"In a certain light, wouldn't nuclear war be exciting?"

[Thalassa]

Exactly, it's very strange.

But surely not all Fi users are like that? I can't believe many people would be able to think in such an unreasonable way, regardless of their MBTI type.

But you see, Ti often looks the same to Fi users. I remember the first time someone told me logic could be internally measurable my reaction was "HAHAHAHAH are you crazy? Only crazy people would think their internal measurements were logical. Logic clearly comes from outside, and is an agreed-upon contruct."

Te.

And Fe users see Fi users the same way, Fe is like "Surely ethics only exist so that people can agree upon them and get along more nicely, right?" Or something.

 

[Thalassa]

But would going around expressing oneself with care and strategy to counteract each person's tricks while your trolls get away with being their troll selves be empowering from every functional point of view?

Exactly. You get it.

 

[En Gallop]

Fi tends to kind of believe that what's true for you is fine if its different from me as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, in the Fi user's estimation. I think if the Fi type sees real peril, then they'll say something, and if not, they won't.

Being on the forum is a way for me to refine my ethics. Contrary to popular belief, I don't go around screaming in anyone's face, nor do I go around correcting other people's morals. My ESFJ friend did that. She would tell other people how to feel.

Me, I don't do that. I passed myself off for YEARS living with my Argentine friends as the sweetest, nicest, quietest person. When they finally saw me get upset about something, it was impressive, like whoa what the fuck is she possessed. Because that's usually how chill I outwardly am, as long as people stay out of my space.

I also recently rented from some Russians who lived in the same building as me, as they always thought of me as so nice and sweet, and other people actually had problems with them. I have no idea why.

So the thing about Fi is that it's actually pretty hidden the vast majority of the time IRL. I think writing is a different matter entirely, which is probably why INFPs are stereotyped as authors/writers and ISFP as artists or song-writers. It all comes out then. Like screw you guys, I'm going home.

But yes I do feel more strongly about some of my ethics than others. Of course. And if anyone messes with me or mine, they are asking for it.

Ah right. That's very interesting! I'm now certain I'm not an Fi type haha (if there was any real doubt).

My goal is to be a sci-fi/fantasy novelist, so I like writing too. I don't have any real ethical message or anything to give though, or any passion to vent, I just enjoy playing with cool ideas and scenarios.

 

[En Gallop]

But you see, Ti often looks the same to Fi users. I remember the first time someone told me logic could be internally measurable my reaction was "HAHAHAHAH are you crazy? Only crazy people would think their internal measurements were logical. Logic clearly comes from outside, and is an agreed-upon contruct."


Te.

And Fe users see Fi users the same way, Fe is like "Surely ethics only exist so that people can agree upon them and get along more nicely, right?" Or something.

Haha that's exactly how I see ethics! It's just a system of getting along better together, for the benefit of everyone.

Erm, I wouldn't say Ti "measures" things... More it has a need to have all the little and large pieces of all the ideas it's interested in fit together in a nice, symmetrical way with no contradictions.

 

[Thalassa]

Ah right. That's very interesting! I'm now certain I'm not an Fi type haha (if there was any real doubt).

My goal is to be a sci-fi/fantasy novelist, so I like writing too. I don't have any real ethical message or anything to give though, or any passion to vent, I just enjoy playing with cool ideas and scenarios.

Any type can be a writer, I was just mentioning that's why I think those stereotypes exist.



It would be the approach the writing and the style and so forth, the message, more than being a writer in and of itself.

 

[Coriolis]

But would going around expressing oneself with care and strategy to counteract each person's tricks while your trolls get away with being their troll selves be empowering from every functional point of view?

I don't know, but the opposite is certainly not.

But of course. However, my point was that to call emotions of two different people equally valid and thus cancelling each other out doesn't seem justified.

They are equally valid, in the sense that they are what each person is actually experiencing. They cannot be denied, and must simply be acknowledged for what they are. This is why emotions alone make a poor basis for decisions. Even I can relate to the idea that A might be important to me, but not-A is even more important to you. If I care about you, and the decision is not critical, I will let you have your way just for this reason. For truly consequential decisions, though, this is ill advised.

The tangled noodling doesn't strike me as incoherent so much as it is large. In that case there are two notions of coherence to consider. The more standard notion is of logical coherence, and seems to me to refer to moving imagery back toward the outside. The outside contains, or is taken to contain, the relatively more fixed standards of measure. The other notion of coherence is--well, I probably should have called it non-contradiction. I think for introverted perception the one standard we use for determining interest in options is to what degree and at what level, the new thought contradicts other images. There's a wide variety of levels of contradiction that make images more interesting, and it may be only fundamental contradiction that stops something being thought. But, yeah, I might be using "contradiction" in the wrong way here. It's not logical contradiction, but a state of disagreement between image content.

That's introverted perception, I think. A process of creating depth of image by creating new images out of contrasts with old. So... "coherence testing", more or less.

"In a certain light, wouldn't universal peace and common prosperity be dull?"

I have seen this opinion much more often than the opinion that nuclear war (or other disaster) is exciting. The rest of your comment is accurate IME. Internal coherence is the most important yardstick for Ni alone, inasmuch as we can even consider it that way. Coherence with anything external is more a matter for Te.

 

[Ginkgo]

Actually, no. You'd be discussing the form of a concept and how and when it can apply. Very likely you'd end up with a picture of how elements of the situation do take the same form as those seen in times and places and events that excite, and that probably--and as far as the discussion goes, uninterestingly--those elements would be significantly outnumbered by forms that horrify or just plain kill.

How people are unable to see that concepts have parts... I am shocked and amazed. All the terminological hairs the logicians will split, and the feelers will endlessly categorise, and still there is no room for skinning conceptual imagery and looking at its jiggly bits?

FOR SHAME, TYPOLOGISTS! FOR SHAME!

It excites! That's the effect it influences on the world! This very quality interacts with the things and people around it!

 

[Kalach]

I have seen this opinion much more often than the opinion that nuclear war (or other disaster) is exciting. The rest of your comment is accurate IME. Internal coherence is the most important yardstick for Ni alone, inasmuch as we can even consider it that way.

Also, come to think of it, saying the criterion is "coherence" emphasize the static aspect of Ni, but when claiming "What if" for Ni I was trying to get at the dynamism. When a new piece of the outside world is brought inside, or some old piece of the inside is brought into play against another, there's some dynamic interaction. A third piece arises from the mixing of the first two and describes how the first two cohere. So there is a certain whatiffyness involved in Ni activity. What if this image is made to mix with this other image.

Still, that dynamism eventually winds down if external stimulation goes away completely, I guess.

 

[Ginkgo]

No. It's not due to peer pressure. If I was one to cave to peer pressure, I'd join everyone else in their fanciful nihilistic conjecture.

"Everyone else?"

I wasn't referring to you, specifically. The poll results are actually in the favor of the people who aren't excited by nuclear war in any respect.

However, now that you've made this about yourself, I may as well play along. You regard sensors as your peers and you believe they abhor conjecture for conjecture's sake. It comes down to your perceptions, and you made a referral to others of your type. What better way to explicitly demonstrate a symptom of peer pressure.

You guys really should read more about how Se types do not like conjecture for conjectures sake; it's distasteful, since it can't (or at least probably won't) be applied to real life. The description of Jung's Si says nothing about this...

To say that people lack imagination because they disagree with you on one very serious topic (but may have plenty of imagination for other ideas or subjects or activities) kind of makes the author of Gifts Differing weep.

Shame on you typologists. I at least agree with Kalach on that.

I don't think they are damned to an imagination-less realm. Nor did I ever state that.

EDIT: And I know I criticized people for not sharing my moral framework, I'm not being hypocritical, I'm suggesting that other people here are hypocritical about their own valuing system and don't even realize it.

 

[Thalassa]

"Everyone else?"

I wasn't referring to you, specifically. The poll results are actually in the favor of the people who aren't excited by nuclear war in any respect.

What makes you think their reasons are different than mine? I'm the only person who voted from my real ethics? Everyone else caved to peer pressure? I wasn't making it about me, I was saying if I didn't vote that way for that reason, then assuredly other people have real ethics that have nothing to do with peer pressure.

However, now that you've made this about yourself, I may as well play along. You regard sensors as your peers and you believe they abhor conjecture for conjecture's sake. It comes down to your perceptions, and you made a referral to others of your type. What better way to explicitly demonstrate a symptom of peer pressure.

Um, I'm not sure what you're talking about, Kalach was talking about Si and I was pointing out that Jung actually said that Se types dislike conjecture for conjectures sake in Psychological Types, and this was an afterthought, something that came much later after my initial authentic response.

See, I feel/act first and analyze later. You give me way too much credit if you think I analyze first. LOL.

I don't think they are damned to an imagination-less realm. Nor did I ever state that.

You think I lack imagination because I interpret the word "exciting" as something positive, and therefore based my entire response on my realistic appraisal of why I could not morally fathom nuclear war being a pleasurable experience?



I'm just going to presume that you didn't read the whole thread, because this response was just too much explaining.

 

[citizen cane]

 

[Mole]

You've got to step aside and just take it easy, they're just baiting you now.

Those who bait the vulnerable are bullies.

 

[Ginkgo]

What makes you think their reasons are different than mine? I'm the only person who voted from my real ethics? Everyone else caved to peer pressure? I wasn't making it about me, I was saying if I didn't vote that way for that reason, then assuredly other people have real ethics that have nothing to do with peer pressure.



Um, I'm not sure what you're talking about, Kalach was talking about Si and I was pointing out that Jung actually said that Se types dislike conjecture for conjectures sake in Psychological Types, and this was an afterthought, something that came much later after my initial authentic response.

See, I feel/act first and analyze later. You give me way too much credit if you think I analyze first. LOL.




You think I lack imagination because I interpret the word "exciting" as something positive, and therefore based my entire response on my realistic appraisal of why I could not morally fathom nuclear war being a pleasurable experience?



I'm just going to presume that you didn't read the whole thread, because this response was just too much explaining.

Well, I wanted to talk about the OP rather than functions. I think you're misinterpreting some of what I'm saying and I currently don't have the mental bandwidth to discuss your type.

Peer pressure tends to play into a lot of these sorts of decisions where you're answering a question for an audience. Regardless of whether you say "yes" or "no".

I haven't read the majority of the thread. I'm not really sure if I will; I doubt the test makers over at OKC anticipated the possibility that any sane individual would crave an in-depth discussion about a question that accounts for a minute percentage of one's compatibility with others. The functionality of it depends more upon how seriously the test-taker interprets the question. It kind of seems like the question really asks is: "Are you willing to take an absurd risk?", which is a reasonable criteria to test with in terms of relationship preferences. I've answered many of the questions on OKC myself, and most of the others don't refer to such over-the-top topics, which leads me to believe that there are very few OKC members who are expected to relish a nuclear holocaust. It's not designed to cater to a sociopathic audience, so on that level I don't believe there's any urgent need for a reformation of cultural mores.

 

[Thalassa]

Well, I wanted to talk about the OP rather than functions. I think you're misinterpreting some of what I'm saying and I currently don't have the mental bandwidth to discuss your type.

I don't want to discuss my type. I'm factually telling you, that what occurred within the thread, was Kalach saying certain traits of mine were due to Si, and I simply suggested that if he actually read Jung, it would be Se.

I'm fact-checking. Not debating. I don't care what you think my type is.

Peer pressure tends to play into a lot of these sorts of decisions where you're answering a question for an audience. Regardless of whether you say "yes" or "no".

Well not for me at all, and if it does for you, perhaps you should look into INFJ.

I haven't read the majority of the thread. I'm not really sure if I will; I doubt the test makers over at OKC anticipated the possibility that any sane individual would crave an in-depth discussion about a question that accounts for a minute percentage of one's compatibility with others. The functionality of it depends more upon how seriously the test-taker interprets the question. It kind of seems like the question really asks is: "Are you willing to take an absurd risk?", which is a reasonable criteria to test with in terms of relationship preferences. I've answered many of the questions on OKC myself, and most of the others don't refer to such over-the-top topics, which leads me to believe that there are very few OKC members who are expected to relish a nuclear holocaust. It's not designed to cater to a sociopathic audience, so on that level I don't believe there's any urgent need for a reformation of cultural mores.

Ok cool.

 

[Ginkgo]

I don't think I'm an INFJ.

[MENTION=5731]Kalach[/MENTION], do you think I'm an INFJ?

 

[Thalassa]

I don't think I'm an INFJ.

[MENTION=5731]Kalach[/MENTION], do you think I'm an INFJ?

Well let's ask him, since he's some kind of expert.
Anyway. I thought you wanted to talk about the OP.

I didn't think so.

I'm perceptive like that.

 

[Ginkgo]

Well let's ask him, since he's some kind of expert.
Anyway. I thought you wanted to talk about the OP.

I didn't think so.

I'm perceptive like that.

That was then. This is now.

 

[Thalassa]

That was then. This is now.

Yes, it's now, smart guy, and you're not talking about the OP. I'm not making a reference to the past, I'm making a reference to you absurdly asking Kalach if you're an INFJ.

Are you that oblivious to your own behavior?

YOU JUST SAID YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE OP.

No. I didn't think so.

 

[Ginkgo]

Yes, it's now, smart guy, and you're not talking about the OP. I'm not making a reference to the past, I'm making a reference to you absurdly asking Kalach if you're an INFJ.

Are you that oblivious to your own behavior?

YOU JUST SAID YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE OP.

No. I didn't think so.

I didn't say that I wanted to talk about the OP forever, did I?

 

[Thalassa]

I didn't say that I wanted to talk about the OP forever, did I?

Good-bye Gingko. Happy trolling.