Public Service Announcement to Paranoid Fi doms

[Amargith]

Actually, it *was* finally going somewhere...

 

[PeaceBaby]

Indeed ...

 

[VagrantFarce]

preferably from orbit

it's the only way to be sure

ornstar:

 

[simulatedworld]

I invite anyone to explain how these two statements do not mean the same thing:

1)

...society finds it more tolerable for F-type women to be overly sensitive and not pay attention to Thinking...than it does F-type men.

2)

^ Good point in that there is probably a gender component to this as well.

F-type women are going to get away with ignoring Thinking much moreso than F-type men...

Anybody, please. I'd love to hear what's so different about these two posts.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Anybody, please. I'd love to hear what's so different about these two posts.

They read the same to me. Society's allowance for women to be emotional or irrational is not so much acceptance, but dismissal on a deeper level. There is a long history of dismissing meaningful contribution from such a person as is "emotional and irrational".

At the same time I see your point about the lack of rationality in society. It's quite a problem that goes beyond social comfort of any particular type. It is destructive to embrace irrationality. It is a huge problem that should be addressed in the educational system. I don't tend to see as direct a link between rationality=dismissing people's feelings as is suggested in many online discussions. I do understand that many people focus on ideas in such a way as to not be conscious of social or emotional parameters. Rationality is important enough that I will take it packaged in any way as long as it lies at the foundation of what is offered.

 

[heart]

....
What annoys me most is that society expects Thinkers to develop some manner of Feeling as they grow and develop, and we're ostracized if we don't...but many Feelers (specifically FPs) seem to have this sense of entitlement that their feelings can never be questioned and that they have no responsibility to learn any Thinking to balance them out.

It's childish and one-sided. "I mean, that's how I feel about it--you can't question that or you'd be asking me to go against the very fabric of my identity!"

As you describe it, then that is their personal belief on the matter, not the view of society as a whole as you imply below.

...Frankly I find this double standard unfair and I resent it. It's apparently okay for Fi-ers to "just be who they are" and operate in nonstop Fi mode, ignoring Thinking; in fact, this attitude is glorified and encouraged by popular media

I'd have to see examples of this before I would believe this. I don't personally see a lot of acceptance of Fi-ness in the modern world. I see mostly acceptance of the Te and Fe types of being. Especially in the workplace.

....but it's not okay for Ti-ers to "just be who we are" and ignore Feeling because that makes us insensitive assholes.

In this capitalist society, society approval is mostly shown through how much money a person makes. Are you suggesting that strong T types don't make as much money as Strong F types, especially Fi doms?

If you assert this position, can you defend it with proof?

....I find it unreasonable that our cultural standards expect more Feeling out of T types than Thinking out of F types

Proof?

To me, this just sounds like a personal perception. Like I said, my own personal perception is that Te and Fe are most valued. Get things done, fit it. That sort of a thing.


Where is your evidence that these immature Fi types you claim to know don't create negative situations for themselves? How do you know they don't suffer setbacks in their career and earning potiential, their relationships, their social networks over such behavior?

 

[simulatedworld]

They read the same to me. Society's allowance for women to be emotional or irrational is not so much acceptance, but dismissal on a deeper level. There is a long history of dismissing meaningful contribution from such a person as is "emotional and irrational".

At the same time I see your point about the lack of rationality in society. It's quite a problem that goes beyond social comfort of any particular type. It is destructive to embrace irrationality. It is a huge problem that should be addressed in the educational system. I don't tend to see as direct a link between rationality=dismissing people's feelings as is suggested in many online discussions. I do understand that many people focus on ideas in such a way as to not be conscious of social or emotional parameters. Rationality is important enough that I will take it packaged in any way as long as it lies at the foundation of what is offered.

Thank you. Unfortunately marm doesn't seem to think they mean the same thing, and would rather brag about her college GPA and ACT scores in rep comments than bother to read the thread. Glad to know I'm not going crazy.

Personally, I suspect that she mistakenly read "F-type women can't use Thinking" or "Most F-type women ignore Thinking" into my words when neither of those statements was written or even implied--chalk it up to FiNe imagining shit that isn't there again, I suppose.

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ no, don't slip back quite so quickly, we were just making progress!

 

[Thalassa]

Thank you. Unfortunately marm doesn't seem to think they mean the same thing, and would rather brag about her college GPA and ACT scores in rep comments than bother to read the thread. Glad to know I'm not going crazy.

When you make insults about someone's reading comprehension, it's not that unreasonable for that person to point out that their reading comprehension is actually superior to the average person's by academic standards. You dragging this into the thread is Fe manipulation, not Ti.

Personally, I suspect that she mistakenly read "F-type women can't use Thinking" or "Most F-type women ignore Thinking" into my words when neither of those statements was written or even implied--chalk it up to FiNe imagining shit that isn't there again, I suppose.

You're coming across as sort of ExFJ right now. I can see you preaching from the pulpit and the blinded choir singing hallelujah.

 

[simulatedworld]

As you describe it, then that is their personal belief on the matter, not the view of society as a whole as you imply below.

For some people, it's both. Yes, some Fi doms do believe that their feelings should never be questioned, and yes, American gender expectations do consider emotional personality more acceptable for females than for males. This much should be obvious.

I'd have to see examples of this before I would believe this. I don't personally see a lot of acceptance of Fi-ness in the modern world. I see mostly acceptance of the Te and Fe types of being. Especially in the workplace.

You have a good point that this probably isn't true in the corporate workplace. It applies a lot more in social and interpersonal situations.

In this capitalist society, society approval is mostly shown through how much money a person makes. Are you suggesting that strong T types don't make as much money as Strong F types, especially Fi doms?

If you assert this position, can you defend it with proof?

No, I'm not suggesting that; I'm referring to social, interpersonal and familial situations.

Proof?

To me, this just sounds like a personal perception. Like I said, my own personal perception is that Te and Fe are most valued. Get things done, fit it. That sort of a thing.

I can't offer any evidence of this except my own experiences.

Where is your evidence that these immature Fi types you claim to know don't create negative situations for themselves? How do you know they don't suffer setbacks in their career and earning potiential, their relationships, their social networks over such behavior?

Maybe they do. Good point.

 

[simulatedworld]

When you make insults about someone's reading comprehension, it's not that unreasonable for that person to point out that their reading comprehension is actually superior to the average person's by academic standards. You dragging this into the thread is Fe manipulation, not Ti.
You're coming across as sort of ExFJ right now. I can see you preaching from the pulpit and the blinded choir singing hallelujah.

Chalk it up to Ne+Fe, I suppose.

All of this may very well be true, but I'm still waiting to hear about why the two quoted posts don't mean the same thing. I'm sure your reading comprehension is terrific; in this case it looks like you either didn't bother to read my earlier post, or imagined implications in it that weren't really there.

Just to be clear: I did not say or imply that F women can't use Thinking, nor did I say or imply that a majority of F women don't try to use Thinking. Please, read Nolla's post here and it should be evident from context that we were discussing societal expectations of gender roles.

In fact my intention was to agree that gender may play a bigger role in this than Fi/Ti, or at least a very significant one, in terms of the way society perceives these behaviors.

 

[Thalassa]

Chalk it up to Ne+Fe, I suppose.

All of this may very well be true, but I'm still waiting to hear about why the two quoted posts don't mean the same thing. I'm sure your reading comprehension is terrific; in this case it looks like you either didn't bother to read my earlier post, or imagined implications in it that weren't really there.

It's not that I imagined anything, it's that your post wasn't really clear in exactly what you meant...everyone should just infer what you meant without expecting clarification?

This statement:

F-type women are going to get away with ignoring Thinking much moreso than F-type men

is a blanket statement. F-type women (not some or many F-type women) are (not may, or might, or frequently) going to get away with ignoring Thinkiong much moreso than F-type men...followed by your sentimental adage that you have such pity for the males....

is less clear that this statement:

society finds it more tolerable for F-type women to be overly sensitive and not pay attention to Thinking...than it does F-type men

I even acquiesed that I saw your point because of societal gender expectations, but that didn't stop you from accusing me of "taking it personally." I didn't take it personally. I just thought your statements in general were beginning to get awfully categorical, emotional, and sloppy.

Of course, you just make up for that by throwing out insults. Tell me - can you go back and count how many times in this thread alone that you threw out an insult about reading comprehension at someone instead of simply clarifying or arguing the point? Drenching your ideas in immature Fe seems to work just as well for you as all of us who are using Fi in our arguments.

 

[heart]

For some people, it's both. Yes, some Fi doms do believe that their feelings should never be questioned, and yes, American gender expectations do consider emotional personality more acceptable for females than for males. This much should be obvious.

The personality you have described for us is narrow-minded, selfish, egocentonic, instinctual. Marketing tries to appeal to this part in all people to sell products, but I'd say most people consider the truly egocentonic person to be a problem they would rather avoid.

I think a person has to be careful taking marketing messages given in the various forms of popular media as an example of what society in real time approves of. Popular media and marketing are often trying to just appeal to certain parts of a person's unconscious to create desire for products.

From my perspective, being a woman and the target of society's expectations of a woman, I'd say that American society seems to favor women who are expressive, happy, confident, team players, mothering, long-suffering, diplomatic, harmony seeking, easy to forgive and who are well organized and neat.

You have a good point that this probably isn't true in the corporate workplace.

Any workplace is going to lose patience really fast with egocentonic people who fail to get things done and fit in socially. Doesn't matter if they are Ti dom or Fi dom. Unless the Fi or Ti dom works for a family member or is sleeping with management. Which does happen, but that's more of a local problem than a global one.

It applies a lot more in social and interpersonal situations...No, I'm not suggesting that; I'm referring to social, interpersonal and familial situations.

We don't really have group cohesion in these personal areas in our society. It really depends on the individual family or social group as to whose values are accepted and appreciated. But our society shows it's highest approval in dollars, that's the way it is set up and who makes more dollars, has more power in personal situations or has power if they chose to take it.

Maybe they do. Good point.

If they are as bad as you claim, their earning potiental has to suffer for it, unless they are suppressing F all day on the job to such an extent that they use their social life as an outlet for it. Which could also be a possiblity.

This aspect of suppressing feelings at work and letting them explode in personal life does seem to go on a lot. I see it even in T types when they get drunk, getting drunk is a way and a outlet for their feeling shadows to come out, it's all easily forgiven when everyone else around them does this as well. I suppose for a Feeling type it would be forgiven under these circumstances too. Hey it was Friday night and they were smashed.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I do see a difference here, but for fun I have asked my ESTJ husband to comment on these two statements for you, instead of me for a change.

He says that both things are saying basically the same thing to him, but the word "ignoring" made it sound like women make an intentional choice to avoid "thinking". And that both statements boil down to the fact that it's simply more socially accepted for women to express emotion than a man. When a woman is emotional, we accept it because society says it's OK for her to show it at certain times and places.

Then he said good luck dude.

And he asked me if we're going to watch our movie now, so I'm off.

sim, I would just say sorry for any potential offense - getting into a male / female debate is just not where you want to go right now.

 

[simulatedworld]

It's not that I imagined anything, it's that your post wasn't really clear in exactly what you meant...everyone should just infer what you meant without expecting clarification?

This statement:



is a blanket statement. F-type women (not some or many F-type women) are (not may, or might, or frequently) going to get away with ignoring Thinkiong much moreso than F-type men...followed by your sentimental adage that you have such pity for the males....

The meaning here is obviously generalized. I don't see any reason to assume that it means "all F-type women will behave in x way" unless I explicitly stated that I intended to refer to all F-type women in every possible case (which I did not.)

For another example, some general MBTI statements; for instance--

Judgers will make plans more often than Perceivers.

The meaning here is obviously a generalized statement that Judgers are characterized by a tendency to make plans more often than Perceivers, on average. There's no reason to infer that is a specific description of every Judger and every Perceiver unless such is explicitly stated.

I (and others) make this sort of generalized statement all the time; I don't see why I should need to include the word "some" just to indicate that I'm not referring to 100% of cases. Given that typology is a system of generalized observations, the context should make it obvious that statements of this nature are not intended to describe 100% of all possible cases.

On top of that, you never seem to have a problem with this style of generalized statement normally--but suddenly you did when it was directed at F-type women, a group you're personally part of. The correlation between this unusual interpretation of a commonplace generalized statement and your membership in the group in question suggests that you took something about it personally.

is less clear that this statement:



I even acquiesed that I saw your point because of societal gender expectations, but that didn't stop you from accusing me of "taking it personally." I didn't take it personally. I just thought your statements in general were just beginning to get awfully categorical, emotional, and sloppy.

Of course, you just make up for that by throwing out insults. Tell me - can you go back and count how many times in this thread alone that you threw out an insult about reading comprehension at someone instead of simply clarifying or arguing the point instead of drenching it in immature Fe?

I find it odd that generalized statements such as "x group does y more often than z group" are normally standard fare for typology discussions, but not when x group is a group that you personally belong to.

Toonia (and PB's ESTJ husband, apparently) seemed to think both statements sounded the same and that both were clearly referring to societal gender expectations--not attempting to make a blanket statement about 100% of F-type women. Why did you erroneously infer that I was referring to 100% of all possible cases in the first statement, but not in the second?

I've questioned people's reading comprehension because a number of people have made it evident that they're not interested in reading my thoughts in context before complaining about them.

And I'm not embarrassed about having Fe, for the record.

 

[Jaguar]

chalk it up to FiNe imagining shit that isn't there again

The Archie Bunker of Jungian Functions.

 

[Thalassa]

I've questioned people's reading comprehension because a number of people have made it evident that they're not interested in reading my thoughts in context before complaining about them.

I think maybe people get sick of reading your wall of text after about ten pages because it can be so riddled with self-congratulatory insults and exaggerated generalizations that they get tired of wading through the shit to get to the diamonds. I know I do, and I actually deeply appreciate your posting style at times and frequently find you amusing.

And I'm not embarrassed about having Fe, for the record.

Good. You shouldn't be embarrassed about having Fe.

On the other hand, to be fair, you should be aware of how you use it and the way that affects how your posts are perceived by people who have Fi on this forum.

On one hand, your abrasive style is necessary. On the other hand, you really over-rely on it and go into overkill, then complain about how all of the Fi users are reacting to you. It's a hazy mirror of what the Fi users are doing that annoys you so much.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Plus, I just raked sim over the coals to get to emotional truth, so perhaps this isn't the best time to be too hard on him.

And trust me I know that's there's stuff in that contention that demands debate.

 

[Glycerine]

Sim, I definitely do agree that F women can get away w/ being more emotional and ignoring their thinking side. If F men do that, they are seen as wimpy and not masculine. As a result, many try to be extra macho. I don't see any offense in much of what you say but then again, it could just be the Fe-Ti commonality.

 

[simulatedworld]

I think maybe people get sick of reading your wall of text after about ten pages because they're so riddled with self-congratulatory insults and exaggerated generalizations that they get tired of wading through the shit to get to the diamonds. I know I do, and I actually deeply appreciate your posting style at times and frequently find you amusing.

Maybe the ten pages of textual explanation wouldn't be necessary if they'd stop reading implications into my words that aren't there in the first place (which FiNe has a nasty habit of doing.)

Knowing me as well as you do, do you really believe I'd expect any statement to apply to 100% of F-type women in 100% of possible cases?

Or did you just think you'd found an inconsistency in my case and get excited about pointing out how big, bad Ti man can be wrong too?

Good. You shouldn't be embarrassed about having Fe.

On the other hand, to be fair, you should be aware of how you use it and how that affects how your posts are perceived by people who have Fi on this forum.

On one hand, your abrasive style is necessary. On the other hand, you really over-rely on it and go into overkill, then complain about how all of the Fi users are reacting to you. It's a hazy mirror of what the Fi users are doing that annoys you so much.

I've already admitted that I use Fe to intentionally troll NFPs when I think they're unreasonably insisting that others bend to their feelings. I think a lot of people do this kind of thing, and I also think I'm one of the few with the gall to actually openly admit it.

What's annoying is when I make perfectly reasonable and neutral statements and NFPs show up imagining implications in my words that aren't really there. Once they do this to you enough times, trolling becomes the only real response.

Sim, I definitely do agree that F women can get away w/ being more emotional and ignore their thinking side. If F men do that, they are seen as wimpy and not masculine. As a result, many try to be extra macho. I don't see any offense in much of what you say but then again, it could just be the Fe-Ti commonality.

Thanks. 20 bucks says people don't read sexist overtones into your restatement of the same idea, though.