User Tag List

First 14546263646566 Last

Results 631 to 640 of 721

Thread: Fe Fakeness

  1. #631
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    ...
    Yeah, that was the first thing I saw.

    But watch out now, PB; now that you've disagreed with him he's gunna take away your INFP card and declare you an INTP.

    Quote Originally Posted by five View Post
    ...
    Fyi, I wasn't familiar with the Bayesian vs Frequentist split in statistics, and I don't think that's what Nicodemus was pointing to.

    I think he was pointing to your use of "a priori" and "a posteriori", which, I agree, was vague, misleading, and likely wrong.

    As Nicodemus pointed to, and as I've argued many times on here, empiricism (Te) and rationalism (Ti) are a better way to look at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by five View Post
    I'm probably almost certainly maybe definitely bad at explaining things.
    Is it possible that you have Asperger's?

  2. #632
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    MBTI
    ZZZZ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    141

    Default

    NTJ's knowledge is built from the ground up. Imagine the effort required to move a large foundational slab of concrete sitting under the Empire State building.

    Those foundations are key nodes. the higher up the hierarchy, or lower down (if we using the building analogy). The more entrenched those nodes will be. So when you bring information to the party and it attacks those nodes you going to get a severe reaction if you bring shoddy claims.

    NTP's approach things in isolation. They look at a theory and dissect it to make sure it's internally consistent with itself (Ti). They may also wait for data from Si and Ne to test the strength of the theory. These theories exist for the most part in isolation of other theories.

    For the NTJ there is only one model of the reality. Theories just plug into a giant latticework and get absorbed as part of the bayesian network.

    Does this make any more sense?

  3. #633
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    MBTI
    ZZZZ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    ^ what if Jesus was really Jesús, Steve Job's best friend who had privileged information?

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

    Don't we need to agree that we're talking about the same Jesus here First?
    No. Adding additional precision while it feels nice to the Ti user, will not alter overall, the point I was making.

    I do welcome questions around the key points though.

  4. #634
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by five View Post
    Does this make any more sense?
    Frankly, you seem to be doing a poor job explaining stuff that we've covered already ad nauseam on this forum.

    There's nothing novel or enlightening or interesting about what you're writing; you're just doing it in your own (poor) words.

    Not that I would expect you to read them, but there are tons of threads covering this material in more accessible language.

    And I'm not saying this because I'm an NTP who finds your language sloppy because you're an NTJ.

    I just think you're a bad writer. And you might have Asperger's.
    Last edited by Zarathustra; 10-12-2011 at 03:17 PM.

  5. #635
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by five View Post
    Ti user
    Told you, PB.

  6. #636
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    MBTI
    ZZZZ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by five View Post
    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.
    One can see how I operate and live and breath this. I don't have to pretend because it comes naturally to me.

    For example you can see how I used similar reasoning like the example I quoted above, to filter Zarathasura posts. My logic was his posts are not congruent with my Se experience of Ni Te users nor is his logic or style of debate etc. He has plenty of Fe and ego etc. He says he is one, which contradicts my bayesian network, I will rather ignore everything until that is resolved. Bayesian networks do not work well if the knowledge is polluted.

    So he could be an INTJ but then I'd have to throwout almost 10 years of my own experience in real life and re-evaluate so many things. Hence the burden on proof is rather on him. If he doesn't want to prove it, that's fine too, he goes on the the ignorelist.

    Now he of course would be welcome to do the same to me. But if he wants to engage it will be on mutual terms. My condition being that a person must accurately type themselves before I will consider what they are saying with regards to MBTI.

    I try to stick to that ideal, and will assume people type themselves correctly until evidence indicates to the contrary.

    That is not to say others aren't mistyping themselves as well, they probably are and I'm not just picking on Z. That is just a data point I can say for certain, there are plenty of less smart guys that aren't even on the radar.

  7. #637
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    And that is what we call Pi tunnel vision.

    A Pi dom need not have it.

    But unhealthy ones generally do.

  8. #638
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    MBTI
    ZZZZ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    141

    Default

    To further back up my claims about "foundations" and bayesian. Has any single person here put as much effort as I have into making sure the "seed" data is accurate?

    I only have 80 samples in my collection but it took 3 years to produce. Just check the revision history in Google Docs. I did real life "interviews" debated endlessly with a extremely sharp INTP to produce a solid foundation.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...hl=en_GB#gid=4

    Everyone always goes quiet when I stress the action card.

    Gee I wonder why.

  9. #639
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Because no one cares about your stupid excel file.

    And it's really weird how you always bring it up.

    Once again: do you have Asperger's?

  10. #640
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    [I wrote this yesterday, but didn't have a chance to finish and post it. My apologies for posting this after the thread has moved on.]

    Here's my take on Fi and the emphasis we place on emotions.

    First of all, I do think there is a certain amount of projection involved. I think it's hard to overstate how continually aware Fi-doms are of a kind of holistic emotional awareness. It's our primary indicator of where we are relative to our values and a detector for the emotional state of the people around us.

    Consequently, when we are in a situation when our emotional state is thrown off, it's somewhat like operating with one eye covered or having a stopped-up ear. Yes, we can function but a lot of the precision we take for granted is lost. One of our primary senses is deadened and it's a continual distraction for us.

    The emotions of others can throw us off, as well. Because tuning out our emotional state is draining and distrating, so is tuning out the effect from the perceived emotions of those around us. So, when those around us are upset/angry/sad/depressed/despondent we have to continually re-factor that into our mental model. "Why am I feeling down for no reason? Oh, right, Chris is feeling down today and I'm interacting with him."

    So, I think Zara is somewhat right in that we tend to assume that emotional upset is as distracting for others as it is for us. We don't, I think, assume it's necessarily the cause of things, but we do tend to assume the upset is important and should be attended to. Why ignore the crying baby when clearly its needs can likely be met?

    Conversely, though, I think Zara is partially wrong in that I emotions have far more effect on people than they like to admit. As Kenneth Dodge states:

    I propose that all information processing is emotional, in that emotion is the energy level that drives, organizes, amplifies, and attenuates cognitive activity and in turn is the experience and expression of this activity. There is no such act that is nonemotional[...]
    And there's a lot of truth to that, too. Emotion is what motivates and drives us and is one of the perceptible results of the whole valuation process. No one who acts, focuses or evaluates is emotion free.

    Still, I respect Thinkers and those who strive to be objective and dispassionate when possible. I think it's impossible to succeed 100%, but I'm thankful for the attempts and their results. Still, I find mature Thinkers who acknowledge their biases and are aware of how emotion influences them much more credible than those who claim to operate from some plane of pure logic.

    My own father was utterly unaware of his emotional state, and so was blind to the way it pushed him about. Years later he looked back and saw his emotional state and how it had influenced him. I think both he and I would have been much better off if he had been aware in the moment. He decisions would have been better... both objectively and because he could factor in his own subjective state and the skew it caused.

    So, yes, FPs do place an emphasis on both their own emotional state and the emotional state of the people around them. It is partially projection, because most other types are better able to ignore, suppress, or sublimate their emotions. Still, those emotions still have their effect, which some (but not all) are far too blind to.

    And those who use Je do not only adopt rational external systems, but they emotionally identify with those systems as well. The system becomes not only an effective tool but also a Value and a Truth to be defended over time—after all it has proven its worth! The very "selflessness" that Fe and Te sometime defend as a virtue is itself personally rewarding (in certain senses) because it allows Je users to identify with something greater, knowing they they earned their place there. In a sense, putting your own group or organization ahead of others is just a another form of selfishness.

    So, we are all emotional creatures in some ways. Whether it is better to deny or to embrace, acknowledge and claim is debatable. Still, there is a certain freedom in admitting "Yes, I am fundamentally irrational, and I'll do my best to take that into account and acknowledge that my judgments are limited as a result."

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