User Tag List

First 6789101858 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 721

Thread: Fe Fakeness

  1. #71
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EJCC View Post
    You can have fantastic conversations with people you aren't friends with, as long as they don't have a pre-established notion of you as being someone not worth talking to.
    Not being liked and not being worth talking to are different things to me. I think if I tried, I could have a meaningful conversation with Peguy (who very much dislikes me).

  2. #72
    Senior Member redcheerio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    E9
    Posts
    912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I wonder if this correlates with your having tertiary Fe and my having tertiary Fi...
    Possibly! But first, you wonder if what correlates?


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Well, to be honest, it would likely never happen.

    I once gave a member on here a piece of advice via pm: don't start fights that you don't already know you've won.

    I don't get into arguments about topics I don't understand, and I always keep my mind open to acknowledge the value of someone else's (true) position.
    That seems to imply that you only argue to prove yourself right, and not to learn. Others here like to get into discussions and/or arguments to learn, which means stating what they believe to be true, and maybe even arguing it, to see what others come back with, knowing that someone might show them new information they hadn't thought of, and possibly proving them wrong.

    When someone comes back by shitting on them for not being absolutely right in whatever they stated, it discourages them from engaging in intellectual discussions where they are not experts, which is very limiting.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I wouldn't go around making truth claims that I didn't know for a fact.

    I would qualify my statements properly, and give way where my interlocutor's argument was correct.
    Many people are much more casual and less formal in their interactions here. Sometimes people like to just state an opinion in order to simply participate, or to facilitate discussion.

    If people can only state things they know they can prove to be absolutely true, there would be a lot less discussion, and a lot less learning around here.

    Many of us like the freedom to discuss our opinions about things we don't know that much about yet, because that way we can learn more. By shitting on people for not being absolutely correct in their statements, you are infringing on this freedom.

  3. #73
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Fi users aren't necessarily focused on bringing anything out in others -- they're focused on their own damn selves.

    This might end up stirring up other peoples' Fi, but it doesn't mean that's really their primary aim (if it's even their aim at all).

    You seem to be putting an Fe-oriented spin on what it is Fi-users do.
    Actually, you're putting a TJ tert/inf Fi spin on Fi in general. There's a difference, even among those for whom the function is primary. Tertiary and inferior are less mature, and will come off more like you described; as concerned more with self than with others. In a preferred position, it will tend to often be about bringing out something in others; at least for NFP's. It also leads them to acquiesce to others, as you can even see in some descriptions. The person infers the other's needs from his own needs (and a sense of universal values), and is prone to defer to the other, until someone really violates his values.
    It's quite different than with the toughminded TJ.
    Fe users may indeed be following what is genuinely guiding them (which would seem to be authentic), but what is guiding them is not actually internally sourced, it is externally sourced (which would seem to be inauthentic).
    In a way, there is some amount of an internal source to it, because when you extravert a function (according to Jung), you're merging the subject with the object, and introjecting yourself into the environment "to give it life and soul".

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    There is an interesting question here that I'm never quite certain how to resolve...

    What exactly is happening when Fi (or more generally, an internal source [an introverted function]) turns outward. Is it still the introverted function, or is it being turned outward via an extroverted function?
    This is a common confusion of function definitions with behavior. That's what's being "turned outward" there. Behaviors can be used to get a rough idea of a function, but it can't be taken too far. So the e/i distinction in F is not necessarily about "expressing" emotions versus holding them inside, or "thinking about others" versus "thinking about self". It's about the relationship to the object in making an evaluation. (Either merging with it, or devaluing it and omitting what's irrelevant to the subjective factor). Others focus and self focus alike are just the humane (personal--F) aspect of it.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  4. #74
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio View Post
    Possibly! But first, you wonder if what correlates?


    The quote of yours that I quoted directly above what I wrote...

    That:

    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio
    To me, it seems more productive to use a little Fe to understand where others are coming from, than to take your approach of shitting on everyone you see as "wrong".
    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio View Post
    That seems to imply that you only argue to prove yourself right, and not to learn.
    Note: @bolded

    And, no, it's not just to prove myself right.

    It's to reveal what is true and what is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio View Post
    Others here like to get into discussions and/or arguments to learn, which means stating what they believe to be true, and maybe even arguing it, to see what others come back with, knowing that someone might show them new information they hadn't thought of, and possibly proving them wrong.
    Note: @bolded.

    It is a different thing to discuss than to argue.

    If you were to look at my posts, you would find that I don't go around "shitting on people" who come into a thread and ask questions.

    I "shit on people" who come into threads and make truth claims that are not in fact true.

    I do so, and, more accurately, as I have shown above, I do so to their position, because untruth should be shit on.

    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio View Post
    When someone comes back by shitting on them for not being absolutely right in whatever they stated, it discourages them from engaging in intellectual discussions where they are not experts, which is very limiting.
    My position on this is that someone shouldn't come into a thread (or anywhere) making truth claims that they don't really have the intellectual authority to back up.

    If they falsely claim this authority, then I claim the authority to shit on their position (and perhaps splatter on them a bit).

    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio View Post
    Many people are much more casual and less formal in their interactions here.
    I'm not SolitaryWalker here; I don't think my style is really all that "formal".

    I'm just saying: don't make truth claims when you shouldn't be.

    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio View Post
    Sometimes people like to just state an opinion in order to simply participate, or to facilitate discussion.
    And they are free to.

    But if they claim it as truth, yada yada yada...

    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio View Post
    If people can only state things they know they can prove to be absolutely true, there would be a lot less discussion, and a lot less learning around here.
    This should be obvious by now from what I wrote above, but, just to make sure it's sunk in: they can state whatever it is they want; just don't state it as a truth claim, if it's not in fact true.

    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio View Post
    Many of us like the freedom to discuss our opinions about things we don't know that much about yet, because that way we can learn more.
    That's fine.

    Just don't go around claiming that unfounded opinions are truths.

    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio View Post
    By shitting on people for not being absolutely correct in their statements, you are infringing on this freedom.
    And if I were to stop myself from doing so, then that would be allowing their sensitivity to infringe on my freedom to shit on their untrue truth claims.

  5. #75
    this is my winter song EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    18,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Well, Nicodemus and I stand on the same side.

    I don't know you particularly well, but are you sure you're not an ESFJ?
    People have been asking me that a lot recently! All I can say is:

    1) My philosophy is Fi and not Fe (because part of my philosophy involves being harsher to close friends than to acquaintances because I "know that they can take it" -- which is pretty damn Te if you ask me!),
    2) Needing to be liked and having a shit-ton of Te are not mutually exclusive,
    3) I have a strong 2 wing, like I've said before, and
    3) Read my thread to see my Te in action.

    Also, @fidelia and @PeaceBaby can vouch for me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Not being liked and not being worth talking to are different things to me. I think if I tried, I could have a meaningful conversation with Peguy (who very much dislikes me).
    Wow! See, when I have conversations with people who I know hate me, it feels absolutely horrible -- even if I get meaningful information from it, it just hurts me. (Again: 2 wing.) Although in work/task-oriented situations, I have a pretty easy time turning off the emotional part of my brain and just Getting It Done -- regardless of how anyone thinks of me. Conversations are different though.
    ~ g e t f e s t i v e ! ~


    EJCC: "The Big Questions in my life right now: 1) What am I willing to live with? 2) What do I have to live with? 3) What can I change for the better?"
    Coriolis: "Is that the ESTJ Serenity Prayer?"



    ESTJ - LSE - ESTj (mbti/socionics)
    1w2/7w6/3w4 so/sx (enneagram)
    want to ask me something? go for it!

  6. #76
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Actually, you're putting a TJ tert/inf Fi spin on Fi in general. There's a difference, even among those for whom the function is primary. Tertiary and inferior are less mature, and will come off more like you described; as concerned more with self than with others. In a preferred position, it will tend to often be about bringing out something in others; at least for NFP's. It also leads them to acquiesce to others, as you can even see in some descriptions. The person infers the other's needs from his own needs (and a sense of universal values), and is prone to defer to the other, until someone really violates his values.

    It's quite different than with the toughminded TJ.
    I can accept this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    In a way, there is some amount of an internal source to it, because when you extravert a function (according to Jung), you're merging the subject with the object, and introjecting yourself into the environment "to give it life and soul".
    I accept this as well.

    And, ha, yup, you led right into my post that dealt with this...

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    This is a common confusion of function definitions with behavior. That's what's being "turned outward" there. Behaviors can be used to get a rough idea of a function, but it can't be taken too far. So the e/i distinction in F is not necessarily about "expressing" emotions versus holding them inside, or "thinking about others" versus "thinking about self".
    Yup, I totally agree with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    It's about the relationship to the object in making an evaluation. (Either merging with it, or devaluing it and omitting what's irrelevant to the subjective factor). Others focus and self focus alike are just the humane (personal--F) aspect of it.
    I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it gets a little too Ti gobbledegookish for my liking.

    Particularly the bolded.

  7. #77
    Senior Member redcheerio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    E9
    Posts
    912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    The quote of yours that I quoted directly above what I wrote...
    OK, I see what you mean now. The first time I read it, I could see how it related to my tertiary Fe, but I didn't understand the connection to tert Fi so wasn't sure what you were referring to, but now I see it. Wow, you may have even been slightly self-deprecating there. <*impressed*>


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    And, no, it's not just to prove myself right.

    It's to reveal what is true and what is false.

    It is a different thing to discuss than to argue.

    If you were to look at my posts, you would find that I don't go around "shitting on people" who come into a thread and ask questions.

    I "shit on people" who come into threads and make truth claims that are not in fact true.

    I do so, and, more accurately, as I have shown above, I do so to their position, because untruth should be shit on.

    My position on this is that someone shouldn't come into a thread (or anywhere) making truth claims that they don't really have the intellectual authority to back up.

    If they falsely claim this authority, then I claim the authority to shit on their position (and perhaps splatter on them a bit).

    I'm not SolitaryWalker here; I don't think my style is really all that "formal".

    I'm just saying: don't make truth claims when you shouldn't be.

    And they are free to.

    But if they claim it as truth, yada yada yada...

    This should be obvious by now from what I wrote above, but, just to make sure it's sunk in: they can state whatever it is they want; just don't state it as a truth claim, if it's not in fact true.

    That's fine.

    Just don't go around claiming that unfounded opinions are truths.
    OK, I understand your position, and I'm pretty sure most others "got it".

    What I'm trying to point out is that sometimes people state their opinion in a way that sounds like a "truth claim" to you, and without a disclaimer. And sometimes they argue as if their opinion is "truth", but only as a way to promote discussion for learning.

    For some people, argument = discussion.

    Also, this is as big of a personal rule to push on people here, as any unhealthy ESFJ's insistence on social rules:

    My position on this is that someone shouldn't come into a thread (or anywhere) making truth claims that they don't really have the intellectual authority to back up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    And if I were to stop myself from doing so, then that would be allowing their sensitivity to infringe on my freedom to shit on their untrue truth claim.
    That presupposes that they are indeed trying to make a "truth claim".

  8. #78
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,130

    Default

    just to make sure that we have our definitions straight here...

    fake



    ... yeah... I just felt like posting boobs some people are so SERIOUS :horor:
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  9. #79
    011235813
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio View Post
    That seems to imply that you only argue to prove yourself right, and not to learn. Others here like to get into discussions and/or arguments to learn, which means stating what they believe to be true, and maybe even arguing it, to see what others come back with, knowing that someone might show them new information they hadn't thought of, and possibly proving them wrong.

    When someone comes back by shitting on them for not being absolutely right in whatever they stated, it discourages them from engaging in intellectual discussions where they are not experts, which is very limiting.
    I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I'm going to offer my Fi-induced(?) perspective on arguments anyway. In my opinion, there's a pretty clear distinction between discussions and arguments.

    I don't really see the point in arguing for the sake of arguing or taking up positions that I don't commit to intellectually or morally. That's not to say I don't learn from conversations with others. If someone has something to say that I don't know about or I understand imperfectly, I'll listen to them until I figure out what I think. I might occasionally ask a question or two for information, or suggest potential counter-examples to see if they've considered them or allowed for different possibilities, but I'm not doing it to disagree or argue per se. I'm doing it with the assumption in mind that I'm trying to arrive at a better understanding of something I don't know about by working out possible knots and snarls, and that bouncing an idea around often sheds new light on it.

    With that in mind, I've never found that a combative attitude to discussions helps me learn or understand any better. It's often too polarizing and it diverts attention from the issues at hand unless I'm very careful (which takes a good bit of energy.)

    If I'm actually arguing, it's because I feel strongly enough about something that I've got to put my views out there. I'll admit that when I get to that point, I really don't want to have to learn from what the other party is saying because I'm already convinced I'm right and they're wrong. I'm usually quite receptive and accommodating but any serious assault on my values is going to anger and upset me to the point where I don't care what the counter-arguments are. All I need to do then is call it like it is (to me, anyway. It might be "irrational" to others, but I don't care because I am right.) I can't keep it up forever which is why I back away if something has gone on too long; I can only rephrase something so many times before it gets totally boring, and anyway, it's not my prerogative to decide whether other people agree or disagree with me.

    I try to couch my words in polite terms as far as possible because I don't like hurting people's feelings unnecessarily. If there's a polite way to make my point without diluting the content, I'll take it. That said, I don't want to sound conciliatory when I am, in fact, trying to voice my disapproval.

    ------

    Completely tangential remark: Ye gods, another Fe vs. Fi thread. Good job, @Ginkgo.

  10. #80
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio View Post
    OK, I see what you mean now. The first time I read it, I could see how it related to my tertiary Fe, but I didn't understand the connection to tert Fi so wasn't sure what you were referring to, but now I see it. Wow, you may have even been slightly self-deprecating there. <*impressed*>


    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio View Post
    OK, I understand your position, and I'm pretty sure most others "got it".

    What I'm trying to point out is that sometimes people state their opinion in a way that sounds like a "truth claim" to you, and without a disclaimer. And sometimes they argue as if their opinion is "truth", but only as a way to promote discussion for learning.
    I actually feel you here, and I noticed this caveat in my previous response, so I'm glad you brought it up.

    The thing is, many people come here looking for answers, they come here looking for truth.

    In my opinion (and feel free to disagree with me, but I'm gunna do me regardless), in part because of this, it would be problematic to allow this place to get so caught up in worrying about people's feelings that truths become indistinguishable from untruths. I think a spade should be called for a spade, and I don't believe I should have to spend so much of my energy, as I said above, wrapping the truth up in a pleasant package, when it's time and energy-consuming enough just to deliver the raw truth as it is.

    I find shitting on people's false truth claims to be an effective way of saying, "Hey, don't go around making truth claims, if you don't really know what you're talking about. Feel free to qualify what you're saying, recognizing that you're just speaking out loud, or trying to figure out what the truth is, but don't go around making it sound like you're an authority on the matter, when obviously you're not."

    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio View Post
    For some people, argument = discussion.
    I will correct what I said before, and say that argument is a form of discussion, but not all discussion takes the form of an argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by redcheerio View Post
    Also, this is as big of a personal rule to push on people here, as any unhealthy ESFJ's insistence on social rules:
    Now don't make me go and shit on your half-assed truth claim!



    Note the strikeout: but, like, yeah... duh...

    Look at what Kalach was saying in that other thread: we're all bringing our own cognitive preferences into our discussions.

    I'm not denying that by any means.

    I'm just saying, if you're gunna do you, then I'ma do me.

    Furthermore, as Peacebaby pointed out, at least mine are objective objective.

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