User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 145

  1. #101
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Correct--those societal standards are NOT set by Fi doms, and yet for some reason INFPs seem to think they are. Just like NTPs tend to treat anyone who doesn't follow their arbitrary conceptions of logic like shit through subtle condescension and general snobbery, so too do NFPs become very nasty (though never overtly) to anyone perceived as out of touch
    The bold? You've obviously forgotten about me. I can be extremely nasty.

    with their clearly objective definitions of how to treat people ethically.
    SRSLY? I totally thought those were the NFJs

    Etiquette as defined by external societal standards may be an Fe thing, but Fi's ethics covers every area of life. Fi users won't complain that your etiquette is poor; they'll just subtly imply that you're an ignorant neanderthal. Sometimes when talking to NF liberals, for instance, there's this kind of, "My GOD, do they even LET people like you INTO this country??" undertone any time anyone expresses any conservative viewpoint, but never overtly enough that they can't get out of it when they want to. I've even had INFP friends explain to me precisely how this technique works, so even if you don't use it personally, it's still widespread.
    INTP and INFJ liberals do that too, I even know some SPs who have that "MY GOD, do they even LET people like you INTO this country??" response to scary conservatives, so again, eh...not so much an NFP thing.



    Come to think of it, you're right that INTs don't really do this exaggeration thing--I've come to the conclusion it must be mainly an ENT thing.
    I'm an ENF and I exaggerate. My ESFP mother does it too, and much more profusely than I, to everyone's chagrin.











    And then--oops, before we know it we've called you a stupid cunt.

    You know Simulated, I really think you ARE and ESFP. Stop denying it.
    Last edited by Thalassa; 08-26-2009 at 11:14 PM. Reason: ten, k

  2. #102
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    super lol

  3. #103
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Fi users won't complain that your etiquette is poor; they'll just subtly imply that you're an ignorant neanderthal. Sometimes when talking to NF liberals, for instance, there's this kind of, "My GOD, do they even LET people like you INTO this country??" undertone any time anyone expresses any conservative viewpoint, but never overtly enough that they can't get out of it when they want to....
    Isn't this you doing the same kind of mind reading and attributing emotional motives that you are railing about in NFP?


    And like Marmalade said, I have no problem telling someone exactly what I think about politics, though mostly in offline life I mostly chose just not to ever discuss it (or religion) because I think it's futile. And I'll tell anyone who pushes that I don't want to discuss politics and why. Conservatives are always assuming I am conservative for some reason, so I will tell them that I am not and then I'll refuse to discuss it further.

    And yes, I already realize that though you are brining up your own personal experiences with alleged INFP in your personal life, it irritates you that I bring up my personal experience as INFP. I understand that so you needn't remonstrate with me over it now.

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    INTP and INFJ liberals do that too, I even know some SPs who have that "MY GOD, do they even LET people like you INTO this country??" response to scary conservatives, so again, eh...not so much an NFP thing...
    The ESTP I mentioned earlier is ultra liberal Green Party. They make this kind of comment all the time.

  4. #104
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Sunrise--

    No, NFJs use Ni; they're far less concerned with internal objectivity and much more external goal-focused. Another problem with Ps in general is that because we display an outwardly flexible attitude, we sometimes don't realize or accept how rigid and unyielding our internal selves can be (especially in comparison to Js--inside they are way more open than you think.)


    Everybody else, with the liberal pretension thing--

    You don't even have to read between the lines; they make it quite obvious that you're considered a moron for not being 100% hard left on virtually every political issue.

    Also, I am not sure what purpose it serves to mention specific examples of non-NFPs being pretentious liberals or whatnot too. Again this doesn't really address the issue.

    Heart--

    It doesn't bother me if you bring up your personal experiences.



    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    I honestly didn't think I'd have to break that down barney style.

    It's an analogy. As in, the logic of a situation has nothing to do with gender, and yet someone could complain that I sided with the same gender just because they assume we connect better being the same gender. This doesn't make much sense at all in reality, as I tend to connect better to men.

    I was using that to make the point that it's illogical to say Feelers usually side with other feelers in disagreements just because you assume they understand each other more. The reality is, every situation is different, and people side with people as the situation dictates, not at all necessarily because they have a predisposed bias. To assume anything less is imo to also assume a degree of lower intellect.. as I can't see any feeler going "Technically, they're right.. but I totally agree with you anyways! High five for feeling!"
    Uh huh, thanks for the clarification. I might point out that you personally might be an unusual case as NFs in the military are fairly uncommon compared to other types, but who knows?

    In any event, yes, I'm aware of the analogy you were going for; it's just a bad analogy.

    Gender is a much smaller factor in determining whose views we agree with/support than is psychological type.

    It makes sense that Ts would tend to understand and relate to T-biased issues more easily and vice versa for F, but pointing out that this connection doesn't exist across gender lines is entirely irrelevant. (Which, by the way, it does indirectly, since something like 2/3 of women are Fs and about 2/3 of men are Ts.)

    So no, it wasn't particularly difficult to see what analogy you were going for, and no, I didn't take it literally. Good guess though.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #105
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Uh huh, thanks for the clarification. I might point out that you personally might be an unusual case as NFs in the military are fairly uncommon compared to other types, but who knows?
    O, I see wat u did ther lolz. TouchÚ.

    The fact that I'm in the military has nothing to do with who I agree with either. I'm not a "special case" of anything. That makes even less sense than what you said before. The military does not make me stick up for thinkers more. Try again.

    In any event, yes, I'm aware of the analogy you were going for; it's just a bad analogy.
    Everyone else seemed to get it but you, so I'll stick with the petty insult to my analogy as you accepting defeat even further.

    Gender is a much smaller factor in determining whose views we agree with/support than is psychological type.
    Society, by and large, is patriarchal. How can you say gender is any smaller a factor than type? EVERYONE is aware of gender.. only a percentage of people are even aware of or use typology. By your standards, type is never considered when it comes to disagreements.

    It makes sense that Ts would tend to understand and relate to T-biased issues more easily and vice versa for F, but pointing out that this connection doesn't exist across gender lines is entirely irrelevant. (Which, by the way, it does indirectly, since something like 2/3 of women are Fs and about 2/3 of men are Ts.)
    Wait. so first, gender is a bad analogy has nothing to do with it. Then gender usually comes through in type and is a strong basis for this point? ..Just making sure I got that right.

    It's easy to say "Women usually relate to women" and that "Thinkers usually side with thinkers". But you conveniently leave out the other 50% of people that those generalizations don't apply to. If you're saying thinkers side with thinkers, I think that'd be true.. Situationally. It's not true overall, and it's silly to use a situational truth in a general argument. As someone on here said so eloquently before.... The more general your comments are, the less accurate they are.

    Edit: Also. Nightning says I win. So I win.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  6. #106
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Sunrise--

    No, NFJs use Ni; they're far less concerned with internal objectivity and much more external goal-focused. Another problem with Ps in general is that because we display an outwardly flexible attitude, we sometimes don't realize or accept how rigid and unyielding our internal selves can be (especially in comparison to Js--inside they are way more open than you think.)
    NFJs also use Fe. They're more concerned with "appropriate behavior."


    Everybody else, with the liberal pretension thing--

    You don't even have to read between the lines; they make it quite obvious that you're considered a moron for not being 100% hard left on virtually every political issue.

    Also, I am not sure what purpose it serves to mention specific examples of non-NFPs being pretentious liberals or whatnot too. Again this doesn't really address the issue.
    Because you were listing all of these things as if they were specifically NFP traits.

  7. #107
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    O, I see wat u did ther lolz. TouchÚ.

    The fact that I'm in the military has nothing to do with who I agree with either. I'm not a "special case" of anything. That makes even less sense than what you said before. The military does not make me stick up for thinkers more. Try again.
    That's not even remotely what I implied. You try again.

    Most NFs I know have serious ethical problems with the possible duties involved in military service; also, you've already expressed that you have fairly conservative political ideology, so that alone separates you from a good majority of NFPs especially.

    In any event, though, what I meant was merely that personally experiencing a viewpoint tends to make one more prone to understanding where people are coming from when they express that viewpoint.

    In addition, a lot more issues that could potentially be debated seem to cross T/F sensibilities than male/female sensibilities; in other words, taking a Thinking or Feeling approach to life is relevant to a lot more political issues in a much bigger way, so its implications in terms of common political and moral positions are much more notable.

    I don't see the connection because in most cases there is no "female viewpoint" or "male viewpoint"; it's based on other, much more significant factors such as psychological type. The comparison is poor.

    Therefore, "I'm female and I don't always stick up for girls" doesn't really do much of anything to discredit the idea that Feelers tend to understand the Feeling viewpoint most often and vice versa for Thinkers, because many more common topics of debate divide across Thinker/Feeler lines than male/female ones!

    T/F is simply a much more specific and complex descriptive term with a lot more relevant applications to political and moral philosophy. The contextual comparison you're looking for here doesn't work.





    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Everyone else seemed to get it but you, so I'll stick with the petty insult to my analogy as you accepting defeat even further.
    Hmm, yes; unfortunately nobody else but me seemed to understand why it's a weak analogy that does nothing to illustrate the point you intended.

    But hey, majority rules, right?



    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Society, by and large, is patriarchal. How can you say gender is any smaller a factor than type? EVERYONE is aware of gender.. only a percentage of people are even aware of or use typology. By your standards, type is never considered when it comes to disagreements.
    It may not be overtly considered but that wasn't my claim.

    Thinking/Feeling is involved in quite a lot of decisions by virtually everyone whether or not s/he is aware of MBTI/typology or the arbitrary labels that some people have put on these concepts.

    Why don't you name some political issues for me where men tend to believe one way most often and women tend to believe the other way?

    Now name some political issues where Thinkers tend to believe one way and Feelers tend to believe the other.

    The latter are more numerous, and by quite a wide margin. There are very few common political issues that are directly related to gender, and therefore gender bias doesn't play a significant role in most political issues because it's not even a relevant contributing factor.

    Nearly all political issues, however, especially economic ones, have a very clear and distinct grounding in Thinking vs. Feeling differences because T/F is a far broader and more encompassing dichotomy than male/female. Your analogy fails.




    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Wait. so first, gender is a bad analogy has nothing to do with it. Then gender usually comes through in type and is a strong basis for this point? ..Just making sure I got that right.
    I'm not sure how you expect me to give meaningful responses when you insist on oversimplifying complex issues into binary terms.

    But just to humor you--it is true that most women are Fs and most men are Ts, but as far as I know, most men AND most women also have numerous other personality aspects that factor into their decision-making.

    At the end of the day, if you consider only political issues which tend to divide along T/F lines, yes, women probably do shower higher numbers of agreeing with the F side, but that doesn't mean some other personality tendency won't push them in other directions of opinion.

    The difference here is that in my example I've defined a very specific context as it relates to the motivations for most people's opinions on political issues (I've placed T vs. F in a vacuum so that we can study its effects in the absence of bias from other functions), and in yours you've picked a much broader and simpler dichotomy (MAN or WOMAN?) and somehow come to the conclusion that you can make a significant comparison between the two, despite irreconcilably different contexts.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    It's easy to say "Women usually relate to women" and that "Thinkers usually side with thinkers". But you conveniently leave out the other 50% of people that those generalizations don't apply to. If you're saying thinkers side with thinkers, I think that'd be true.. Situationally. It's not true overall, and it's silly to use a situational truth in a general argument. As someone on here said so eloquently before.... The more general your comments are, the less accurate they are.
    Hahah yes, exactly--you've chosen a much more general category (male/female) and decided it's equivalent to my more specific one (Thinker/Feeler.)

    We're both making generalizations but mine uses a higher granularity of information.

    I imagine the problem may be found here:

    When I say, "Fs tend to agree with Fs", I don't mean that Fs automatically defend other Fs just because they're both Fs.

    What I'm saying is that since many political issues ARE heavily influenced by T/F differences (and NOT heavily influenced by gender itself), it's common for F people to take similar positions on issues that clearly divide across T/F lines.

    Since T/F is a much bigger factor in most political decisions than male/female, I don't think your point holds any water.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #108
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    NFJs also use Fe. They're more concerned with "appropriate behavior."
    No, that's wrong. Fe is more concerned with what the external cultural environment considers to be appropriate behavior.

    Fi is concerned with what it itself has arbitrarily decided is appropriate behavior, and BOTH will nastily correct you when they feel you've violated this.

    The only difference is that Fe's morality comes from without, and Fi's comes from within.

    If you think Fi doesn't passive-aggressively shove its moral opinions in people's faces, I'd buy yourself a new mirror.

    Either that or just think of an INTP that really annoys you. Think about the pretentious way they never seem to accept that anyone else's position could possibly be as logical as theirs, and furthermore that they need to constantly believe they are the most logical or the most important value at the very core of their psyche will unravel.

    Know what's REALLY funny about this? INTPs don't think their Ti ever pushes its arbitrary opinions about what's "logical" on others, either. They seriously have no idea! "No no, that's not us--it's just those nasty Te users that give Thinkers a bad name, Ti is nice and open and respectful!"

    Guess again!

    Do you know what justification NTPs tend to give for being complete assholes to people?

    "I'm not being unreasonable--I shouldn't have to respect his position, because I'M RIGHT and HE'S WRONG!"

    This is rooted in Ti's inability to recognize that its hypothetical, impersonal problem-solving logic is not universally or objectively correct, and is not the best approach in most situations.

    NFPs do exactly the same thing when they insist that they're justified in correcting the ethics of others "BECAUSE I'M RIGHT", as if simplistic, black-and-white, objective right/wrong even remotely applies to something as complex and nuanced as ethics. You need to release the idea there even exists any one true definition of absolute morality; until you do that you're just limiting your own understanding.

    You can see it all over this thread--just look at the numerous NFPs insisting that they can assume whatever they want about my motivations because their interpretation of how emotional implications attach to words is "THE CORRECT ONE [and if you don't agree you're clearly stupid]!"

    Again, not buying it. You guys could learn a lot more from NFJs than you allow yourselves to.




    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    Because you were listing all of these things as if they were specifically NFP traits.
    Your mistake here is in interpreting a generalized context in a specific way when it suits you, and not when it doesn't.

    The things I've listed *are* specifically NFP traits. That doesn't mean nobody else ever exhibits them, but it DOES mean NFPs show more of a trend toward these behaviors on average than other types.

    It goes without saying that <100% of NFPs are pretentious liberals, and that <100% of pretentious liberals are NFPs. That's just...really, really obvious. ((Right here is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. It should be blatantly obvious by now that I have enough background in typology not to assume that ANY trait occurs in one type or temperament 100% of the time, and yet you STILL felt it necessary to make this completely unnecessary "correction", as if anyone cares. This is the kind of pointless and petty crap that pushes NTs into being terse with you...if you know what we meant, stop wasting our time with bullshit semantics corrections.))

    Sometimes it seems like you know that you've done such a poor job of refuting our relevant points that the only way you can feel like you've gained some small measure of victory is to pick a clearly generalized statement and start semantic-ing all over it, just to make it look like you can find SOMETHING wrong with our position (so that you don't look/feel stupid.) I would tend to chalk this up to tertiary/inferior Te coming out and over-correcting without any sense of context or degree, because the NFP has become upset and can't find any relevant criticisms...but there could be other reasons for it, which I'll be glad to listen to if you should desire to explain.

    Is it truly your contention that there is no significant correlation between NFP-ness and pretentious liberalism?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    What I'm saying is that since many political issues ARE heavily influenced by T/F differences
    Example? What do you think the key divides are in politics, and why do you think they are T/F related?

    What do you think are the common and defining traits of an NFP?
    Freude, sch├Âner G├Âtterfunken Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt; Alle Menschen werden Br├╝der, Wo dein sanfter Fl├╝gel weilt.

  10. #110
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noigmn View Post
    Example? What do you think the key divides are in politics, and why do you think they are T/F related?
    Economics is the biggest one, but also social issues.

    The conservative attitude of "Well, everyone is his own responsibility, so if you need help it's not my problem!" is waaaaaaaay more characteristic of Ts than Fs...by a long shot. This has enormous implications in economics.

    As for social issues, NPs are extraordinarily biased toward liberal social policy because personal freedom of expression is held so highly on Ne's value list...this is an example of one that falls on the P/J dichotomy more than on N/S or T/F, because it's a question of organization/regulation of the external world, so obviously Js will go for it more often.

    Then you've got things like civil rights. Feelers in general are far more likely to listen to arguments based on compassion, such as, "Put yourself in these people's shoes--wouldn't you hate to be them?"

    For Fi, this is often enough. Look at the completely outrageous outpouring of blind support that Barack Obama gets from NFPs--ZOMG HE IS A MAN OF CHANGE HE WILL LEAD US TO THE FUTURE!!!

    Well, maybe he will, maybe he won't--I haven't fully made up my mind about the guy yet. I liked him a little bit better than McCain, so yes, I did vote for him, but I don't verbally fellate him every time he comes up in conversation and implicitly insult anyone in the room who doesn't automatically think he's a fucking Godsend.

    The problem is that NFPs often either don't realize they're doing this, or, worse yet--convince themselves it's justified because "MY MORAL OPINIONS ARE RIGHT AND THEIRS ARE WRONG!" This leads to a lot of extremely hypocritical labeling of non-Obama supporters as ignorant racist intolerant bigots who hate change--yes, the left does just as much bullshit emotional blackmail as the right.

    Again, South Park says it best--liberals (and yes, NFPs lean more liberal than any other type group) still seem to believe their moral causes are the only ones that are somehow "too sacred" to be mocked. The sheer self-righteousness and total obliviousness to the possibility of being wrong are really what sicken me most.

    Quote Originally Posted by noigmn View Post
    What do you think are the common and defining traits of an NFP?
    I think NFPs place externalized, individual creative freedom and maintaining the most internally consistent ethical viewpoint as the two highest values; which is higher depends on E/I.

    Much like NTPs, this leads to some nasty cognitive dissonance whenever it's suggested that their position is not internally consistent...hence the insistence that OMG WE DO *NOT* TAKE THINGS TOO PERSONALLY, I RESENT THAT!

    NPs have a very strong need to feel internally consistent according whichever system of rationality they feel most comfortable with (Fi or Ti), and they're often so unable to even consider the idea that their opinions on what is ethical/logical behavior even are opinions that their own views on internally "important" issues are often considered as incontrovertible fact.

    They balance out this image, of course, by showing a very flexible attitude on lots of other things, like outer world schedules and trivial decisions that don't really affect anything that serious. "Sure we can go to the movie any time!" seems to be enough flexibility for NPs, regardless of how ludicrously stubborn the internal Fi/Ti monologue may be about anything that's truly important.

    But they don't look that way on the surface to most outsiders--most outsiders only the see flexible Ne side, which is willing to indulge all kinds of ideas and go with the flow. In terms of self-image, NPs overestimate their own reliance on this side of themselves--they use "well hey everybody sees me as open and flexible" as a way to convince themselves that they aren't actually too internally rigid.

    "My internal perspective isn't too rigid, I'M JUST RIGHT!"

    lol.

    Anyway I've written a million other posts on the topic so you can find them if you want.
    Last edited by simulatedworld; 08-30-2009 at 09:07 PM. Reason: quoted name fixed from "marmaladesunrise" to "noigmn"
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] How to get into company of NFs who don't need new friends?
    By gandalf in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-07-2016, 12:48 AM
  2. Silly little "personality" test to do instead of writing a paper.
    By Rajah in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 06-01-2015, 01:41 AM
  3. How to do a million things?
    By Wolfie in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-18-2012, 11:13 AM
  4. [INTJ] Why do a lot of people seem to have lots of negative views about INTJs?
    By bai_lin83 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 01-21-2008, 12:30 AM
  5. [MBTItm] What to do when your INF is out of control?
    By Cordiform in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-14-2007, 03:56 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