User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 82

Thread: NFs and truth

  1. #21
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick View Post
    I used to think that NT's value more truth than NF's. However, my own experience aswell as existing scientific evidence point towards the opposite.

    In my experience, NF's only seem to make small lies to spare people's feelings. However, I wouldn't really consider it lying but more politeness. For example, they might get a gift and if they do not like it, say politely "thank you". In important situations, they are much more likely to speak the truth when they feel the situation is unjust than NT's. I have seen NF's stand up against the status quo and speak the truth to defend someone unfairly treated. As far as scientific evidence goes, "F" correlates with Agreeableness in the Big Five. One of the subfactors of Agreeableness is "Morality", the fact that the person tends to deal straightforwardly with people instead of using manipulation.

    On the other hand, NT's seem to avoid the small lies to spare people's feelings. They might seem more honest at first. My own experience tells me that they are much more likely to cover up the truth if it is in favor of their interests. They may manipulate opinion by arguing in a seemingly logical but invalid way. "T" correlates negatively with Agreeableness, and we can expect T's to score low on "Morality" which means that they have no qualms about distorting the truth to manipulate people. The low Agreeableness might make them seem more honest though because they more readily criticize others.

    These elements bring me to conclude that in appearance NT's value truth more than NF's but when it gets down to the crux it's really the NF's that will be able to speak about the truth even if it is unfavorable to them. NT's may think that they are above their emotions and are faithful to the facts but do not always realize what a role their feelings play and how they can be influenced by them into distorting a situation. For having experience in working in an environment full of NT's, believe me that they are no more honest and straightforward than other people. In fact, they are less so and are very strategic and pragmatic about it. After all, for NT's, the facts are only the facts and reality is malleable. The ones that I have seen speaking the truth that no one dares to mention were the NF's. An INFJ and ENFJ come to mind and these people's way of relating to the external world is through "Extraverted Feeling" - ironically a function that supposedly covers the truth up for other people. In reality, it doesn't.
    hmm. I'm tempted to hop on that train, but i don't think I can. I do know many real NTs who have wonderful thinking-based moralities.

  2. #22
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick View Post
    An INFJ and ENFJ come to mind and these people's way of relating to the external world is through "Extraverted Feeling" - ironically a function that supposedly covers the truth up for other people. In reality, it doesn't.
    Please explain how Fe covers up the truth.
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabe View Post
    hmm. I'm tempted to hop on that train, but i don't think I can. I do know many real NTs who have wonderful thinking-based moralities.
    I agree and know many NT's that also do. The problem is when attempting to describe the average of both groups. I can only speak from my experience though, and the percent of NF's openly speaking about the truth was higher than the percent of NT's that did.

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Please explain how Fe covers up the truth.
    A Thinker may be brought to believe it does, because s/he may see any social skills as an attempt to mask the truth (which is wrong and probably due to a shadow F function).

  4. #24
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Please explain how Fe covers up the truth.
    I don't think Fe is really the problem. It's the Ni or Fi that are causing confusion relative to what is.

    I think what he meant was, Fe will lie (cover up the truth) if it means sparing the feelings of someone. That doesn't really speak to the ability of the Fe user to know what actually is true or real.
    we fukin won boys

  5. #25
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    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...
    I should be fair - it's not that you can NEVER accept the truth, but a lot of the time (especially expressed in my INFP friend) what actually is true, doesn't coincide with what they WANT to be true, they favor their desire and like to stick to that regardless. Some might look at this as a virtue. NTs don't have this ability. What I want always has to give way to what actually is.

    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.
    How astute. Agreed.

    So you think that SFJ's and SFP's are more aware of reality than we are?
    Absolutely not. SFs might be worse. In fact many a time I've said something rude to an SF and they struck me.

    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.
    Of course. I'm not speaking in terms of extrmes. I'm talking about magnified or otherwise propensity.

    It's that we can choose to act based on values rather than truth, not that we deny truth.
    My INFP friend elaborated once about how she's come to the conclusion that the world's knowledge is comprised of axioms, and she can just say "oh I don't believe in that one" and as far as she's concerned, it's not true. Perhaps (most likely) she exaggerated, but she told me several times that she doesn't believe in geometry.


    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.
    A lot of what you say makes sense. I think much of what I said was exaggerated and led to confusion, but I can see where you're coming from.
    we fukin won boys

  6. #26
    Senior Member marm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    134

    Default

    I'll admit that I trust my direct experience(ie subjectivity) over purely rational thought. Fortunately, my direct experience doesn't contradict rational thought most of the time. I will dismiss a seemingly logical argument if it contradicts my observations of reality. In this sense, truth is more subjective and intersubjective to me. Objective truth is entirely speculative to me until I correlate it with a subjective/intersubjective truth.

    If a truth was hurtful, I might not speak it unless there was some practical or moral advantage to doing so. Even so, I try to avoid dismissing a truth based on personal inconvenience. I will lie about minor details to someone who I have no personal relationship with, but part of me will feel bad about doing so. However, I'd have a hard time lying about what felt deeply 'true' to me even if I didn't care about the person.

  7. #27
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    I should point out that I later changed from truth to reality. More specifically, reality as humans are capable of perceiving it.
    That changes my answer considerably. I don't think I have a distorted perception of reality but that is probably exactly what someone with a distorted perception of reality would say. I constantly redefine my perception of reality, or have others (usually INTPs) critique it for me.

    Now that I read on I see that this is a values vs. reason argument, rather than having anything to do with reality. NTs have values too, they just call them "rights" and argue that they are guaranteed by an abstract, unspoken contract. There is nothing funner than trying to make NTs justify their rights beyond that idea and watching them struggle to come up with a reasonable argument.

  8. #28
    Wild Card Atomic Fiend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    873 sx/so
    Socionics
    SLE Ti
    Posts
    7,164

    Default

    Just cause I won't state something is true out loud doesn't mean I myself don't know it's the truth. I just feel it's no one's business what I perceive as truth.
    Also, I rarely skew anything for anyone. Either the truth comes out or I keep silent, the silence should speak the truth for me.

    This was in no way a joke regarding my nickname.

    Really, I'm not kidding after I reread what I wrote I realized who it was coming from and it that sounds like a lame excuse to make a bad joke including my nickname, but really it's not.

    Seriously.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    "I should be fair - it's not that you can NEVER accept the truth, but a lot of the time (especially expressed in my INFP friend) what actually is true, doesn't coincide with what they WANT to be true, they favor their desire and like to stick to that regardless. Some might look at this as a virtue. NTs don't have this ability. What I want always has to give way to what actually is."

    it sounds like your real issue is with how you observe feeling types going about the process of choosing not to believe in something. But really, a thinking arguement isn't any better than a feeling value judgement for that. Remember they're both called rational functions.
    Why don't you give me one of these 'axioms' that your INFP friend chooses not to believe in them.

  10. #30
    Senior Member tovlo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Reality

    Phenomenological reality

    On a much broader and more subjective level, the private experiences, curiosity, inquiry, and selectivity involved in the personal interpretation of an event shapes reality as seen by one and only one individual and hence is called phenomenological. This form of reality might be common to others as well, but at times could also be so unique to oneself as to be never experienced or agreed upon by any one else. Much of the kind of experience deemed spiritual occurs on this level of reality. From a phenomenological perspective, reality is that which is phenomenally real and unreality is nonexistent. Individual perception can be based upon an individual's personality, focus and style of attribution, causing him or her to see only what he or she wants to see or believes to be true.
    Truth

    According to the less realist trends in philosophy, such as postmodernism/post-structuralism, truth is subjective. When two or more individuals agree upon the interpretation and experience of a particular event, a consensus about an event and its experience begins to be formed. This being common to a few individuals or a larger group, then becomes the 'truth' as seen and agreed upon by a certain set of people — the consensus reality. Thus one particular group may have a certain set of agreed truths, while another group might have a different set of consensual 'truths'. This lets different communities and societies have varied and extremely different notions of reality and truth of the external world. The religion and beliefs of people or communities are a fine example of this level of socially constructed 'reality'. Truth cannot simply be considered truth if one speaks and another hears because individual bias and fallibility challenge the idea that certainty or objectivity are easily grasped. For Anti-realists, the inaccessibility of any final, objective truth means that there is no truth beyond the socially-accepted consensus. (Although this means there are truths, not truth).

    For realists, the world is a set of definite facts, which obtain independently of humans ("The world is all that is the case" — Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus), and these facts are the final arbiter of truth. Michael Dummett expresses this in terms of the principle of bivalence[2]: Lady Macbeth had three children or she did not; a tree falls or it does not. A statement will be true if it corresponds to these facts — even if the correspondence cannot be established. Thus the dispute between the realist and anti-realist conception of truth hinges on reactions to the epistemic accessibility (knowability, graspability) of facts.
    Fact

    A fact or factual entity is a phenomenon that is perceived as an elemental principle. It is rarely one that could be subject to personal interpretation. Instead, it is most often an observed phenomenon of the natural world. The proposition 'viewed from most places on Earth, the sun rises in the east', is a fact. It is a fact for people belonging to any group or nationality, regardless of which language they speak or which part of the hemisphere they come from. The Galilean proposition in support of the Copernican theory, that the sun is the center of the solar system is one that states the fact of the natural world. However, during his lifetime Galileo was ridiculed for that factual proposition, because far too few people had a consensus about it in order to accept it as a truth. Fewer propositions are factual in content in the world, as compared to the many truths shared by various communities, which are also fewer than the innumerable individual worldviews. Much of scientific exploration, experimentation, interpretation and analysis is done on this level.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick.

    I tend to think very little actually falls into this realm. Perhaps nothing.

    To my mind, reality is most often, perhaps always, the perceptual experience of the person experiencing it. My experienced reality is different than another's. As humans sharing a life experience, they are interdependent reality experiences, but that does not make them the same. Nor does a difference between two perceptual realities mean either one is in error.

    If someone sees the world heavily drawn from the fact perspective of reality and doesn't get consensus from others on their view of reality, then I could see why frustration would follow. I am more likely to see the world heavily drawn from the phenomenological or subjective truth perspective. My perspective doesn't preclude an acceptance of fact existing outside of differing perceptions, but I'll freely admit if someone exhorts "truth" to me, I'm likely to question if it is instead simply accepted and agreed upon shared realities. In most cases, I find the answer to be yes. I feel an internal compulsion to honor factual reality if I encounter it, but I feel no obligation to adopt someone else's vision of "truth" or reality as my own if I find it to simply be an agreed upon shared vision of reality among a particular group of people. Unless I feel a truth beyond myself is present, I tend to honor to my own experience of reality or truth and give that same honor to someone else's experience of reality without demanding they be the same.
    "We don't see things as they are,
    we see things as we are."
    ...Anais Nin

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] NF and ADD
    By GZA in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-06-2011, 06:46 AM
  2. [MBTItm] NF and NT... drawn together like moth to flame
    By sakuraba in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 251
    Last Post: 05-08-2009, 04:00 PM
  3. [INFP] NFs and pride, conflict, attitude?
    By Cindyrella in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 12-27-2008, 07:23 AM
  4. [NF] NFs and religion
    By Cordiform in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 12-01-2007, 02:15 PM
  5. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 07-16-2007, 01:47 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