What would the world do without Fe?

[PeaceBaby]

^ Thanks Q - I pointed it out because I saw what protean was saying and felt uumlau had simply missed it rather than blew it off, so I didn't want to make it seem like no one would care about such a thing.

-----

This is what I see; it's not set in stone and I welcome your opinions too:

I'm going to make bullets; apparently Te users like them and Ti users don't but I can't help it, I have to summarize somehow.

1.) To me, it seems very obvious to say that there are additional factors that influence behaviours and motivations, more than typology. It's like saying the sun rises and sets every day. Not a single person in this thread has disagreed. We haven't jumped all over those posts to pick them apart because we ... agree. What's to discuss? (I generally rep those rather than quote the whole post.)

2.) However, we are on a forum dedicated to typology, no? So I have a lot of difficulty understanding why we cannot try to discuss such topics within the confines of that parameter too. To see what rings true or false. To see what interconnectedness may lay amongst them, if any at all.

3.) It seems to me there is a distinct divide between Fi and Fe users in this thread. Respectfully, can anyone else feel it or see the patterns that I am seeing? The INFP's, ENFP's and INTJ's (Fi dom, aux & tert respectively) are "getting" what each other are saying. The corollary appears true as well. And to grossly generalize, we don't seem to "get" some of the same jokes; we read things as serious when they are not and don't see what's serious when it is. And, we are ourselves either taken highly literally, as though we are making truth statements when we are mostly just pondering out loud OR our motivations are questioned about what type of game we are trying to play. There is no game.

4.) There's also a group dynamic at play. Some users have a longer history with each other, therefore it appears that those within those groups favor each other or rise to defend each other, or even just plain know stuff about each other. As an so-dom, I notice this all the time on the forum, but have never commented on it before. And I admire that many of you share bonds both inside and outside the forum. Me, I've never met a single one of you IRL. Still, I like to participate, even though I don't know everyone's history and am in no real "group".

5.) There is no 5. (joke.)

Probably a few people will agree with what I've wrote, and a few will pick it apart to take offence. I apologize in advance for all the blind spots I may have missed here and I sincerely express my intention is not to offend.

I promise, IRL, I do a good job of empathizing, listening, caring and appreciating. I just feel like there's a wall here and I cannot seem to scale it.

Very simply, I like to understand and be understood.

 

[proteanmix]

post

Not really worth replying to in any meaningful way so you can have it. This is where I decide I'm not going to stoop to your level. The exchange between you and I is very clear and people are free to read it and make their own assessments of the emotional temperature of the exchange.

If you think I've edited posts, feel free to ask another mod to confirm/deny and wipe the egg off your face when you're done.

ETA: It's post #377

 

[PeaceBaby]

Maybe you have me on ignore protean, but if you can see this, I think what Z meant was that he was reserving space to edit in his response if you pointed out the post for him.

Pretty sure he wasn't accusing you of editing your stuff.

 

[Qre:us]

Maybe you have me on ignore protean, but if you can see this, I think what Z meant was that he was reserving space to edit in his response if you pointed out the post for him.

Pretty sure he wasn't accusing you of editing your stuff.

Nah, PB, I'm pretty sure he meant for her to show him the post where she originally, on her own, said she may have misunderstood him and for him to thus clarify; and not a post she now has "updated" through editing to include such a sentiment.

Show me an example before editing it in, please.

Huh?

Where was this?

(pre-editing it in, please.)

He asked for it kindly though.

 

[Glycerine]

I apologize for making quite a scene today. I was just trying to make a point. Next time, I won't use my personal shit as a tool to do it. I have gone through a lot of shit in my life but so has everyone else.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Q, I guess this one is most explicit: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...-would-world-do-without-fe-4.html#post1292943

I'm tired all, must head to bed.

 

[Zarathustra]

Not really worth replying to in any meaningful way so you can have it.

Thank you for not actually dealing with the merits of my response, but simply saying I'm not worthy.

You are a shining exemplar of dignity and integrity.

This is where I decide I'm not going to stoop to your level.

Oh, and also, thank you for implying that I've stooped to some low level.

All I've said is that your point was irrelevant, and had nothing to do with what I'd said.

Go back and read it yourself: it didn't.

You're the one who said I should better develop my Fe and Se, so who started the stooping in the first place, my dear?

The exchange between you and I is very clear and people are free to read it and make their own assessments of the emotional temperature of the exchange.

True dat.

If you think I've edited posts, feel free to ask another mod to confirm/deny and wipe the egg off your face when you're done.

No egg on my face; I never said you did anything of the sort.

I simply asked that, if you had edited it in, then please understand why I did not remember you asking me to clarify where we had a misunderstanding.

 

[onemoretime]

Depending upon the source you read, it may assign empathy to either Fe or Fi.
I got fed up with listening to two women, in particular, bitch about empathy so many times in this forum that I decided to post a source where empathy was listed under Fe. But you will find it listed under Fi as well. So for those women, or any other women, to engage in any more catfights about it I will presume it's personally motivated-trolling-rather than really seeking an answer.

You mean... empathy might be a near-universal human trait? And that we favor or lack it less because of function preference, but rather more because the experiences in our lives have better or worse prepared us for acting in such an evolutionarily complex manner?

It's almost like you've studied human psychology or something.

(BTW, if the rest of y'all are still caught up in type, this is a J type "thinking outside of the box" by looking at the box and rearranging it. It's education that drives new thinking, predilection towards innovative thought only gets you so far)

 

[Zarathustra]

Nah, PB, I'm pretty sure he meant for her to show him the post where she originally, on her own, said she may have misunderstood him and for him to thus clarify; and not a post she now has "updated" through editing to include such a sentiment.

Show me an example before editing it in, please.

He asked for it kindly though.

This is accurate.

Not sure why it needed the "though", though, as I really don't think there's anything wrong with what I said.

 

[Glycerine]

You mean... empathy might be a near-universal human trait? And that we favor or lack it less because of function preference, but rather more because the experiences in our lives have better or worse prepared us for acting in such an evolutionarily complex manner?

It's almost like you've studied human psychology or something.

(BTW, if the rest of y'all are still caught up in type, this is a J type "thinking outside of the box" by looking at the box and rearranging it. It's education that drives new thinking, predilection towards innovative thought only gets you so far)

lol, I was watching a really old film called "Life's First Feelings" and it said that people are more likely to develop empathy if they were shown empathy as a little kid by an important force. If one does not have empathy, he is probably a sociopath/psychopath that did attach to an important person within the first year of life.

 

[Jaguar]

You mean... empathy might be a near-universal human trait? And that we favor or lack it less because of function preference, but rather more because the experiences in our lives have better or worse prepared us for acting in such an evolutionarily complex manner?

It's almost like you've studied human psychology or something.

(BTW, if the rest of y'all are still caught up in type, this is a J type "thinking outside of the box" by looking at the box and rearranging it. It's education that drives new thinking, predilection towards innovative thought only gets you so far)

You don't even know my type.

 

[Qre:us]

This is accurate.

Not sure why it needed the "though", though, as I really don't think there's anything wrong with what I said.

Because you started with a position of suspicion, not neutrality. Thus, you assigned a behaviour to her [editing it in after], that has negative implications to her credibility of character.

The please added after, thus, seemed like is a paradox to the abovementioned sentiment portrayed. I.e., sarcasm.

Hence, "though".

Edit: sorry, re-quoted you ^, as you edited after.

 

[onemoretime]

You don't even know my type.

Sure I do - tall, red-headed, crazy in the sack

 

[Zarathustra]

Because you started with a position of suspicion, not neutrality. Thus, you assigned a behaviour to her [editing it in after], that has negative implications to her credibility of character.

The please added after, thus, seemed like is a paradox to the abovementioned sentiment portrayed. I.e., sarcasm.

Hence, "though".

Nice explanation, aside from one part.

I didn't assign the behavior.

I assigned the potential for the act, and not so much out of malice, but moreso out of the fact that sometimes people go back and edit posts, and, if I'd missed an edit in which she asked for clarification, that this might be the reason why.

 

[Ivy]

Because you started with a position of suspicion, not neutrality.

My very, very quick scan of this thread indicates that this is a manifestation of Fe. So, like, that's progress, right?

 

[Jaguar]

Sure I do - tall, red-headed, crazy in the sack

Looks like you don't know my gender, either. Lol.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Well, Z edits lots of posts after posting them, he is just saying what he said knowing he may have missed any changes in the back & forth since his initial read ... why would we assume he was trying to be nasty to protean?

I ascribed the wrong interpretation to the edit space, but I was not incorrect in saying he wasn't accusing her of anything.

 

[garbage]

this is a J type "thinking outside of the box"

yeah, and up is down and black is white and hamburgers eat people in your magical bizarro upside down land where reality doesn't apply

 

[onemoretime]

Looks like you don't know my gender, either. Lol.

Now at what point did I mention gender in that post?

 

[Zarathustra]

ETA: It's post #377

Ok, here's that post:

I saw a contradiction because if a function motivates you to a certain behavior, then how would you see the function at work if the behavior (empathy) can also be motivated by another function?

If these are motivations:

Are they doing it because they have familial associations or any other ties to Haiti?
Are they doing it because they're French and feel some kind of former colonial tie?
Are they doing it because they want to run for Haitian president and believe they can run things better?
Are they doing it out of the unbounded goodness of their heart?

How would you know Fi (for example) made a person empathize? The other motivations still resulted in empathy. IOW, how do you know the order is function>motivation>behavior vs motivation>function>behavior. That is the pointless part to me.

If I'm not understanding then please restate your question another way so I can get it.

I guess the part in bold is where you asked for clarification.

What had originally started the discussion/argument was this post of Jag's:

Building Blocks of Personality Type: Jung's Mental Processes, Page 101:

Unique Strengths of Fe:

EMPATHY

/Thread

To which you responded:

This isn't a race; I'm not claiming Fe is more empathetic either.

Above anything else, I believe empathy is a learned skill.

To which I replied:

But couldn't you just turn around and say that the skill one is learning is to use a function associated with empathy (Fe, Fi: take your choice)?

To which you provided this response (which I have deemed irrelevant):

No because empathy is largely based on mirror neurons and neurotransmitters within the brain. Empathetic response is natural. Other babies start crying when one baby starts crying. Think of all the recent tragedies in the world of the last five years: the current flooding in Afghanistan, the Tsunami, the Haitian earthquake, Hurricane Katrina. Humanity as a Whole responds incredibly quickly to other humans in pain.

Now when you break it down to the individual level you can see a more pronounced difference in empathic response, but at that point it's hard to hash it out. Take the Haitian earthquake again. For example, a person to this very day continues to donate money to relief efforts.

Are they doing it because they have familial associations or any other ties to Haiti?
Are they doing it because they're French and feel some kind of former colonial tie?
Are they doing it because they want to run for Haitian president and believe they can run things better?
Are they doing it out of the unbounded goodness of their heart?

All of them may be material manifestations of empathy, but then you move into motivations and why someone is doing what they do and is one motivation more "noble" than the other? How do you begin to weigh?

If you want to make the argument that cognitive functions (Lenore Thomson does this) are linked to the brain then it's even harder to justify and substantiate. Feel free to speculate for a though exercise. If you want to try, go ahead but I think it's pointless.

To which I said:

I don't really see how any of that contradicted my point, but...

hayo!

To which you replied:

I saw a contradiction because if a function motivates you to a certain behavior, then how would you see the function at work if the behavior (empathy) can also be motivated by another function?

If these are motivations:

Are they doing it because they have familial associations or any other ties to Haiti?
Are they doing it because they're French and feel some kind of former colonial tie?
Are they doing it because they want to run for Haitian president and believe they can run things better?
Are they doing it out of the unbounded goodness of their heart?

How would you know Fi (for example) made a person empathize? The other motivations still resulted in empathy. IOW, how do you know the order is function>motivation>behavior vs motivation>function>behavior. That is the pointless part to me.

If I'm not understanding then please restate your question another way so I can get it.

Which, upon re-reading, still seems like horrible inferior Ti reasoning to me...

What exactly is the supposed contradiction?