Fe Fakeness

[Zarathustra]

Let me know when you're done editing so I can respond.

 

[Zarathustra]

So, you are saying I am a liar here, that I am being disingenuous? That's a perfectly serious question, because that is what you are implying.

Actually, it's not at all.

This is one of a number of misreads you make in this post about what you think I am implying.

What I said was more-or-less perfectly in line with what you said yourself.

See bolded:

I am not saying that people's problems are primarily emotional (although, that is quite possibly favorably arguable in and of itself).

All I said is that I think your tendency is to believe what you put in parentheses.

If you want to talk about visceral, emotional reactions, though, I think you're having one. I, on my side, on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the strongest emotional reaction, and 1 being no emotional reaction at all, have been sitting at a 1 this whole time.

Let's talk about the pencil sharpener again. Perhaps it makes you angry because you have an anger management problem, and abandonment issues as a child. That COULD be a relevant answer to why such a little problem makes you so damned angry. Fixing the sharpener is a short term fix but you've got bigger issues that truly need attention.

Or perhaps I have asked for the pencil sharpener to be fixed 100 times before, and it still has not been fixed, and, at this moment, my pencil does not work, and I desperately need it to work during the next 20 seconds, or there will be significant negative consequences, and I'm stuck knowing that I've asked for this to be done 100x before and it's still not been done.

In this case, I would say I would very justifiably be frustrated with the situation.

You, however, have chosen to assume a situation where it's an emotional problem with me.

I most certainly DO NOT think that every problem is an emotional one, but I will say that MORE problems have an emotional origin than a person is generally aware of.

Well, yes, I think that is rather obviously the case.

There is almost zero chance that the opposite is true, unless people have a strong penchant for thinking there is an emotional component to an issue when there is not, which I don't believe is generally the case for the vast majority of the population.

Regardless, this still does not mean that you don't overassume an emotional component.

I hear what you are inferring. I don't think Jim's emotions were the issue - but I tried to address his emotions FIRST to more fully understand the issue. Otherwise, you INTJ's are no different than your INFJ cousins, expecting people to be mind-readers then eviscerating them when they don't guess correctly.

I also think Jim's issues are much farther-reaching than just being intractable on the forum, but again, that explanation is inappropriate here and beyond the purview of this post.

I was not implying anything about Jim.

Perhaps you forget too I am at a different life stage. I am not the 20-something NFP's - I swim with my red water, come hell or high-water, and for some reason, that is how I am supposed to do this, even if it means I did have to learn to jump out of the tank too.

Well, perhaps, but I don't think that's the issue.

I'm basing this off how you've dealt with me and others over the last two years.

I am not an Ni dom, I am not wired to just rethink a problem and ta-da, emotional problem solved. Of course, I do problem-solve, and that DOES often alleviate the emotional noise. But that's a fundamentally different approach I think.

...

While 20% may not want their emotions to be focused on, I'd say there's still a larger % for whom the emotion is not the real issue. They might not have a problem dealing with the emotional side (honestly, I would assume the 20% of which you speak have trouble with their emotions [probably ETJs, maybe some others]), but that doesn't mean that "dealing with that side" is really gunna fix the problem. The problem that needs to be fixed [for this next subset of people] is that the pencil sharpener needs to be fixed. Once that's done: emotional response gone. Tending to my frustration as opposed to the pencil opener is mostly a waste of time, imo. I'll probably talk with you about my frustration anyway, if you bring it up, but that's just cuz I can tell that that's how you deal with things, and I'm trying to keep things socially proper. The truth is: I just want the damn pencil sharpener fixed.

I disagree.

What exactly do you disagree with?

A significant part of that was me saying how I would prefer for the issue to be dealt with, and that's awfully presumptuous of you to think that you know how I would prefer for the issue to be dealt with more than I do myself.

Because of that fact, I'm just gunna say that you're wrong then.

I just pulled that % out of my butt anyway, so you shouldn't focus on it like gospel.

I wasn't.

Not wanting to pay attention to the emotional state or deeming it irrelevant is a totally different matter than having "emotional problems".

I'm sorry, I have no idea how this is relevant to the conversation.

It's not really salient to what I was trying to convey there.

This is not exclusively an Fi - Si thing and I did not present it as such. Your inference is too specific.

Actually, I implied no such thing.

But, yes, your inference was too specific.

I just said that I agreed that I don't like wallowing.

I also said that FiSi wallowing pisses me off.

What I didn't say is that every instance of wallowing is FiSi-related.

Not always. It's what we have to learn to use to empower ourselves and manage well.

When I wrote it, I said to myself, "Well, it's not always unproductive. It just has a tendency to be so a lot of the time."

So, yes, here you are right.

I don't think this at all.

Ok, well, what I'm saying is that often times it seems that way.

And I've noticed others independently make the same observation.

Explanation will have to come later...

This is what you said two weeks ago!



[Highest emotional peak while writing this response: 1.5]

 

[Kalach]

If I can ask someone I trust how it looks to them, since I'm in the middle of the clouded water and can't see well, they can help me navigate out of it. Once I either get out, or the dye has had time to settle, then I can start thinking about where it came from, how I can keep that from happening in the same way again (or is it just some kind of environmental hazard that I need to learn to work around), what my response should be, whether or not it has a toxic effect or is really fairly benign, etc.

Trust?

And you do your own thinking so this second person is not a tertiary substitute. What's this "trust" then? It sounds like this person or this person's presence provides some kind of stability. They're an anchor. A port in a storm, if you will. One assumes they are not unemotional. Indeed, probably they should positively not be unemotional. But, one assumes, they fulfill this role of trustee if they present stable responses. Do they? They can be trusted to reinforce structure?

How do these structures ever change?

 

[PeaceBaby]

This is one of a number of misreads you make in this post about what you think I am implying.

lol we really need to have this conversation in real life ... it would be so much more fun. You would have been able to take my pseudo-haughty hand-wringing there and had a laugh with me. I didn't misread you at all ... I was trying to inject a little obfuscation for dramatic intent, and you misread my intentional misread. ha!

All I said is that I think your tendency is to believe what you put in parentheses.

Not really. It's more like I have after-thoughts, and that's because I generally hesitate to have an 100% opinion about anything, and because my process just works like that. I need to work stuff through via speaking or writing to come to even tentative conclusions. An INFP 5 might be more eloquent, more sure, more structured in flow. Myself, as a 9, I have to spur myself to push through the sloth of having to take the feelings from my mind and translate them into words. I get lazy.

I do think it likely that someone, somewhere has argued that all "problems" are of emotional origin; after all, if you had no emotion you wouldn't know you had a problem. However, I am not here to argue that. Because, I am perfectly happy to let your processes be unique and stand-alone.

I see it more as an issue of order-of-operations. Te - Fi: You have a logistical issue that, when not readily solved, spurs an emotional reaction. Even your motivation to solve it is an emotion I would read. Fi - Te: I have an emotional sense, a feeling or feeling-tone, that alerts me to the fact I have a problem going on, somewhere. I then have to search around to find the logistical issue.

If you want to talk about visceral, emotional reactions, though, I think you're having one. I, on my side, on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the strongest emotional reaction, and 1 being no emotional reaction at all, have been sitting at a 1 this whole time.

I was at about a 2 or 3, (right now I'm just tired so I guess at a 1) but part of that is missing my kids, who flew back to Canada today. It makes me more willing to tussle with you a bit. Rather than just think, "Why bother trying to convince anyone of the validity of my claims?" Realize that 54% (roughly) of the world is Te or Fe dom and aux, and the default setting for both is "I am right" and all must then therefore be convinced that they aren't ALWAYS right. It gives a girl a lot of work. Sometimes, I just don't feel like expending the energy. Lazy 9 that I am!

Or perhaps I have asked for the pencil sharpener to be fixed 100 times before, and it still has not been fixed, and, at this moment, my pencil does not work, and I desperately need it to work during the next 20 seconds, or there will be significant negative consequences, and I'm stuck knowing that I've asked for this to be done 100x before and it's still not been done.

lol, you sound so cute, just like my husband. He would say this.

In this case, I would say I would very justifiably be frustrated with the situation.

You, however, have chosen to assume a situation where it's an emotional problem with me.

No, I don't think so. Do I think you have a problem emotionally here? No. In this thread you seem to be speaking up to a problem, and it does have what I think you see as a virtuous element to it. You are using language in the thread that has a high probability of making sure certain people DON'T take you seriously however. And you did make inference from something you read on my wall weeks ago, which was not talking about you specifically, yet you insisted that it was - and it was addressed in F-speak, not T-speak anyway. So, your less than gracious comments make it hard for Fe to hear you, and your inferences make it harder for Fi to want to hear you. This could be deemed a communication issue. Logistics + social graces. I mean, you do want to solve some sort of problem, right?

How about this - I think you give the impression it's an emotional issue, so if it's not, why are you using words and phrases that obfuscate your message? Why use the word "retard" - why call people "idiots"? (Well, I likely know why, but not everyone does know why, so why make it harder for them to see you as logical and reasonable?) So, when you give the impression that emotions may be at play, people will first approach you from an emotional vantage point. Fe-ers will naturally try to correct your socially inappropriate outburst. People like me will try to empathize and get you to open up further so I can understand the logistical truth behind the outburst. So, IRL, if you say, "The pencil sharpener is broken!!!!***$#**@&^@" I, knowing you to be a Te aux, would smile inwardly and just get someone to fix the sharpener for you. IF you did this every day though, I would start to refer you to the complementary HR stress-clinic people.

Am I communicating the nuances here? It is very detailed in my mind, there are lots of factors.

Regardless, this still does not mean that you don't overassume an emotional component.

That might be true. I often think people under-estimate how much their emotions are driving their actions. However, I let myself be a bit Fi heavy there, and you over-assumed how emotional I was feeling! On the forum, things are tricky. There are no faces to watch, vocal intonations to hear, body language to read. Just the words on a page. So, I don't deny that if I think I hear emo, esp from an Fi person, I am going to approach with an emo-approach. What else can I do?

I'm basing this off how you've dealt with me and others over the last two years.

And how is that, how have I treated you and others? That I am someone who tries to mediate peace? If you want to fault me for it, and call me a meddler, I am guilty of that.

-----

What exactly do you disagree with?

1.) I'd say there's still a larger % for whom the emotion is not the real issue.
As I already stated, I think this number is under-estimated.

2.) They might not have a problem dealing with the emotional side (honestly, I would assume the 20% of which you speak have trouble with their emotions [probably ETJs, maybe some others]), but that doesn't mean that "dealing with that side" is really gunna fix the problem.
The emotions sometimes benefit from acknowledgement. It fixes an element of the problem.

3.) The problem that needs to be fixed [for this next subset of people] is that the pencil sharpener needs to be fixed. Once that's done: emotional response gone. Tending to my frustration as opposed to the pencil opener is mostly a waste of time, imo.
Agreed. With the caveat of the pattern - if you routinely blow up at small things, perhaps this is an area that needs addressing. Then your frustration is a disruption that must be looked at carefully.

4.) I'll probably talk with you about my frustration anyway, if you bring it up, but that's just cuz I can tell that that's how you deal with things, and I'm trying to keep things socially proper.
haha , a Te person chatting with me about being frustrated just to be "socially proper"? Save your breath, if you're chatting with me about it, it's because you expect me to fix it!

A significant part of that was me saying how I would prefer for the issue to be dealt with, and that's awfully presumptuous of you to think that you know how I would prefer for the issue to be dealt with more than I do myself.

I get that - I respect it. It's pretty much how I would expect that simplistic of a scenario to be taken care of too.

-----

When I wrote it, I said to myself, "Well, it's not always unproductive. It just has a tendency to be so a lot of the time."

So, yes, here you are right.

Naturally.

Ok, well, what I'm saying is that often times it seems that way.

And I've noticed others independently make the same observation.

Well, does what I have shared help at all? I hope so, I am better talking about this stuff than writing it all out, and even talking about it, things don't come out with the nuance I want to convey.

So ask me to clarify more if it will further distill discussion.

This is what you said two weeks ago!

lol, well I did forget, and it's hard to phrase some things in an Ni-pleasing way, so it put me off the task a bit, as well as real-life stuff. But here I am now! Trying to help perpetuate understanding. And maybe be a little understood in the process.

[Highest emotional peak while writing this response: 1.5]

I bet most people would read you higher.

My highest emotional peaks in the last few posts:

Frustration: 2, mostly at feeling misunderstood for not explaining myself well
Happiness: 3, had a chuckle here and there
Annoyance: 2, I love my long fingernails, but they interfere with typing, so they've got to go tonight!
Fatigue: 4, and that's from a long drive, being sad already missing my kids, and getting in a longer typing session than I want here
Satisfaction: 2, this isn't much fun, but I feel a passion to share, so I hope it matters or makes some kind of difference

 

[Southern Kross]

Thanks for your answer [MENTION=7111]fidelia[/MENTION]! You've given me much to think about.

But, as I said before, you are going too far in projecting that other's problems are always primarily emotional.

I think you are doing this because, for you, the primary problem does tend to be emotional: Fi is dominant.

But, for others, while an emotion might be part of it, the primary problem might be rational.

This! I'm not denying that emotions enter into the equation, but they often aren't the primary issue for me. If I resolve the problem at hand, then the negative emotions also dissipate.

Hmm. True, emotions aren't always the primary issue. However, they are often quite central to gaining the insight to the problem or at least how to deal with the person. If a problem is anything other than minor, no matter how rational it is, emotions are the languages people use to communicate it; and speaking those languages is important to understanding and solving the problem.

To use an analogy: imagine someone has an electrical fault in their house and asks a electrician to come fix it. The electrician arrives to find a rabid guard dog barking ferociously in the front yard. Yes, the central problem is just the fault but the electrician still has to get across the yard to the front door. He's concerned about dealing with the dog first and foremost - ignoring it or assuming it's simply a sweet little puppy would be a big mistake. And perhaps the electrical fault is in fact caused by long-term damage by the dog getting under the house and chewing through the wiring. In that case, observing the behaviour of the dog is important, so that the real, underlying problem can be uncovered. Being told to not pay attention to the dog is nonsensical - it is at very least a reality that must be dealt with.

So the analogy doesn't work in every situation (just as anger and aggression are not always the emotions involved) but how the electrician is approaching things is similar to that of a Fi-dom. They are cautious and observant when dealing with feeling, they take the emotion very seriously, they see it as a potential obstacle (or secondary problem) to overcome in order to get to the central issue, or they are looking closely to see how it might relate to the cause of that problem. IME most people are completely oblivious as to how they emotions affect them and at times lack the personal insight to even realise what they are feeling, let alone the source of their problems. Of course my focus on emotion doesn't mean I openly dissect them (doing this is rude IMO) - it gives me the clues on whether you are seeing the situation clearly or not, what advice I offer and maybe even the word choice I use in giving that advice.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I fixed a lot of formatting above, so apologies for the edits in the post above.

Plus, I had already grabbed the car keys when Z posted his last comment "Let me know when you're done editing so I can respond."

so there Z!

 

[Zarathustra]

I fixed a lot of formatting above, so apologies for the edits in the post above.

Plus, I had already grabbed the car keys when Z posted his last comment "Let me know when you're done editing so I can respond."

so there Z!

Sweet.

I was confused as shit there for a second.

I'll get back to you when I get a block of time.

 

[highlander]

[Highest emotional peak while writing this response: 1.5]

Hmmmm..

Edit: Funny - some of the most emotional people I've run into at work have been ESTJs. I wonder why that is. Maybe it is really logic driving their behavior and I'm just not seeing it. Maybe they just express themselves more strongly and their emotions are just more obvious.

Maybe I don't understand them at all. I don't think that's right though.

 

[Tiltyred]

Trust?

And you do your own thinking so this second person is not a tertiary substitute. What's this "trust" then? It sounds like this person or this person's presence provides some kind of stability. They're an anchor. A port in a storm, if you will. One assumes they are not unemotional. Indeed, probably they should positively not be unemotional. But, one assumes, they fulfill this role of trustee if they present stable responses. Do they? They can be trusted to reinforce structure?

How do these structures ever change?

They don't. Usually the discomfort comes about because I'm not getting the whole picture. I get frustrated that something is not making sense, I zig and he zags, why is that? Why every time that happens, the other happens, which I don't want, I tried another way and that doesn't work either, how do we make this thing move? From the facts I have, I make a theory to work from, and I continue to experiment until it hums. If it doesn't hum and I can't figure out why it won't hum, I call in the Trusted Friend and explain the whole thing and hope the Trusted Friend can either point out where the thing is wrong or I am wrong. Trusted Friend may have information I don't have or may get another picture from the facts I present. What's important is that inner picture and outer picture align, or show some hope of alignment. How I feel immediately improves as soon as I can see the big picture. The fact that this is might be making me feel emotional is beside the point -- the emotion comes from a perceived reality. Is it reality or not? If it isn't, there's nothing to be upset about anymore. If it is reality but I don't like it, then there are other paths to take, depending on what tools I have or can muster. Focusing on the upset aside from acknowledging it with a little sympathy just makes me feel stupid. I wouldn't be upset if I was working it right.

 

[Tiltyred]

I swim in the red water, and listen to the radio - does that help?

All that stuff is all around me, and since I can't just jump out of the water or stop hearing the bad music, I just deal with it?

(And they are great analogies, btw.)

The most important thing about other people's emotions is how they make you feel? So since you feel what they feel, the very instant you walk into the room, they must make you feel better about their feelings?

 

[PeaceBaby]

The most important thing about other people's emotions is how they make you feel? So since you feel what they feel, the very instant you walk into the room, they must make you feel better about their feelings?

No, I feel like you SO don't get this. It's so far off-base I don't know where to start to explain. Do you truly wish to understand, and are not just poking at me? If you do, I will try ... I will try to think of something Fe-relevant.

 

[Tiltyred]

Honestly, I'm not poking at you. I left the keyboard for a while to go do stuff, and this kept running through my head. I can relate to it 100%, actually, because I pick up what other people feel, too -- but I don't expect anything from them about it. If they want to talk to about it, they will. I don't get into their business unless they do something to me or speak to me in some way that I feel I don't deserve, and even then, I will let a lot of that slide if I can see that they're upset and they're just displacing. So, honestly, in the most sincere way and not being flip, my reaction is, yeah, deal with it. I am cringing, anticipating you will think this is horrible, but I have thought about it and I don't know what else you can reasonably expect.

 

[Kalach]

WHY IS TRUSTED FRIEND TRUSTED?!

They are known to have a clearer picture? This makes sense in Te terms. Te people will, on the whole, tend to listen to another person if that person has some demonstrated authority in the current subject, or has at least the potential to be authoritative. They know their stuff so objectively one should shut their own mouth for a moment and listen up. I could see this happening with Fe too. If the other person has some demonstrated "authority"--like for example, they've heard you bitch before and have both supported and clarified, and it eased your load in a way that felt authentic--then they'll be accorded this "trust". I could see Fe types "trusting" spiritual leaders too, at least as long as those leaders didn't objectively make things worse with their teachings or their personal presentation when you met them. I could see "trust" having various degrees according to the authority the person objectively has. Is that how it works?

I could see too that these authorities and the pathways to authority (and trust) undergo renewal from time to time. Throw in a perspective, change the big picture, see a role in a new light, and re-envision that person's position as leader. Like perhaps there's someone you trust but over the years there's this nagging "feeling" of inappropriacy that you can't place and for the longest time ignore, then one day, bam! a personal discovery leading to a new judgment and thus a new structure.


The question of leadership remains an interesting one. It seems that what's obscuring its clarification is the the how of acquiring Fe leadership: it's not assumed by one person, it's given by other people! Fe types grant other people a leadership role for them. THEY TRUST SOMEONE, and voila, that person is the leader.

But there's some dynamism to it too. This perhaps accounts for that peculiar feature of particularly ENFJ leadership, where they lead like the bejesus and yet maintain they aren't leading at all.

 

[Fidelia]

The people whom I trust in situation where I have to make decisions are usually people who have a proven track record of having knowledge in the area I am consulting them, understand me well enough that their response is not going to just create more emotional noise to wade through, and whom I've observed as people who generally have good judgement and are level-headed. I think yes, I do accord varying levels of trust to people depending on how long I have known them, in what capacity, the variety of situations I've seen them in and how they've handled them, my closeness to them, my ability to have conflict with them and still successfully come out the other side, etc. I don't think authority would by any means automatically give me trust in someone. I usually need a period of observation (both personal and second hand) first.

Tilty's post before also reminded me of why I tend to trust a person. Someone who can successfully help me determine the why of a situation is someone who has performed a great service for me. I can't rest until I know the why of things and in the absence of any information to work with, I am compelled to consider all of the possible reasons and pick the most likely, although I am aware this can result in an inaccurate assessment. There's almost nothing more emotionally disturbing to me than not understanding the why though. With the why answered, I not only can shift my perspective to accommodate much better, but I also can determine what the most useful response in that situation would be.

 

[Tiltyred]

WHY IS TRUSTED FRIEND TRUSTED?!

They are known to have a clearer picture? This makes sense in Te terms. Te people will, on the whole, tend to listen to another person if that person has some demonstrated authority in the current subject, or has at least the potential to be authoritative. They know their stuff so objectively one should shut their own mouth for a moment and listen up. I could see this happening with Fe too. If the other person has some demonstrated "authority"--like for example, they've heard you bitch before and have both supported and clarified, and it eased your load in a way that felt authentic--then they'll be accorded this "trust". I could see Fe types "trusting" spiritual leaders too, at least as long as those leaders didn't objectively make things worse with their teachings or their personal presentation when you met them. I could see "trust" having various degrees according to the authority the person objectively has. Is that how it works?

Yes. Pretty much. I would say "guide" rather than "leader," and according to how much clarity they are able to provide rather than how much authority, but I think that may just be semantics. My NT that I go to when all else fails has proven himself over many years time to be kind and just and to be able and willing to verify for me or make me see that it isn't so.

The other Trusted Friend is the one who gives you a cup of tea and lets you talk until you figure it out yourself, which is often what INFJ needs, just to get it out of our heads. Once we hear ourselves talking, the picture firms up and we realize what picture we're describing, so we know what to do for ourselves.

What other kind of leadership is there except the kind people give you? (I never thought about it too much before.)

 

[Fidelia]

Yeah, that describes it nicely.

 

[Kalach]

Something disturbing me here is the nonchalance with which you guys talk of talking through some feeling. I accept that this is your area and you're as able to know and speak clearly of these things as I am in what interests me, but there's another conceptual block going on. I acknowledge that it's a block, not a disproof. It's this: I can quite easily believe in a person's ability to describe mechanisms of the world--using models, forms, shapes, talk of causes and the way things happen or should happen. For these things, in my humble estimation, there are words. But you're talking about talking about feelings!

Feelings have mechanisms? There's forms? And causes? There are models for describing these things independent of individuals? THERE ARE MODELS THAT GENUINELY ARE DESCRIPTIVE?!

Ah, LOL. It took me a while to work out how to write all that and right now, just this minute, it comes to me that all that Ti claiming that went on earlier about how nothing is objective... an Fi type insisting that there never can be a system to feeling interaction between people, this is the same deal. DOWN WITH OBJECTIVITY! YOU CAN"T KNOW WHAT I FEEL! Fi FOR LIFE!



BUT ALL THAT ASIDE...

I said earlier that a Te type would listen to someone if that someone were authoritative. The measure of that authority would be the Te of the listener. As soon as the person with authority makes a mistake, they lose part of their position as guide or leader. It's all supposed to add up for everyone. The Te story of whatever the subject is, is supposed to be accessible, reasonable, understandable to all--independent of the speaker. As soon as the authority engages in obfuscation or rests (too heavily) on their "authority" as proof of their position, they're demoted.

There perhaps by analogy is Fe authenticity. If the story of your feeling as explained (or helped to expression) by the authority rings false then... well, I don't know. Who loses authenticity then? Or do they just lose authority?


Oh god, this is all "feelings". How can feelings have "system"?!

 

[entropie]

Something disturbing me here is the nonchalance with which you guys talk of talking through some feeling. I accept that this is your area and you're as able to know and speak clearly of these things as I am in what interests me, but there's another conceptual block going on. I acknowledge that it's a block, not a disproof. It's this: I can quite easily believe in a person's ability to describe mechanisms of the world--using models, forms, shapes, talk of causes and the way things happen or should happen. For these things, in my humble estimation, there are words. But you're talking about talking about feelings!

Feelings have mechanisms? There's forms? And causes? There are models for describing these things independent of individuals? THERE ARE MODELS THAT GENUINELY ARE DESCRIPTIVE?!

Ah, LOL. It took me a while to work out how to write all that and right now, just this minute, it comes to me that all that Ti claiming that went on earlier about how nothing is objective... an Fi type insisting that there never can be a system to feeling interaction between people, this is the same deal. DOWN WITH OBJECTIVITY! YOU CAN"T KNOW WHAT I FEEL! Fi FOR LIFE!



BUT ALL THAT ASIDE...

I said earlier that a Te type would listen to someone if that someone were authoritative. The measure of that authority would be the Te of the listener. As soon as the person with authority makes a mistake, they lose part of their position as guide or leader. It's all supposed to add up for everyone. The Te story of whatever the subject is, is supposed to be accessible, reasonable, understandable to all--independent of the speaker. As soon as the authority engages in obfuscation or rests (too heavily) on their "authority" as proof of their position, they're demoted.

There perhaps by analogy is Fe authenticity. If the story of your feeling as explained (or helped to expression) by the authority rings false then... well, I don't know. Who loses authenticity then? Or do they just lose authority?


Oh god, this is all "feelings". How can feelings have "system"?!

Regarding point 2:

A leader shouldnt loose his competence if he makes a mistake. That would be in a robot army. Of leaders it is expected to make the most minimal amount of mistakes possible but leaders are nothing but humans as well. And if you yourself have ever been in a leadership position, you'd know that leading often means to take risks and those risks are always prone to be mistakes.

 

[Kalach]

Regarding point 2:

A leader shouldnt loose his competence if he makes a mistake.

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. This is extroverted thinking after all: the highest authority is the world itself and any given person is but a messenger. 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?

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.

It's a bit mysterious though. Te types in Te thrall will "tell it like it is." They'll want to lay out a descriptive story that's supposed to be shared, and checked and then used as a frame for... whatever, further thought, some action, a picnic. 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?


Eh, whatever. The discussion is supposed in the end to describe the mechanisms of what's afoot. I'm in Te thrall and looking for actionable structures (with maybe some Fi notes thrown in on where there's supposed to be nodes of universal value and thus respect).

 

[five]

That might be what I was asking for. It should answer the question: What makes a statement true? If you do that, you have answered my request.

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.