem to enjoy relating to others through MBTI and don't express any feeing of threat on their individuality. There is far more empirical evidence of that than whatever ridiculous feelings/motives you're trying to ascribe to INFPs (healthy or not), as if your opinion and observations are more valid than anyone else's :rolli:.

And there have been more than a few members of other types who have ranted against MBTI, a certain Te-dom coming to mind.... Funny how no one makes a thread implying their dominant function is somehow to blame. You always come across as very eager to criticize NFPs.

Durrr yeah, I already stated that most Fi doms don't see it this way--my point was simply that most people who make this sort of argument on the basis of "boohoo I hate being boxed in" are Fi doms. You just spent 3/4 of this post debunking a position I don't even agree with.

As for your last paragraph, that's true--but Jaguar railed against MBTI on the basis that it lacks empirical evidence for its choice of categorizations, which is a far more Te-oriented position. (And I railed against him in equally vicious terminology!) :hi:

Hell, I don't even like MBTI that much because I think it distorts and oversimplifies a lot of Jung's ideas. The four-letter labels are the only parts I even use. The thread wasn't directed at everyone who hates MBTI; it was directed specifically at people who complain that typology squelches individuality too much to be useful--which is the most common Fi criticism of typology in general.

I'll freely admit that most Fi doms don't do this--but as I said, most people who make this particular argument from this position are Fi doms.

There's a reason I addressed the thread "to paranoid Fi doms." Most Fi doms aren't paranoid, so I made sure to specify.

So this is all for 'entertainment' right? To draw attention? Not to actually learn something from each other? You find each others buttons and continually poke at it?

So, when does this game get old already?

As soon as NFPs stop giving me entertaining responses.

 

[Amargith]

K. Lemme know if you ever actually are ready to learn and exchange

 

[Qre:us]

Okay, I can Fe-empathize why certain members (having Fi) are up in arms about defending Fi, it has been dragged through the mud, tarred and feathered, tied to a horse, through the townsquare of Typology Central [evidence: see the threads made on Fi, and what it turns into].

But, the most effective way to interpret this thread for such Fi-users is to disassociate with this particular brand of Fi, i.e., if you're not a paranoid Fi dom, this thread does not apply to you. It's really as simple as that.

Why take the bait?

 

[simulatedworld]

K. Lemme know if you ever actually are ready to learn and exchange

I learn and exchange routinely about a variety of topics--just not this one because it's already been done and redone to death a hundred times over and I've given up on the idea that either side is going to convince the other of anything new.

But, the most effective way to interpret this thread for such Fi-users is to disassociate with this particular brand of Fi, i.e., if you're not a paranoid Fi dom, this thread does not apply to you. It's really as simple as that.

Why take the bait?

Shhhh, don't ruin the game! ^_^

 

[Amargith]

For me it's more that it gives me a head ache to see people label Fi something it's not as it just perpetuates miscommunication and misperception. Sure, you may perceive it as such, but all I'm seeing is 'this is my perception so this must be correct' instead of wondering why and actually understanding it from someone elses perspective, aka the very person/group you're actually trying to label. I'm not saying that those perceptions are worthless, but they're hardly the end, in fact, they should be the beginning in making you wonder as to why it is that people respond that way and how that is important to them, if you truly desire to know what the thing you're so desperately trying to box in and label, really is. And so far, that has been sorely lacking in all of these Fi-threads, imo. If you do not want to undestand, that's totally ok too, but then don't come poking for answers either.

Edit: Sim, you're not the only one who's given up on this.

 

[simulatedworld]

For me it's more that it gives me a head ache to see people label Fi something it's not as it just perpetuates miscommunication and misperception. Sure, you may perceive it as such, but all I'm seeing is 'this is my perception so this must be correct' instead of wondering why and actually understanding it from someone elses perspective, aka the very person/group you're actually trying to label. I'm not saying that those perceptions are worthless, but they're hardly the end, in fact, they should be the beginning in making you wonder as to why it is that people respond that way and how that is important to them, if you truly desire to know what the thing you're so desperately trying to box in and label, really is. And so far, that has been sorely lacking in all of these Fi-threads, imo. If you do not want to undestand, that's totally ok too, but then don't come poking for answers either.

Interesting. Why do you suppose it is that certain Fi-ers consider themselves too unique for typological categorization? I'm curious now. Why is the process of categorization considered dehumanizing?

To be honest I have to give you credit for trying to make productive headway in most of these Fi threads. That's quite admirable.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Durrr yeah, I already stated that most Fi doms don't see it this way--my point was simply that most people who make this sort of argument on the basis of "boohoo I hate being boxed in" are Fi doms. You just spent 3/4 of this post debunking a position I don't even agree with.

No, most people who make that argument are not Fi-doms. Some are, but there are others who have made them who are not Fi-doms.

Your OP makes too close an association between Fi the function and the behavior, and you ascribe feelings and motives behind the behavior of those individuals, and even imply them for Fi in general. Nice try on back peddling.

As for your last paragraph, that's true--but Jaguar railed against MBTI on the basis that it lacks empirical evidence for its choice of categorizations, which is a far more Te-oriented position. (And I railed against him in equally vicious terminology!) :hi:

Against HIM, an individual. In this thread, you're making a connection with an entire function to a specific behavior. I don't care if it's healthy or unhealthy Fi-doms you're referring to, the vast majority of Fi-doms, healthy or not, are the ones who set the pattern, the pattern being an embrace of MBTI, not a rant against it.

Why do you always choose to focus on the negatives, especially when it comes to Fi-doms? If this is not about Fi, and is about a few select individuals, then why discuss it in terms of Fi?

I'll freely admit that most Fi doms don't do this--but as I said, most people who make this particular argument from this position are Fi doms.

I disagree. I don't see a trend in type for people making stupid rants against MBTI. That is your observation, which is faulty.

 

[CrystalViolet]

Did you ever consider that automatically associating extreme words with extreme emotion is an Fi-biased phenomenon?

Of course I've come to expect it from INFPs--in fact, your histrionic responses encourage me to keep doing it. I don't intend to convince you of anything--just to entertain myself and others who are equally agitated with FiNe's tendency to imagine hostility when none is there.

Some times, I think people see you post and automatically get insulted.
If I worked it out, others will too.

 

[Amargith]

Interesting. Why do you suppose it is that certain Fi-ers consider themselves too unique for typological categorization? I'm curious now. Why is the process of categorization considered dehumanizing?

To be honest I have to give you credit for trying to make productive headway in most of these Fi threads. That's quite admirable.

The process of categorization isn't dehumanizing. Fi-users as well categorize. It's a way to manage the world. The moment however it becomes dehumanizing is when you fail to categorize all the information, especially that relevant to humans, such as their individual quirks, which make them very much who they are. When you fail to recognize that despite your categorization, each human is still unique and you would need to know their background and their views on the world in order to judge perfectly which likely category suits them best. To not do so, to jump to conclusions and scream 'I have the answer, I know, I know, shut up, I know how you function!' is annoying and hurtful...as you yourself, ironically, have found to be true at the hands of Fi-users having a lazy or emotional moment, causing those prerequisites to go out the window. Unfortunately, Ti stops the moment it thinks it's figured out the system. And doesn't realize that that..well, that's only the beginning. The real work still follows, as that person can finetune your complex system in ways you haven't imagined. And unless you verify for real that you are in fact correct, you're an arrogant prick in my books.

Don't get me wrong, I too get lazy and presumptuous, when recognizing signs in others that instantly make me go: ohh that's how they work. But I try very hard to check and recheck, before I file them away. They're humans. People. And there's more to them than you seem to give them credit for. Your loss, their pain. Lose-lose, imo.

I appreciate your kind words, but those threads have really taught me one thing. People don't want to understand

/withdraws.

 

[Kalach]

I was gonna say before, it's been a while coming, INFP season. Like ENFJ season was going on too long or something.

What's the common ground? None, really. But it might be instructive to observe: Fe, being tertiary in ENTPs, is important to ENTPs. And INFPs... so good at feeling.

Tentative Conclusion:

This all should probably be a lesson to anyone who thinks they're good at functions outside of their top four. Ya might be good at acting the part, but you don't got it. One can't help but wear their own pants.




Hmmm, that seems a rather bellicose and confining conclusion... MBTI gives an opportunity for people to own up to their preferences and--perhaps--address conflict. Or perhaps not. Is it incumbent upon people to address conflict? Can they even ever succeed, given that they'll be quite naturally using their own preferences first... Should they bend to others? Should they even care? Dunno.

 

[simulatedworld]

No, most people who make that argument are not Fi-doms. Some are, but there are others who have made them who are not Fi-doms.

Sure, lots of different types make anti-typology arguments, but most of the people I've seen make that argument for that particular reason have been Fi doms. I guess you're not going to believe me on this count, though.

Your OP makes too close an association between Fi the function and the behavior, and you ascribe feelings and motives behind the behavior of those individuals, and even imply them for Fi in general. Nice try on back peddling.

Actually, as I and others have pointed out several times now, the only people I even addressed were paranoid Fi doms. If you're not paranoid, I dunno why you think this applies to you.

Against HIM, an individual. In this thread, you're making a connection with an entire function to a specific behavior. I don't care if it's healthy or unhealthy Fi-doms you're referring to, the vast majority of Fi-doms, healthy or not, are the ones who set the pattern, the pattern being an embrace of MBTI, not a rant against it.

That's close to what I said, but not quite.

I didn't say that most people against MBTI are Fi doms; I said that most people who claim that typology is useless on the basis that they are too unique to be categorized are Fi doms. It makes sense, given Fi's emphasis on self-expression of personal individuality.

Lots of other people think typology is useless, but typically for different reasons. Lots of Te users dislike it for the lack of empirical evidence. Lots of Ni users dislike the implicit assumptions they think it makes about behavioral trends. Lots of Se users dislike it for its abstract theoretical nature without any clear practical application, and so on...

But the position that typology is useless because it squelches self-expression clearly reflects the Fi-oriented values described above.

Why do you always choose to focus on the negatives, especially when it comes to Fi-doms? If this is not about Fi, and is about a few select individuals, then why discuss it in terms of Fi?

Honestly, because Fi motivates more behaviors and opinions that annoy me than any other function.

This is not about rants against typology in general, but rather about one specific reason for one specific type of anti-typology rant, which seems quite frequently motivated by Fi.

I disagree. I don't see a trend in type for people making stupid rants against MBTI. That is your observation, which is faulty.

I don't either--I see a trend in the reasons people make these rants. Lots of people of different types do it, but their reasoning for it will usually have something to do with the values their preferred functions hold in high regard, and this particular reason for disliking typology (belief that it is threatening to personal individuality and self-expression) is clearly associated with Fi values.

 

[simulatedworld]

The process of categorization isn't dehumanizing. Fi-users as well categorize. It's a way to manage the world. The moment however it becomes dehumanizing is when you fail to categorize all the information, especially that relevant to humans. When you fail to recognize that despite your categorization, each human is still unique and you would need to know their background and their views on the world in order to judge perfectly which likely category suits them best. To not do so, to jump to conclusions and scream 'I have the answer, I know, I know, shut up, I know how you function!' is annoying and hurtful...as you yourself, ironically, have found to be true at the hands of Fi-users having a lazy or emotional moment, causing those prerequisites to go out the window. Unfortunately, Ti stops the moment it thinks it's figured out the system. And doesn't realize that that..well, that's only the beginning. The real work still follows, as that person can finetune your complex system in ways you haven't imagined. And unless you verify for real that you are in fact correct, you're an arrogant prick in my books.

Don't get me wrong, I too get lazy and presumptuous, when recognizing signs in others that instantly make me go: ohh that's how they work. But I try very hard to check and recheck, before I file them away. They're humans. People. And there's more to them than you seem to give them credit for. Your loss, their pain. Lose-lose, imo.

I appreciate your kind words, but those threads have really taught me one thing. People don't want to understand

/withdraws.

You've got some interesting points here. Indeed, the categorization is only the beginning of truly knowing someone--but that doesn't negate the usefulness of the categorization itself.

I don't recall ever claiming to know everything about anyone. It would be ideal if we could know everything about a person before passing any judgment on him/her, but unfortunately we have to work with limited and incomplete information in everyday life, so we generalize and jump to conclusions for practicality's sake.

I can see why that comes across as dehumanizing at times, but I think this is at least partially a result of misinterpretation of what typology actually means with its descriptions. It doesn't just create a grocery list of behaviors that everyone in a given type must necessarily follow; rather, it describes the methods by which people derive their value systems....so being the same type as someone else doesn't mean you have to agree with them or behave the same way as them; it only means you tend to be most proficient in similar methods of information processing.

Of course it's upsetting when someone judges us inaccurately based on incomplete information--but it's also impractical to suspend judgment until such a time as we have complete information, because we will never really have that.

As for Ti and stopping when it thinks it's figured out the system--hopefully Ne (or Se) will continue to take in new information that forces Ti to amend its systems whenever information that contradicts the previous conclusion is introduced. That's pretty much how most TPs that I know operate--we observe external patterns, build internal rule systems to explain them, and then repeat. Every time new information comes up that calls the current understanding into question, we add another degree of conditional complexity to the rule system so that it comes closer to reflecting reality.

 

[Amargith]

*smiles*

Agreed and understood. However, then refrain from making claims about people before verifying. That's what stings. You're dealing after all with people, not facts and therefore feelings will be hurt if you go about it the same way. I've had plenty people asking me to make a judgement on them, tell them who they are a such. I refuse to do so till I've tested and retested, till I find that I actually am unlikely to have missed anything (in the field they're asking about). It frustrates a lot of them, and sometimes I'll tell them my preliminary findings under big gigantic disclaimers, knowing full well I'm essentially guessing at this point. And then when I feel I'm relatively sure about what they're like, I'll gladly give an analysis. And even then I'll still use disclaimers coz you never know what you've missed.

I postpone judgement on people as long as I can for this very reason. Of course I keep the impressions they've made in the back of my mind and work with them, i'd be foolish not to. But I keep in mind I might just not know what their motivation for it. And therefore, before I know that motivation, I do *not* judge. I also find that once I know it, I often have no reason to judge, 90 percent of the time *because* I understand so well where they're coming from at that point.

I myself have no problem being judged by others, on one condition: that they've shown clearly that they understand how and why I do things. That there is no miscommunication there. If after that, you still disagree with my behavior, I will gladly accept that and accomodate you, and have no qualms with your judgement on that. But before that happens, your half-assed judgement is going to make me roll my eyes and annoy the shit out of me. And unfortunately I have a need to make myself understood, which leads to frustration when the other won't even hear me.

That, to me, is the root of these Fi-threads and is the thing that gives me just a massive head ache (and I am talking about both sides now, not just Ti-users, but also Fi-users getting baited in tossing out untested conclusions about others though I understand better where that comes from).

It screams incompetence to me and I have no patience for people who claim to know stuff when their conclusions smell of half-assing it, especially when it comes to people as it is such a delicate field. Add to that the arrogance of claiming that you (=general you) know me so well you don't even have to listen to where I think you might be wrong and I'm done with you. Sounds fair?

 

[BlackCat]

 

[Little Linguist]

Anyone is free to express any opinion he likes. I won't even whine to mods that my thread is being "derailed", because I think that's kind of dumb.

Way to assume a bunch of dumb bullshit that I didn't even say.

Exercising my right to criticize the posts of others doesn't imply that I don't think they have the right to be posting.

Try to work on that reading comprehension a bit, hm?

I derailed a thread? Awesome. A job well done today.

Can I derail some more? Pwetty pwease???? *looks imploringly* You know you want me to!

 

[wolfy]

What is this all about then?