User Tag List

First 31394041424351 Last

Results 401 to 410 of 721

Thread: Fe Fakeness

  1. #401
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Bells, not balls. Cow bells, as all men know in this kingdom by the sea, are naturally bull balls. How utterly embarrassing for you.
    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8OBlq_svBY"][/YOUTUBE]

  2. #402
    Glycerine
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Giggly View Post
    I wonder if the schmoozing that's done in the business world (e.g. business networking and stuff) is Fe fakeness?
    You know like coworkers or associates acting pleased to see each or talk to each other, but in reality they don't care.
    Or someone acting interested in what the boss is saying but they'd rather be doing something else.
    Or a hiring manager giving hope to new grads by saying "Send me your resume" even though they have no intention of hiring them.

    Is that Fe?
    The majority of the people where I live are like that... we are known for our "nice" reputation. lol

  3. #403
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8OBlq_svBY"][/YOUTUBE]
    'Under the Sea' rhymes with 'Annabel Lee'. You impress me, owl man.

  4. #404
    No moss growing on me Giggly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    iSFj
    Enneagram
    2 sx/so
    Posts
    9,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glycerine View Post
    The majority of the people where I live are like that... we are known for our "nice" reputation. lol
    Well, it's definitely like that here in the business world, but are you saying everyone is like that where you live, even outside of business or school?

  5. #405
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    This is because Ni/Se doesn't care whether a conclusion is universal, but Ne/Si does.
    We're not talking about caring, though - that's Judging. We're talking about Perceiving function preferences. The preference for Ni/Se does not factor into any conclusion, beyond influencing the nature of the initial information that is later judged, nor does a preference for Ne/Si. Preferences for Fe/Ti and Fi/Te do, on the other hand, because that is the very nature of judgment itself.

    xSFJs will classify an NFP as being weird, and put them in the weird box. Interestingly, NFPs don't seem to mind this.

    xNFJs will tend to imply that the NFP is "feeling wrong," which actually annoys NFPs a lot.
    I'd say that the both approaches ask the same question - "what's wrong with that person?" The distinction is that the one preferring Si may conclude that there is something wrong with that person, and perhaps stay away or even act unkindly toward that person because to do so follows the rules of that particular social context. Change that context, and that person might be very friendly and polite, and genuinely so. The person didn't change; the context did.

    The person who prefers Ni, on the other hand, may tend toward concluding that something is wrong with that person, and not understand why that person does not change their behavior within the present context. So, a "gentle" reminder to shift one's perspective so as to respond to the context in a different way.

    Context is Ni/Se. You're conflating Te with NTJs, just as you're conflating Fe with NFJs. It plays out differently for STJs and SFJs.
    Once again, I disagree. Perception preferences only influences what kind of information we bring in, and how we prefer to access that information. Judgment preferences influence how we prefer to interpret that information. Context, and the relevance thereof, is a matter of interpretation.

    Those preferring Si/Fe will do this - there may be a standard means of interacting within a group, but even the very smallest of changes (such as a person's birthday arriving) may invoke substantial changes in the way that they prefer to interact with others (for example, paying more attention to that person, or tolerating more self-interested behavior from them). Those preferring Si/Te tend to favor universal principles - stereotypically, "duty" "honor" "country" "diligence" "steadfastness" etc.

    As a Te-aux, I must disagree. There is no "universal truth." You're talking about Te in Ne/Ti terms, here.
    Perhaps I'm constrained by language here. "Universal truth" is a vague and abstract concept, so it may be hard for me to convey what I mean. What do you think I meant by "universal truth?"

    More conflations. This is getting confusing.
    I don't see the conflation. Please explain. I disagree, though, if you think that it is because perceptive function preferences determine how we judge the importance of information, and not simply what information we have to judge in the first place.

    This is a nihilistic viewpoint that removes any common ground for discussion. Jung was very clear about his definitions of objective and subjective. They are orientations or attitudes, not Platonic ideals.
    Sorry you see it that way. I don't see it as nihilistic, on the other hand. Does it not interest you that a result is an acceptable result, because you have determined it to be so, by whatever means you found important? That even if the determinant heuristic exists entirely separately from yourself, that you still accepted the heuristic itself as important and relevant, and thus made the judgment that this is an acceptable thing? These are the very interstices of what it means to exist as a human being, in my estimation. Perhaps you see differently, and I would like to know how so, and why.

    Jung did not write much on the idea that the preferences themselves are subjective, because, simply enough, that wasn't his main focus. He distinguished between subjective and objective functions, though, in that the introvert would tend to prefer a function that dealt with the inner world over the outer, and that an extravert would tend to prefer the opposite. However, the greater phenomenological question remains - what of the preference itself? In my mind, this is indeed something that is subjective, relating to the being's unique experience of existence.

    No, it isn't. People have different ideas of what is functional. Different use cases, if you will.
    The difference is that the framework, task, or goal itself determines acceptability or insufficiency. It's universal in the sense that this sense of determinacy can persist external of circumstances, no matter what variables go into it. "It doesn't matter what you put in there, as long as you do it right, or get it right." "Garbage in, garbage out," i.e. there's nothing wrong with the answer, you just didn't ask it the right questions. The scientific method itself demonstrates this quality well - if one follows observable, repeatable methods in experimentation, one can determine whether a question is false or not. The idea of falsification itself is a universal principle.

    That's the universality of the Te preference - that meaning or value absolutely does come from something outside of ourselves. The Fi underpinning holds that there can certainly be such a thing as absolute meaning or value.

    The Ti preference, on the other hand, favors the interpretation that the meaning or value of something does not come from the thing itself (i.e. the object), but from the person's experience of understanding or accomplishment. I say that this is contextual, because once something is known or done, or occurs in a different context, it no longer has the same value or meaning as it did at another time, even if the task or goal itself is exactly the same. It's what makes a quarterback's first touchdown different from his 25th, and both of those different from his first in the Super Bowl. There is no certain answer to the question "what's it like to score a touchdown?" because it all depends on the context. The Fe oversheathing is that an accurate answer to this question is of relatively little value, because of the context, as well - the other person wants to share his own excitement of watching football with you, a person who he admires, and would enjoy feeling some sense of what that might be like. Of course, at a media presser, the answer would be different, talking about it with your wife would be different, talking about it to an audience of elementary school children would raise a different answer, as would a conversation with a disinterested person.

    All of those answers have outcomes that affect the person differently depending on the circumstances, and yet, none of them have any value or meaning separate from that, separate from how the quarterback perceived the conversations to be, or separate from how the listeners interpreted the answers. It depends on the context.

    I'm not sure what you're getting at, and certainly not how this follows from functionality somehow being a universal standard.
    Dysfunctional organizations and communities often stay that way because it's useful to many, if not most, of the members for it to stay that way. Even if everyone recognizes that by all outside standards, it's a failure, it'll still persist, because of a tacit understanding that given the circumstances, it's good enough for each even if that's for entirely different reasons.

    If a standard had to be met to maintain group acceptance, then there would possibly be people who did not meet it, and thus, the group would fracture.

  6. #406
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    well, I have to disagree on this point. ENFP Fi will not be displayed this way for the most part. Sometimes all it takes is a simple statement of "did you realize how this will effect these people if you do X?" to shift the dynamic when interacting with a TJ during a decision making process. As long as it is reasonable, and you arent playing a blame game or being overly dramatic, it just comes as another perspective and it is extremely effective. If I felt I was being carefully navigated (manipulated), I would not be keen on it. I dont mind direct requests, but indirect manuvering would bug me.
    I agree, mostly, yes ... but I didn't frame it well either as to my meaning either ...

    I am not talking about any kind of manipulation here, and it wouldn't be without an abundance of passion.

    And this isn't for the small stuff, the little daily things that just need a gentle nudge here and there.

    Anyhoodle, I'll try to explain later but for the moment, I just wanted to share that I somehow didn't explain myself well up there and will come back to this.
    Last edited by PeaceBaby; 09-29-2011 at 10:16 AM.
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


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

  7. #407
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Am I the only person who, when he reads these things, is like, "Yeah, I totally know what you mean about interacting with that type!", but, despite coming to a better understanding of the intertype relation, still gets extremely flustered and annoyed by it?

    Sometimes it feels like, even though I gain new knowledge, it doesn't actually lessen the frustration (at least not that much).

    but, still, just having that conceptual understanding does not seem enough to necessarily mitigate my frustration, or give me an easy answer to fix the situation.
    Not at all. My thoughts exactly. I find it very difficult to figure out how to apply all this "new" understanding to RL interactions, to make them more palatable and productive for all involved. It doesn't help that I don't get much opportunity for practice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    ENFP Fi will not be displayed this way for the most part. Sometimes all it takes is a simple statement of "did you realize how this will effect these people if you do X?" to shift the dynamic when interacting with a TJ during a decision making process. As long as it is reasonable, and you arent playing a blame game or being overly dramatic, it just comes as another perspective and it is extremely effective.
    Yes. I respond well to this type of input. Trying to reach the same result using a Te-style argument will usually fail, since I have probably covered these bases already, and will immediately see the flaws in it. Show me a completely different perspective, however, something I have not considered at all, and I will incorporate it.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  8. #408
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    Some people won't, though, you know. Your post brought to mind an ENTJ I know who devised a perfect-on-paper system for organizing staff under his authority, and the only one who has been able to stay in the job is an INFJ (not me) who has walked off the job twice in frustration of trying to make something work that won't work because of the problems it creates in the people's interactions and ended up going to a doctor and having her antidepressants doubled and an anti-anxiety med added to the mix to be taken as needed, to keep her from standing up, putting her purse on her arm, and walking off at 3 pm. The ENTJ thinks it is because he just has not hired the right people for the mix. He can't see that certain factors in the reporting structure etc. cause problems with interaction, and you can't tell him that. I think, because I was put in the position of mentoring some of these people, that if he had a steady stream of someone gently, quietly pointing out, "See how this happens as a result of that?" "See this happening like this again?" that he can be led to see it. But if you said flat out, "Do you realize how these changes will effect your staff?" he would not react well at all. *edit to add - He thinks his plan is perfect, it's that the people are not doing it right. So he keeps losing and re-hiring staff.* This is where I get frustration with the anti-Fe team. Respecting someone's feelings works and you can adhere to your principles while still respecting people's feelings. Sometimes it's just not effective to say things in plain English. Sometimes the round about way ("manipulation") works better. And when it's like that and I'm doing the one leading someone to what I think is a necessary realization that I can't just say to them because they're built in a way that can't hear it, I let them think they came to the conclusion by themselves and am happy not to take credit, as long as the the goal of harmony for the group is reached. These seems to me like good Fe. Am I wrong?

  9. #409
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiltyred View Post
    This is where I get frustration with the anti-Fe team. Respecting someone's feelings works and you can adhere to your principles while still respecting people's feelings. Sometimes it's just not effective to say things in plain English. Sometimes the round about way ("manipulation") works better. And when it's like that and I'm doing the one leading someone to what I think is a necessary realization that I can't just say to them because they're built in a way that can't hear it, I let them think they came to the conclusion by themselves and am happy not to take credit, as long as the the goal of harmony for the group is reached. These seems to me like good Fe. Am I wrong?
    No, you're not wrong, at least not in the part where you asked whether what you do is wrong or not.

    Where you did kind of err, if anywhere, was before that part, when you basically put your preference over others' preferences.

    I'm not saying you shouldn't take people's feelings into account -- ultimately, it's more efficient to do so -- but we all shouldn't be doing Fe, at least not as if it falls within all of our first two functions.

    People need to do what feels right and natural (authentic) to them -- keeping in mind that other people have other preferences, and that these probably shouldn't be trampled over.

    But, ultimately, we all have a finite amount of energy (libido), and if we use it in ways that are unnatural for us, that energy gets depleted faster, and we lose out on all the benefits that could've been derived from using the functions with which we are more efficient.

    It's basically Ricardo's idea of comparative advantage: do what you're good at, let other people do what they're good at, and then trade.

    To balance that out, though, the idea of marginal return should be considered: for any one function, eventually, if you're only using it, the marginal benefit derived from doing so will start to decline, and may even turn negative.

    As such, you should develop your abilities (functions) that aren't too far out of your skill set; or, in other words: you should stretch, but not too far.

    Do this throughout your life, especially when equipped with the knowledge of the functions, and, eventually, you should attain reasonable use of all the functions.

    It won't necessarily turn you into some "omnitype" or anything, cuz, more likely than not, your first two functions will still be your most libido-efficient.

    But you will do yourself the benefit of learning to utilize those 3rd and 4th, 5th and 6th, even 7th and 8th functions, when the time is right.

    And learning to do so will maximize your results.

    *tries to figure out how to be Fe fake*

  10. #410
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    I've actually only got a point or so difference between my Fe and Fi -- I have good use of both. So the Fe/Fi threads are always interesting to me. Some of the stuff further down the line, though, yeah, that can use some work. :-)

Similar Threads

  1. [Fe] Any INFJs who think Fe is "fake"?
    By SilkRoad in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 12-26-2011, 12:42 AM
  2. [NF] Other NF's hate salespeople's fake Fe?
    By Lily flower in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-15-2011, 11:09 AM
  3. [Fe] Is Fe fake or manipulative?
    By jixmixfix in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 341
    Last Post: 08-05-2011, 11:28 PM
  4. [Fe] Fe is fake and manipulative (proofs inside)
    By INTP in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-21-2011, 01:04 AM
  5. [Fe] Fe: No cute title...I just don't get it
    By sakuraba in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 11-18-2008, 09:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO