User Tag List

First 13536162636465 Last

Results 621 to 630 of 721

Thread: Fe Fakeness

  1. #621
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    In practice, no. In principle though, as soon as there has been some mis-match between what the authority says and what the rest of the robot army can see, then that authority is over.
    That's your Ni overlay speaking, not strictly Te though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Individuals are supposed to maintain an independence that positively requires that they see for themselves. So the art of peculiarly extroverted judgment authority lies in making it possible for other people to see the world as it is. And perhaps in the case of extroverted feeling authority, to feel the world as it is?
    Yes, that's right. That's exactly right as I feel it. Te and Fe are "always right", see? In fact, they may NOT be "right" or correct, but it's the vantage point of origin, it's the perspective both start from.

    Te sees the building blocks as items in the world; Fe sees them as people. This connection.

    I like how my Te dom husband expresses it, "If I didn't think I was right, why would I say anything, of course I think I am when I say what I think." Fe is just like that too ... but people are trickier, there's sometimes nothing objective to point to in the "real world" to substantiate perceptions, so, enter the creation of complex social structures, by which people and their behaviour can be judged as effective or ineffective (right or wrong). This also drives the need to seek out and find commonality in feeling, to strike consensus.

    Ni - Fe is more consultative in this approach when the water is muddied for them I think. Many other Fe types are not so, and seem much quicker to levy judgement based on accepted "rules" of interaction in their social circles, "Oh you couldn't believe what she said yesterday" or "What she wore to the party was just so inappropriate". Ni's concern to see the picture clearly before they react on such data is the difference - so enter the trusted person(s). The trusted person can provide data that reframes the social judgement, "Did you know her husband lost his job? Obviously there's stress and money trouble" and that data can drive a new compassion that forgives the faux pas above.

    -----

    Aside:

    You know what really bakes my beans though? Sometimes I get annoyed when I am not allowed in the circle, that I don't get to be a "trusted person" within my small purview or when I "lose my lustre" having unknowingly broken an Fe rule or two (which the Ni type will be unlikely to express verbally or aloud, you just feel judgement levied and the distancing) - gosh, it seems unfair. I make a place for a person in my life, a cozy Si place that's there forever to maintain our friendship, and poof an Ni person has moved on, and I get the sense that it doesn't matter much whether we had a friendship at all. Ah well, thankfully those moments are very few, three people that come to mind, from relationships originating in my twenties (where we're all just learning I suppose) and there's still a little pang of loss for me. I know they don't think ill of me. It's just that ... they don't think about me. Funny too, that Fi - Si place can be visited like time hasn't passed at all in the friendship, and we pick up where it left off ...

    I am not complaining btw, I just tend to take ownership of the situation, "What did I do wrong?" as opposed to the Fe perspective of "I did what was the right thing to do". It's highly likely I didn't even do much of anything wrong, I just feel a need to give some type of explanation for myself, so I assume I must have done something. It's a common Fi vantage point I think. "What did I do to mess this up?" Then, enter an Fe user, who says, "Well, you must have done something!" and doubt and indecision enter in, and starts off an Fi - Si loop where every interaction is examined for error.

    -----

    I'm going on and on about this because I'm trying to get at the actual habit individual people seem to have when in thrall of Je, namely that of being directive. They assume authority. They assume the right to explain and dictate. They tell it like it is.
    Well, yes - Te "tells it like you see it", and so does Fe, which dictates the how and why you should be feeling for the most successful outcome - either of which may or may not be correct btw. But assume a position of authority? Absolutely. Te and Fe both. Either an objective authority or a moral one - authority both.

    Both are the leaders orchestrating either the people-dance or the logistics-dance.

    Then there's someone like me, who watches you both doing what you do, and I can study it to emulate it in order to achieve my own objectives. But I am not inborn with this skill, but what I do have is a great ability to see what works and what does not, and can simulate each with generally a high degree of success. But each approach requires a high energy output, not being my natural bent.

    But what's the analogous Fe-type-in-Fe-thrall action? Do they "tell it", lay it out in impersonal words? Do they emote it like it is, splashing out with histrionic gestures or Hindu calm faces or whatever? Do they have a goal?
    Yes, they often have a goal, always have a direction, and use their people insights and well-placed nudges of emotion to get there. But maybe some Fe folks can say more about that, rather than me. I might use language that's not exactly what Ni - Fe would use.
    "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

  2. #622
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by five View Post
    NTJ approach is bayesian
    NTP approach is frequentist

    NTJ approaches truth a priori
    NTP approaches truth a posteriori

    I haven't seen another INTJ on these forums yet. And until there is Se around here, things will be skewed. I have seen NTP's act like NTJ's on here though. Eg Steve Jobs appeared ENTJ, because of the environmental effect of ENTJ friend and rival Bill Gates over 25 years.

    I know the argument style of NTJ and approach a mile away. Spent 10 years with both NTP and NTJ frameworks.

    Ignore what I'm saying (aggravates Fe) or treat it as a 50/50 (Ti) "opinion", at your own expense to expedient learning.
    That is not only almost meaninglessly vague, it can also be read as saying that all NTJs are rationalist while all NTPs are empiricists. We both know that is nonsense; well, I know it is. Furthermore, I was not even asking for what you believe NTJs to believe; I was asking for your personal conception of truth. So your second try does not really cut it either.

    And how exactly is the rest of your post, the parts concerning your experience with fellow STJs NTJs, at all pertinent? I hope the third try will contain fewer attempts at autofellatio.

  3. #623
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    MBTI
    ZZZZ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    That is not only almost meaninglessly vague, it can also be read as saying that all NTJs are rationalist while all NTPs are empiricists. We both know that is nonsense; well, I know it is. Furthermore, I was not even asking for what you believe NTJs to believe; I was asking for your personal conception of truth. So your second try does not really cut it either.

    And how exactly is the rest of your post, the parts concerning your experience with fellow STJs NTJs, at all pertinent? I hope the third try will contain fewer attempts at autofellatio.
    All NTJ's use a bayesian approach to truth.

    All NTP's use a frequentist approach to truth.

    The approach one uses is tied to cognitives functions. The cognitive functions one uses determines the person's type. Cognitives are neural circuitry in the brain. This is mapped out eventually in our DNA.

    I can't make it clearer.

    You are getting annoyed because you have no way to see the truth of what I'm saying. Your own approach is not a priori, so you cannot evaluate my statements with respect to a global framework only withing the conceptual framework of MBTI space. This is very limiting however.

    Classic Te vs Ti and Ne vs Ni.

    Also instead of getting personal at the perceived arrogance of tone on my part, how about simply asking what you don't understand in a more structured and precise way and separate out the feeling from your response so that truth may be entertained better.

    One can be arrogant in tone and humble in content. Or arrogant in content and humble in tone.

    Being arrogant in tone has no implication on the objective truth of the statements.

  4. #624
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default


  5. #625
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    MBTI
    ZZZZ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Another problem you have is that your whole model of MBTI has bad data points in it.

    I only add things into my bayesian filters once I absolutely am sure 100% of the person's type. Feeding crap into a bayesian is very bad idea. It's foundational.

    Feeding average data with some bad apples into a frequentist system is actually Ok for the system. It can handle it.

  6. #626
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    MBTI
    ZZZZ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    141

    Default

    It's a classic Ti Ne Bias when they see crude Te or Ni arguments to assume faulty deductions, and hence discard the the main point that was being made.

  7. #627
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Or maybe you're just a bad writer.

  8. #628
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    MBTI
    ZZZZ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    And how exactly is the rest of your post, the parts concerning your experience with fellow STJs NTJs, at all pertinent? I hope the third try will contain fewer attempts at autofellatio.
    It is rather arrogant to assume I'm arrogant. I merely pointed out the observation to continue to assert I'm the only INTJ around here and that has key relevance to the point I was making of bayesian (NTJ) vs frequentist (NTP).

    In a bayesian model the node are treated with different weights some exceedingly extreme. Thus if an ACTUAL INTJ is talking about INTJ's then that will count say 90% vs 10% of someone else who is probably not one. In this case we can assume node as person. Hence whatever I'm going to say will just be another data point in the NTP's view. And it all gets averaged out. NTP's use statistical views on everything,without even realising it, using their Si's and Ne's for the data.

    Now I'm not saying NTP's don't use bayesian approaches in the context of a model sometimes, but that is not their overall approach to EVERY piece of data coming in to their senses, it is not fundamental to the hardware, it is a emulated approach.

    Eg1 if I go to supper and someone is explaining a business idea it is getting evaluated from a bayesian approach. I may know absolutely nothing about the industry he is talking about but I can make insights based on a priori knowledge from other domains.

    If someone ask's me the if it's summer or winter, I take a bayesian approach to answer.
    If someone want's to know who will win the 2012 elections my answer is bayesian. You may have noticed I talk about "fundamentals" before. These are simply important nodes in the NTJ bayesian hierarchy.

    That is what gives NTJ's the confidence, the bayesian model just spits out an answer and its assumed "true" until proven otherwise. Proven otherwise, means shown evidence to cause the bayesian network to readjust itself to accomodate a learned fact.

    Any of this making sense to anyone?

  9. #629
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    MBTI
    ZZZZ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Here is another example.

    Let's say my buddy Cliff says: "Hey Jesus told me Steve Jobs died of AIDS actually not cancer"

    I will take a Bayesian approach to that fact. Here is what happens.

    Does Jesus exist?
    No (very strong node and high up in the hierachy)For Ti's sake No means 99.99% no etc.

    Is the condition "Jesus existing" necessary for the statement Cliff made, necessary to be true?
    Yes.

    Therefore ignore the statement. No information can be learned from it. Steve Jobs may or may not have died of AIDS, but what Cliff is saying takes us no nearer to the truth of that.
    Lastly, before one writes it off completely, can it be possible that actually Cliff is telling the truth?

    Possibly but then he'd have to produce extraordinary evidence because "Jesus exists" being true, would have a profound effect on all subnodes in the hierarchy and a major shift would have to take place and recalibration. Hence the push back will be strong against the statement will be strong. Hence the requirement for evidence must be extremely high.

    This will be viewed then by those that don't use a priori knowledge in everything they do to seem "arrogant" or "judgmental" etc or a whole slew of touchy feely things.

    That is how truth works for all NTJ's.

    I'm probably almost certainly maybe definitely bad at explaining things.

  10. #630
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    ^ what if Jesus was really Jesús, Steve Job's best friend who had privileged information?

    Or, if Jesús was really a code name for a secret mole high up in the Apple organization?

    Don't we need to agree that we're talking about the same Jesus here First?

    Cause, the answer to "Does Jesus exist?" may possibly be Yes, from a number of vantage points ...

    *takes off silly hat*
    "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

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