NFs and truth

[Nocap]

I posted this on INTP central some time ago, and got their perspective, but now I'm curious what you NFs here think. There's a higher concentration of you idealists here on MBTIc, so I figure I might get a little more feedback from them here.

Originally Posted by Nocapszy on INTPc

It's understood, to my knowledge universally by analysts of this strain, that NFs can believe whatever want and throw truth to the wind if it makes them more comfortable.

I admit this might not belong in the MBTI talk forum.

Since both NFPs and NFJs have minimally developed sensing facility, they're already getting "unreal" information. NFs are less likely to bother with their sensing than NTs because for NTs it's a utility - there's got to be a constant scan of the world to verify a theory, otherwise why bother, so says the rational. The idealist has no such bounds and hence their intuitions are left to meander freely and answer to no function.

I'm beginning to wonder why or how they can do this. I'm beginning to think, after dealing with a number of NFs, some of whom blatantly admit that they don't accept the truth if they don't want to. One of them ascribes her ability to the rejection of axioms.

That seems to be more the NFP mentality. The NFJs seem to have a bit of trouble procesing truth. Their shaddow side is that of the STPs. More importantly they encompass Ti. This ability, can be a great tool or a stumbling block as Ti has the ability to renegotiate things, or just put them off. Perhaps NFJs are less inclined to believe what actually is because of a lack of ability to process it, or a simple procrastination, which is never tended to and eventually forgotten due to the incessant influx of emotion brought on by Fe.

Well?

Fortunato posted another take on the situation. I'll get the quote and post it, because I think her take on it is if not more accurate, at least an interesting thought.

[Nocap]

Here it is.

Originally Posted by Fortunato on INTPc

One of my best friends irl (an INFP) has joked about this tendency of INFPs. She's stated before that she has the capacity to ignore whatever it is she doesn't want to believe and that her beliefs don't even have to make sense. (Which is probably why INFPglobal gets on my nerves so much.)

INFPs shine better in "values" areas and being true to one's own passions. This style of thinking is perfectly fine when you're dealing with things that have multiple interpretations or values where people need to be inspired or freed up from old useless pathways of thought.... truth of the outer world is less important than the truth of the inner world.

But it is not so hot when one is trying to create a working model of the outer reality.

I don't see the point in calling it fucking stupid in totality; I think it's useful when applied in the right context. And really, a lot of what is being seen isn't even in the provable or disprovable category [i.e., "rays of sun are spirits going to heaven"]. I can't "prove" that's wrong (even if I think it is bogus), but whether it's right/wrong is inconsequential for INFP -- it's the impact of what such a belief has on them and their attitude towards life that matters. That is what is right/wrong.

What I see is the ability to see too many options, or not a truth with an overriding priority (this is due to the Ni, probably)... and Ti is then used to support the confusion rather than prioritize the ideas.

Thank you, I found myself getting frustrated with some INFJ conversations lately and could not figure out why, because they are all very analytical people. I think the problem is simply that all options look the same to them, regardless of how they fit together. There has tended to not be a "best" fit. And all the Ti speak then just confused matters.

[Kiddo]

I have no problem processing truth, I just don't believe in it in the same sense that NTs do.

Truth is an interpretation of the available information. It is what people conform to believing is the most verifiable conclusion. Truth is an individual perspective. It is completely subjective and everyone sees it differently. If not, then it's because they choose to conform to someone else's perception of truth. There are no absolute truths in this world, only best fit truths that are suitable for certain situations and points in time. People and society are always changing and evolving. Truth inevitably changes and evolves with them.

Of course, I'm sure not all NFs and certainly not all NFJs feel that way.

Edit: *Just realized whose thread he replied to and quickly covers his quick*

[scantilyclad]

i never realized how much i truly do this until you posted this, but it's true. I really don't care how true something can be i will ignore it if it makes me feel comfortable. Some truth is just too painful for me to handle, i suppose that is why i do it.

[OctaviaCaesar]

I believe in absolute truth.

Other than that, I am not sure what you mean by this thread.

[Athenian200]

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

It's understood, to my knowledge universally by analysts of this strain, that NFs can believe whatever want and throw truth to the wind if it makes them more comfortable.

Not exactly. We just focus more on finding out what we value than what's true. We don't deny it, it's just that sometimes we don't let it influence our decisions. And remember, we're not the ones who invented and first applied Cartesian doubt to everything, to come up with "I think, therefore I am." Which I think might be the only undeniable truth (based on something other than sensory perception) that anyone's ever found. And I don't think Descartes was an NF, so...

But even if reality is an illusion, we can say that things work in a particular way within that illusion, and since we can't see outside of it anyway, we can at least describe the reality simulated by it. Some people even consider it worthwhile to examine video games (known simulations) to this degree.

Since both NFPs and NFJs have minimally developed sensing facility, they're already getting "unreal" information. NFs are less likely to bother with their sensing than NTs because for NTs it's a utility - there's got to be a constant scan of the world to verify a theory, otherwise why bother, so says the rational. The idealist has no such bounds and hence their intuitions are left to meander freely and answer to no function.

So you think that SFJ's and SFP's are more aware of reality than we are? Maybe, but only in the same sense that STJ's and STP's are. I do know that INFP's seem very random/strange at times in what they value, not to mention vague... it can be unpredictable at times, they often seem to come out of nowhere. Some of their values can even seem absurd to the point of being nauseating (it isn't that I don't like them, it's just that they really confuse me at these times). Anyway, I'm quite sure Ni is able to find usable patterns on it's own, even if Ne isn't. And any Judging process is only as good as the information it's given. I've seen more than one Rational come to a faulty conclusion/understanding based on an error in their initial Intuitive leap, or a failure to weigh emotions enough to predict people's responses accurately.

I'm beginning to wonder why or how they can do this. I'm beginning to think, after dealing with a number of NFs, some of whom blatantly admit that they don't accept the truth if they don't want to. One of them ascribes her ability to the rejection of axioms.

It's that we can choose to act based on values rather than truth, not that we deny truth.

The NFJs seem to have a bit of trouble processing truth. Their shadow side is that of the STPs. More importantly they encompass Ti. This ability, can be a great tool or a stumbling block as Ti has the ability to renegotiate things, or just put them off. Perhaps NFJs are less inclined to believe what actually is because of a lack of ability to process it, or a simple procrastination, which is never tended to and eventually forgotten due to the incessant influx of emotion brought on by Fe.

Well, after all, reality could be an illusion, and many parts of what are typically observed in it actually are illusions based on people interpreting things in terms of unconscious archetypes. That makes us hesitant to accept a truth we don't understand. Even the INTJ's would probably agree with that. And I think you could say that we sometimes don't react to the truth, because values are more important. Not that we don't/can't process it. In fact, sometimes I've believed something was true, but pretended to believe something else because I didn't want to hurt the person I was dealing with by telling it to them.

[cafe]

I think I said in your other thread that I believe in truth, but lack confidence in the ability of humans to arrive at it, IOW, I don't we are capable of objectivity or of seeing truth in its entirety. For that reason, I'm ambivalent about the idea. We can make observations and collect data, but in the end, we are just coming up with a (hopefully) more accurate best guess.

[cascadeco]

I personally don't feel I fall into the category of ignoring 'truth', but I suppose all of us on some level do it. But I also wouldn't say I'm a cookie-cutter NF either. I'm actually all about science and your 'facts' when it comes to 'truth.' I don't really want to live in a fantasy world that only exists because I WANT it to exist. However, I will occasionally not read certain nonfiction books, just because I already know the gist of the topic, and simply don't want to know the details. So I will sometimes 'ignore' the unpleasant just because I don't think knowing the details of the unpleasant will do me a lot of good.

Well, here are some blips that I wrote several years ago, sort of related to the topic.....



'...What I mean is that everyone looks at events and life in a certain way unique to them and depending on the way one looks at things one can explain things in many, many different ways. It all hinges on perspective. This does not mean that there isn't one ultimate reality and "way things really happen", but I think it is difficult for us to step out of our own perceptions and release all biases and pre-conditioned beliefs....This makes me recall the "balanced" vision of things - some philosophers are strictly empirical, others strictly rational, some live in a complete idealist state, others have no idealism. I think one has to have a little bit of all, or else one is omitting part of experience and humanity.....After studying 3 centuries worth of philosophers, I am convinced that there is truth in all of them, and much of the differences have to do with semantics and their personality (or how their brain is "wired" to think, reason, and process observations and information). There are obvious differences in value systems and beliefs associated with God/ethics/what have you, but this could come down to how they were brought up, their temperament, their intellectual abilities. And everyone sees the world in a certain way and leans more vs. less empirical, more vs. less rational, and so on, but an individual's inclination doesn't mean it's the right one. There might not be anything wrong with it, but it certainly wouldn't grasp reality in its true form and be un-biased in everything.....[random stuff about religious stuff]....Their viewpoint makes absolutely no sense to me and I truly believe they are wrong. But they truly believe I am wrong. So what's the solution? I could be like the other philosophers and state with utter certainty that my philosophy and belief system is the right one and everyone else is skewed one way or the other, but am I justified in this?'

etc etc. Basically I think most of us have our own strong 'truths'/beliefs, that we'll hold onto. The fact that I think I'm 'right', and think another person is 'wrong', or this is 'truth' and that 'isn't truth', is kind of pointless -- I fully recognize that just because I think I grasp 'truth', doesn't mean I in reality DO. With this in mind, I turn the tables - I also don't take much stock in ANYone saying one way is THE way, or THE truth, because they're in the same boat as I am and may be equally ignorant or blinded.

[Gabe]

"Since both NFPs and NFJs have minimally developed sensing facility, they're already getting "unreal" information. NFs are less likely to bother with their sensing than NTs because for NTs it's a utility - there's got to be a constant scan of the world to verify a theory, otherwise why bother, so says the rational. The idealist has no such bounds and hence their intuitions are left to meander freely and answer to no function."

I love how folks on random sites come up with such rediculous and one-sided arguements to make the most rediculous claims about type.
If you're a catylist, you'll also be using your sensing to see what effect your actions have on people
No, NT ideas aren't inherently more real than NF ideas. Sorry.

[PinkPiranha]

I ignore the concept of death. I suppose that's "less real".

Or just enterprising.