• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What would the world do without Fe?

Sesshoumaru

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
110
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
First of all, what a war zone! I hope I don't interrupt you from firing your weapons at each other! But anyways... A world without Fe would be my ideal, No lies, no fake to help others, not conforming, we would probably be true to ourselves and to everyone else! Fi is what makes us "human", what you really feel inside, but Fe is validated from an external source, meaning that it wants to conform to the others, that I could actually say it's a subordinate of an Fi (socially speaking), it just follows! Then this proves Fe a lie itself... And one of my mottos is: if you're going to mess around with feelings, you'd better stick to yours and not to the others'. Anyway... I find feelings disgusting and kind of unreal to logic and to make decisions (when I really need to make them...)
 

Kasper

Diabolical
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
11,590
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
A world without Fe would be my ideal, No lies, no fake to help others, not conforming, we would probably be true to ourselves and to everyone else! Fi is what makes us "human"...

Kay, now go find a valid description of Fe that mentions all the things you suggest it is and shows you're not actually talking out your ass ;)
 

Sesshoumaru

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
110
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Then again... Quote complete posts...

Extraverted Feeling
Extraverted Feeling Function

Well, the connections are deeper... Just so that you know, good politicians are dominant Fe users, or dominant Te users as well... Love to use things to lie to people and make them have faith in them to change... Besides, you're missing the point... Fe, because of it's external validation, remains untrue to the self, which in many occasions, is different from the collective consciousness... It seeks to fit... And to fit often involves being false... When you really fit, then you're using your Fi, not Fe, because you would be yourself.
 

Kasper

Diabolical
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
11,590
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx

Someone with Fe isn't devoid of self. Your links say nothing of what you're suggesting.

Just so that you know, good politicians are dominant Fe users, or dominant Te users as well

There have been politicians of all types.

Besides, you're missing the point... Fe, because of it's external validation, remains untrue to the self, which in many occasions, is different from the collective consciousness... It seeks to fit...

I'm not missing your point, I'm challenging the conclusion you have come up with. Fe seeks external values, but that does not conclude that it must be untrue to the self.

And to fit often involves being false... When you really fit, then you're using your Fi, not Fe, because you would be yourself.

And what you are here doing is adding value judgements to what Fe is by saying it's about lying and fakeness.

You are making the mistake many other people do, they attempt to explain to others what is wrong with something they don't know about. Don't assume, ask. And while you're at it read the thread, this has been raise many times.
 

Sesshoumaru

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
110
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Like I said, the connections are deeper... It can't be just put in the words the article is... You have to do a little criticizing of your own... Now, politicians have been of all types, I know that (I didn't say there haven't), and it's not the issue here, what I posted there is that the good ones are one or the other... For the third one... It MAY be different to the true self, otherwise, I would have had stated "it's always untrue to self". For the fourth... When I don't know an issue, I remain silent, but right now I know what I'm talking about, that's why I'm telling you this.

I'm not assuming, I'm stating a deeper principle here...

And then again... Like I said before... I don't want to mess up in your war...
 
Last edited:

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Like I said, the connections are deeper... It can't be just put in the words the article is... You have to do a little criticizing of your own... Now, politicians have been of all types, I know that (I didn't say there haven't), and it's not the issue here, what I posted there is that the good ones are one or the other... For the third one... It MAY be different to the true self, otherwise, I would have had stated "it's always untrue to self". For the fourth... When I don't know an issue, I remain silent, but right now I know what I'm talking about, that's why I'm telling you this.

I'm not assuming, I'm stating a deeper principle here...

And then again... Like I said before... I don't want to mess up in your war...

hehe, this post totally reaffirms my confirmation of you as INTP. :)

anyway, in all friendliness, let's debate a bit...

A world without Fe would be my ideal, No lies,

i can give Fi reasons for lying, too - for example, lying if you feel like the lie will better support your ultimate cause. occasionally i'll lie to get around rules, if they clash with my principles. that's a pretty Fi motivation.

no fake to help others,

any way you look at it, you help someone else because it benefits you in some way - anything from simple feelings of altruism all the way to monetary compensation. plus, Fi "fake" help (ie, not for the sake of the person themself) could be not liking a person at all but still helping them anyway because you believe it's the right thing to do.

not conforming,

possibly true in terms of social behavior alone, but this really has nothing to do with motivation, which is, in my opinion, what makes something good or bad. what i mean is, there are a lot of different reasons to act in a similar way to those in your environment.

we would probably be true to ourselves and to everyone else!

this sounds rhetorical, but i mean it seriously: when is anyone ever "not themselves"? it's a logical fallacy. regardless of how i act, i am being true to myself. there is always an internal reason why we decide to act against a value, even if we don't want that reason to be seen as part of our identity.

Fi is what makes us "human", what you really feel inside,

to an extent, yes, but i would also say that i am not only my inner feelings and values, and my feelings and values do not fully define who i am.

but Fe is validated from an external source,

a person's beliefs and actions must always be internally validated in some way, otherwise they would simply quit believing or doing them, wouldn't you agree? any external action is gonna be validated at some level by either Ti or Fi.

meaning that it wants to conform to the others,

just like Fi, it wants to connect with others. one way to do that is to get on the same level as another. conform for the sake of conforming? no. conform for the sake of communication? more likely. but there can be Fi reasons too, like if you believe in the same ideals as the group in question and their reasons for uniformity (representative meaning in ceremonies, for example) - or in trying to get an important message across.

that I could actually say it's a subordinate of an Fi (socially speaking), it just follows!

odd then that generally FJs are more natural leaders than FPs! even if Fe as a function did have a tendency to follow others, Fe never works alone. it is moderated by Ni or Si. i would say that Ne has a tendency to latch onto whatever is in the environment, but given Fi moderation (not to mention the rest of the spectrum of functions), i'm not just a leaf being blown about by the wind.

Then this proves Fe a lie itself...

i don't think a cognitive function in and of itself can even be a lie... that'd be like saying verbal fluency is a lie... it's just not really something that's eligible to be a lie?

And one of my mottos is: if you're going to mess around with feelings, you'd better stick to yours and not to the others'. Anyway... I find feelings disgusting and kind of unreal to logic and to make decisions (when I really need to make them...)

lol well then i dunno why you're making yourself out to be an expert on Feeling! no offense, but if you can't see far enough into it to grasp the emotional aspects of Feeling as more than disgusting and unreal (emotion is actually quite rational if you think about it, being a biochemical mechanism), then i'm not really sure you're in a place to be able to make an adequate value judgement (ie, Feeling judgement) of Feeling.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Fe, because of it's external validation, remains untrue to the self, which in many occasions, is different from the collective consciousness... It seeks to fit...

This is true of all e functions. But the "untrue to the self" part is a misrepresentation. All e functions are, prima facie, untrue to, which is to say, not in accordance with, wait for it.... i functions. But that's just prima facie. In actual operation people, if they're being "people", mix i and e (and S and N and F and T) content together to arrive at their choices. Actually, if Fe people really did spend all their time bending themselves into accord with pre-established social norms, they'd rightly be called only semi-conscious as individuals. They wouldn't be bringing to bear their own subjective content. They wouldn't actually be making decisions. Is this in fact how they operate?

And to fit often involves being false... When you really fit, then you're using your Fi, not Fe, because you would be yourself.

To fit, one may from time to time cause the cramped space that's been set out for you to be changed. It seems like mature Fe (like mature Te) would be at least as creative as conformative.

So, embrace your Fe.

Actually, no, one embraces their Fi. If it's Fe, perhaps you have to embrace a neighbour. Free hugs, INTPs! Off you go, out into the world, and start delivering those hugs! Practice on a tree.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
He (u) is so submerged in "function-talk", defending the validity and effectiveness of evaluations using singular functions, that there was no acknowledgement of what Pitseleh actually shared.

...


It felt, to me, a weird discord in response by uumlau towards Pitseleh's post, but I do believe he was just using her post as a jump-off point for his own thoughts, and it was nothing against consciously trying to dismiss her, or her experiences. And, I dunno if he even thought on this level of evaluation: the collective sympathy/emphathy phenomenon?

- Fe/Fi difference in reaction? Or just differing levels of social courtesies?

I was a little :huh: but I didn't take it personally. Ironically, I was a little surprised by Protean's response and was seriously wondering what I should be feeling and thinking. "Should I take offense to his post or approach his post intellectually?" Her post was much appreciated by me nonetheless. :D Based on Uumlau's post history, I figured his motive was truly not to bait and offend people so I didn't hold anything against him. He and I are on good terms, FWIW.

I feel like the invisible woman here at the moment.

I asked Pitseleh myself in this thread about whether that was true or a joke. The ;) threw me off, just like Jag making comments that are falsehoods but putting a winky beside them. So, I asked.

I didn't think uumlau "blew it off" - if I can be so bold as to assume he missed that as well, just as I did.

Yeah, I somewhat regret saying that because it was a really dark comment but it was kind of like saying, "Do you guys seriously think Fe or Fi is starting out at mistrust? Isn't life experience an important factor in determining stuff like that?" Plus, I had been thinking about trust issues outside of MBTI earlier. I was thinking of deleting it but I had to go do some errands and Uumlau made his post before I got back.

Pitseleh, thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. It is much appreciated.

I read your statement as saying exactly what I bolded, above. I hope that my reply conveyed that I heard that message. Life experience is an important factor; the functional discussion is simply an attempt to figure out to what degree the functions play a role.

W/r to the emotional content of the comment, I didn't address it directly because I didn't believe you were asking for sympathy, but simply using the extremity of the example to make your point.

Also, I am somewhat uncomfortable with expressions of sympathy, because I generally don't take them well, myself: they feel condescending to me ("Oh, poor baby!"), rather than supportive. I have to make myself smile and accept them as they are intended. Because of this, I have no idea what I could say that would express support without condescension, that would make it clear that I appreciate what you shared, and even now I don't. However, in my time, I've learned that a hug is often appropriate:

:hug:

No words to take out of context and wonder what they "really mean." :)
 

Ivy

Strongly Ambivalent
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
23,989
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6
Isn't what's referred to as Fe in type theory also something that "makes us human"? Humans are social primates. Fe is like picking bugs out of your best friend's fur to help her relax, or showing your teeth to a rival to make them understand you intend to compete.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I'd like to give an analogy I recently thought of to compare Fi and Fe. (Or any other Jungian functions, but this is the bone of contention, here.)

We keep on trying to say what Fi "is" or Fe "is." Well, they aren't "is"-able, not in the way we usually think. I tend to fall into the functional language that is common on the forum, because I regard it as shorthand for a much more complex concept that doesn't admit any verb I can think of in the English language.

Fe and Fi might best be thought of as "frames." These frames, in turn, determine how one perceives this, that or the other thing. These different frames can look at the same thing, and talk about the same thing, but what ends up being seen and said sounds completely different, even if, for example, people of both frames are equally moved by an emotional situation.

The analogy:

According the the special theory of relativity, how one perceives lengths and distances and the flow of time, and even simultaneity itself, is different. Let's say we have a "stationary frame" and call it Fi. And a "moving frame" and call it Fe. :newwink:

Now, according to the theory, one can have identical rulers and clocks in both frames, yet still take different measurements of the same thing. The Fi frame sees the Fe frame as "shorter" in the direction of motion, and perceives the Fe clock as going "slower" than Fi's own clock. If there are two events, A and B, that happen at different points in space, it is possible for the Fi frame to measure that A happens before B, while Fe "erroneously" claims that B happens before A.

It gets better, though: let's re-label what we called "stationary" and "in motion" The Fe frame feels just as stationary as the Fi frame. Moreover, the Fe frame sees the Fi clock going slower. And the Fe frame sees that the Fi lengths are "shorter" than the Fe lengths in the direction of motion.

So you get arguments like:

Fi: Your clock is slower.
Fe: Pardon me, but it is your clock that is slower, not mine.
Fi: What are you talking about? It's self evident that your clock is slower, AND you're shorter, too!
Fe: Who's calling who shorter, pipsqueak?! You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're shorter!
Fi: *fumes* How can you be so unreasonable?
Fe: Yeah, right, as if *I* am the one being unreasonable.

Sound familiar? :devil:

There's a way out of it, but it's difficult. Each needs to refigure things out in the others' frame. In special relativity, this is easy, because Einstein (through Lorentz) gave us the formula. We can do the math, and prove that, after all, neither the observer in the Fi frame, nor the one in the Fe frame, is being unreasonable.

But when dealing with MBTI/Jung, there's no math we can do. We each need to make an effort to bridge the gap ourselves, to put ourselves in the "other frame," if only for a little while. Our only clues come from those in the other frame, to whom we need to listen closely and hopefully we manage to find a way to apply both.

When we're doing it right, I believe it would sound something like, "How can that be true? How are you perceiving things such that you would come to that conclusion?" as opposed to, "There's no way that can be true."
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
Isn't what's referred to as Fe in type theory also something that "makes us human"?

Yes . . . it is. I can't imagine a world without Fe. But then I never have been particularly fond of corpses.
 

Halla74

Artisan Conquerer
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
6,898
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Yes . . . it is. I can't imagine a world without Fe. But then I never have been particularly fond of corpses.

Especially not gerbil corpses.
They are not at all fun to be around. :laugh:
 

Sesshoumaru

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
110
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Well, if we talk about reasons... I'm not really convinced that the feelings even have a reason... Do something because you "feel like doing it?" this sounds irrational to me! And if you do something to get something else in return, then that would be better accomplished by Te, or something that actually has a reason to act...

Yeah, I probably am in the wrong place, but feelings seem to be too shallow... Not having a real logic reason to act.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
I am wondering if the only method of communication that both Fe and Fi users can accept as authentic inquiry into personal values, behaviours and motivations, is active listening.

Two examples from thread:

1.) When I noted protean's anger, I provided an example of misinterpretation, but did not address her feelings. Instead of the example, our interactions would have likely gone differently if I had said, "protean, I hear you saying that function analysis in incomplete, even perhaps irrelevant, in its ability to analyze actions and behaviours, that there are way more factors at play that everyone appears to be forgetting. To me, it looks like the fact that no one is addressing it is making you feel angry." To which a likely reply would have been, "That's right, I do feel angry because I see this misinterpretation all the time on the forum and it's ridiculous." etc. protean would feel heard and understood. Anger diffused, I could have expanded it to note my example, further misunderstanding averted.

2.) When uumlau did not directly address Pitseleh's comment on her time in an orphanage, anyone who felt he was being insensitive in not addressing it could have responded thusly, "uumlau, your analysis is interesting and I see some stuff in there I agree with and some I'm not sure about. But Pitseleh is an Fe dom and just revealed she's got direct experience with trust issues unrelated to functions. To me, it looks like you might be ignoring the data she's provided you with, and that makes it look like you're not sensitive to her situation." To which uumlau would reply as above, "W/r to the emotional content of the comment, I didn't address it directly because I didn't believe you were asking for sympathy, but simply using the extremity of the example to make your point. " etc. etc. uumlau would thus have an opportunity to clarify, misinterpretations averted, no one jumps to conclusions, discussion carries on.

So that's my take-away from all of this.

Active Listening. Online of course you can't do all of the body language stuff, but at least one can try to reflect, clarify, paraphrase or empathetically reflect. Before jumping to conclusions or putting words in someone else's mouth.

(One of the things I disagree with in active listening though is some of the body language, look them square in the eye stuff. Some folks find that confrontational or intimidating and some won't open up when under what feels like such direct scrutiny.)

But we can all try to apply the basics:

Attending

A: Eye contact
B: Posture
C: Gesture

S.O.L.E.R.

Five steps to attentive listening

Squarely face the person
Open your posture
Lean towards the sender
Eye contact maintained
Relax while attending

Paraphrasing

What is it?
Restating a message, but usually with fewer words. Where possible try and get more to the point.

Purpose:

To test your understanding of what you heard.
To communicate that you are trying to understand what is being said. If you’re successful, paraphrasing indicates that you are following the speaker’s verbal explorations and that you’re beginning to understand the basic message.
When listening consider asking yourself:

What is the speaker’s basic thinking message
What is the person’s basic feeling message
E.g.
S: I just don’t understand, one minute she tells me to do this, and the next minute to do that.
X: She really confuses you.
S: I really think he is a very nice guy. He’s so thoughtful, sensitive, and kind. He calls me a lot. He’s fun to go out with.
X: You like him very much, then.

Clarifying

What is it: Process of bringing vague material into sharper focus.

Purpose:

To untangle unclear or wrong listener interpretation.
To get more information
To help the speaker see other points of view
To identify what was said

e.g.
I’m confused, let me try to sate what I think you were trying to say.
You’ve said so much, let me see if I’ve got it all.

Perception Checking

What is it: Request for verification of your perceptions.

Purpose:

To give and receive feedback
To check out your assumptions
e.g.
Let me see if I’ve got it straight. You said that you love your children and that they are very important to you. At the same time you can’t stand being with them. Is that what you are saying?

Summarizing

What is it: pulling together, organizing, and integrating the major aspects of your dialogue. Pay attention to various themes and emotional overtones. Pout key ideas and feelings into broad statements. DO NOT add new ideas.

Purpose:

To give a sense of movement and accomplishment in the exchange
To establish a basis for further discussion.
Pull together major ideas, facts, and feelings
e.g.
A number of good points have been made about rules for the classroom. Let’s take a few minutes to go over them and write them on the board.
We’re going all over the map this morning. If I understand you correctly,
The three major points of the story are…

Primary Empathy

What is it: Reflection of content and feelings

Purpose:

To show that you’re understanding the speaker’s experience
To allow the speaker to evaluate his/her feelings after hearing them expressed by someone else
Basic Formula:
You feel (state feeling) because (state content)

e.g.
Student: I just don’t know how I am going to get all this math homework done before tonight’s game especially since I don’t get most of this stuff you taught us today.

Teacher: You are feeling frustrated and stuck…You are feeling frustrated and stuck with math you don’t know how to do and you’re worried that you won’t figure it out before you go to the game.

The main fear for you seems to be fear -- you’re really scared of losing your relationship if things don’t get better.

It’s upsetting when someone doesn’t let you tell your side of the story.

Advanced Empathy

What is it: reflection of content and feeling at a deeper level.

Purpose: To try and get an understanding of what may be deeper feelings

e.g.
I get the sense that you are really angry about what was said, but I am wondering if you also feel a little hurt by it.

You said that you feel more confident about contacting employers, but I wonder if you also still feel a bit scared.

Source: Active Listening Skills
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Fe and Fi might best be thought of as "frames." These frames, in turn, determine how one perceives this, that or the other thing. These different frames can look at the same thing, and talk about the same thing, but what ends up being seen and said sounds completely different, even if, for example, people of both frames are equally moved by an emotional situation.

Exactly.

So you get arguments like:

Fi: Your clock is slower.
Fe: Pardon me, but it is your clock that is slower, not mine.
Fi: What are you talking about? It's self evident that your clock is slower, AND you're shorter, too!
Fe: Who's calling who shorter, pipsqueak?! You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're shorter!
Fi: *fumes* How can you be so unreasonable?
Fe: Yeah, right, as if *I* am the one being unreasonable.

Sound familiar? :devil:

Or, in the case of Protean and I (and friends):

Fe: But I think A is B.
Fi: Well, A could just as well be C, so aren't they both essentially groundless?
Fe: No, A is B!
Fi: Ummm... you didn't contradict what I said...
Fe: Yeah, I did!
Fi: Ummm... no, you didn't...
Fe: Yeah, I did! Why are you blowing me off?
Other Fe-user: Why are you being a dick, Fi?
Other Fi-user: Why do you think he's being a dick? I don't think he's being a dick...
Fi: I'm not being a dick.
Other Fe-user: Yeah you are; let me try to prove it!
Fi: :doh: this is stupid...
Fe: I'm leaving
Fi: Ummm... you still haven't shown how A couldn't be C just as well as it could be B...

There's a way out of it, but it's difficult. Each needs to refigure things out in the others' frame. In special relativity, this is easy, because Einstein (through Lorentz) gave us the formula. We can do the math, and prove that, after all, neither the observer in the Fi frame, nor the one in the Fe frame, is being unreasonable.

But when dealing with MBTI/Jung, there's no math we can do. We each need to make an effort to bridge the gap ourselves, to put ourselves in the "other frame," if only for a little while. Our only clues come from those in the other frame, to whom we need to listen closely and hopefully we manage to find a way to apply both.

When we're doing it right, I believe it would sound something like, "How can that be true? How are you perceiving things such that you would come to that conclusion?" as opposed to, "There's no way that can be true."

It's so funny how you tend to use special relativity to explain perspectival relativity, cuz back in my college days, when I was Nietzsche-crazed, I always found it interesting how, in the mid-to-late 1800s, Nietzsche basically propounded a relativistic perspectival theory, and that, about 50 or so years later, Einstein comes along and does the same thing scientifically.

It was like the intuition for relativity came first (via Ni, as channeled through Nietzsche), and was then proved rationally (via Ti, as channeled through Einstein).

It's just really cool/funny to see this all working itself out on this board.

:cheese:

Wikipedia's entry on Perspectivism said:
View
Perspectivism, which takes root in Hume's Empiricism and Kant's Idealism and was further developed by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, rejects objective metaphysics as impossible, and claims that there are no objective evaluations which transcend cultural formations or subjective designations. This means that there are no objective facts, and that there can be no knowledge of a thing in itself. This separates truth from a particular (or single) vantage point, and means that there are no ethical or epistemological absolutes.[1] This leads to constant reassessment of rules (i.e., those of philosophy, the scientific method, etc.) according to the circumstances of individual perspectives.[2] “Truth” is thus formalized as a whole that is created by integrating different vantage points together.

We always adopt perspectives by default, whether we are aware of it or not, and the individual concepts of existence are defined by the circumstances surrounding that individual. Truth is made by and for individuals and peoples.[3] This view differs from many types of relativism which consider the truth of a particular proposition as something that altogether cannot be evaluated with respect to an "absolute truth", without taking into consideration culture and context.

This view is outlined in an aphorism from Nietzsche's posthumously-assembled collection Will to Power.

In so far as the word “knowledge” has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.—“Perspectivism.”

It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against.[emphasis added] Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.

– Friedrich Nietzsche; trans. Walter Kaufmann , The Will to Power, §481 (1883-1888)

Interpretation
Richard Schacht, in his interpretation of Nietzsche's thought, argues that this can be expanded into a revised form of “objectivity” in relation to “subjectivity” as an aggregate of singular viewpoints that illuminate, for example, a particular idea in seemingly self-contradictory ways but upon closer inspection would reveal a difference of contextuality and of rule by which such an idea (e.g., that is fundamentally perspectival) can be validated. Therefore, it can be said each perspective is subsumed into and, taking account of its individuated context, adds to the overall objective measure of a proposition under examination.[4]

I had never read it before, nor heard of the man, but I am very much in agreement with Shacht's interpretation, as described here.

It's also, basically, exactly what you were saying, uumlau.

A very Ni (read: true) way of looking at things.

:cheese:
 
G

garbage

Guest
I've also seen a lot of this, from my perspective:

Dude 1: Here's an idea--A.
Dude 2: Okay, my idea is B. Here are the problems I see with A.
Dude 1: Yeah, but A'.
Dude 2: Okay, here are the problems that I see with A'. Am I understanding you correctly?
Dude 1: [no reply and/or no addressing of the counterpoints, dismissal of the whole thing as irrelevant without providing any reasoning]

Dude 1: Here's an idea--C.


When that happens, we really don't get at any truths because we're just out to protect our own egos.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I've also seen a lot of this, from my perspective:

Dude 1: Here's an idea--A.
Dude 2: Okay, my idea is B. Here are the problems I see with A.
Dude 1: Yeah, but A'.
Dude 2: Okay, here are the problems that I see with A'. Am I understanding you correctly?
Dude 1: [no reply and/or no addressing of the counterpoints, dismissal of the whole thing as irrelevant without providing any reasoning]

Dude 1: Here's an idea--C.


When that happens, we really don't get at any truths because we're just out to protect our own egos.

I don't think it's "just out to protect our own egos." I'm sure that comes into play fairly often, but nearly as often (if not more often) I see people just reading things in their own perspectives, and dismissing other points not because to do so would be to acknowledge "defeat", but because the other point doesn't really make sense to them.

I usually have this experience only if the other person is making a key unspoken assumption that I have not been able to pinpoint. My points get dismissed over and over again, for no obvious reason, but if I should happen to find that unspoken point, I get an "Oh, why didn't you say so in the first place?!" and the conversation is back on track. Both sides have unspoken points which they believe to be "so obvious," they get left unsaid, and the other person's points just don't make sense when taken together with the "obvious" "unspoken" critical point that one assumes in one's own frame of reference.

Where this seems to jibe with Jungian functions is that people who "share" certain Jungian functions appear to have few problems with the unspoken points and assumptions in each others speech: they seem to have the same frame of reference, somehow.

That isn't to say that we never get into crosstalk issues with these same people, but that that there is an overall pattern of easy vs. difficult communication that appears to be based on certain shared functions. In fact, the purpose of correlating such phenomena with shared (or unshared) functions is to help determine whether the cause of misunderstanding is "different frames" or "they're only trying to protect their ego" (or whatever other assumption one would make based on one's own frame of reference).
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I don't think it's "just out to protect our own egos." I'm sure that comes into play fairly often, but nearly as often (if not more often) I see people just reading things in their own perspectives, and dismissing other points not because to do so would be to acknowledge "defeat", but because the other point doesn't really make sense to them.

I usually have this experience only if the other person is making a key unspoken assumption that I have not been able to pinpoint. My points get dismissed over and over again, for no obvious reason, but if I should happen to find that unspoken point, I get an "Oh, why didn't you say so in the first place?!" and the conversation is back on track. Both sides have unspoken points which they believe to be "so obvious," they get left unsaid, and the other person's points just don't make sense when taken together with the "obvious" "unspoken" critical point that one assumes in one's own frame of reference.

Where this seems to jibe with Jungian functions is that people who "share" certain Jungian functions appear to have few problems with the unspoken points and assumptions in each others speech: they seem to have the same frame of reference, somehow.

That isn't to say that we never get into crosstalk issues with these same people, but that that there is an overall pattern of easy vs. difficult communication that appears to be based on certain shared functions. In fact, the purpose of correlating such phenomena with shared (or unshared) functions is to help determine whether the cause of misunderstanding is "different frames" or "they're only trying to protect their ego" (or whatever other assumption one would make based on one's own frame of reference).

+1,000,000
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
Where this seems to jibe with Jungian functions is that people who "share" certain Jungian functions appear to have few problems with the unspoken points and assumptions in each others speech: they seem to have the same frame of reference, somehow.

That isn't to say that we never get into crosstalk issues with these same people, but that that there is an overall pattern of easy vs. difficult communication that appears to be based on certain shared functions. In fact, the purpose of correlating such phenomena with shared (or unshared) functions is to help determine whether the cause of misunderstanding is "different frames" or "they're only trying to protect their ego" (or whatever other assumption one would make based on one's own frame of reference).

Very well-expressed. And I agree.
 
Top