[MBTI General] NFs and truth

[SillySapienne]

I believe people construct their respective personal truths based on their cumulative experiences. Therefore truth tends to often, if not always be a subjective belief, as opposed to an objective fact.

Either something was, or was not, is, or is not.

In my opinion the truth encapsulates everything that has been, as well as everything that is.

 

[wedekit]

I read this entire thread and honestly I had no idea what you people were arguing/debating/whatever about. Then, while doing something else, it dawned on me, and I would say yes I do do this somewhat.

For example, I believe in the human soul. There is no doubt in my mind we have a soul. If something you say goes against this, no matter how much proof you have I believe in the human soul and so that's that. Do I have solid proof? No. Do I think that weakens my argument against their argument? No.

Am I on the right track?

 

[redacted]

I read this entire thread and honestly I had no idea what you people were arguing/debating/whatever about. Then, while doing something else, it dawned on me, and I would say yes I do do this somewhat.

For example, I believe in the human soul. There is no doubt in my mind we have a soul. If something you say goes against this, no matter how much proof you have I believe in the human soul and so that's that. Do I have solid proof? No. Do I think that weakens my argument against their argument? No.

Am I on the right track?

having a soul cannot be proven or disproven really.

i think nocapszy was talking about things that can be empirically proven.

 

[alcea rosea]

I think the truth is subjective and that there is no one truth. So there is no absolute truth there are only different perceptions of truth.

Wasn't there a thread about truth somewhere in MBTIc? I remember answering to one. There was a good answer about truth there. I don't remember who wrote it.

Ok, it was this same thread and somebody just brought it back to up. I'm such a scatterminded person.

 

[TaylorS]

(Yes, I know I'm bumping an old thread, so shoot me)

I agree with this. I consider myself to be a truth-seeker, but I believe there are many aspects to truth and many pitfalls.

Rationality is only one aspect of truth. In the logical arena, I suppose many NTs excel. I've been over at INFPgc for about a year and I seem to be more obsessed with debating ideas than most INFPs there. So, my experience is probably far from representative. I'm fairly argumentative for someone who prefers to avoid most conflict. For whatever reason, intellectual conflict inspires me. Then again, INFPs can deeply value anything including rationality.

The problem with people interested in 'truth' are issues of intellectual honesty and humility. Most NFs I've met are fairly honest and humble about what they don't know. If anything, many NFs are by definition less interested in objective truth because Feeling gives a subjective slant to their thinking. And so the weakness of NFs would be the dismissal of objective rationality. Even so, I supsect NFs are better than NTs at thinking about thinking(ie seeing the subjective motivations and underpinnings of supposed 'rational' thought). In this sense, I think its no accident that it was an INFP that worked out a fairly complex system such as the MBTI.

NTs are more interested in the structure of thought.
NFs are more interested in the substance of thought.

I idealize truth in all of its forms. I appreciate the clarity of thought that many NTs bring to the table, but many NTs are too self-assured in their thinking sometimes to the point of self-righteousness(not to say other types can't also fall prey to this). This annoys me, but not only because it shows a lack of social graces. Too much self-assuredness in rational thought can lead to rationalization and a blindness to other aspects of thought. I've had discussions with a number of NTs where they seemed utterly clueless about the emotional undertow to their own thinking. There is a thin line between rationality being feuled by unconscious motivations and unconscious motivations being rationalized.

Sometimes, the data and the logic don't speak for themselves. NFs are the masters of meaning which is what gives to ideas a larger and deeper context. NTs too often argue for the sake of arguing, and especially with INTPs this can seem to go nowhere. I've never been fond of intellectual pissing contests.

Both NFs and NTs are less connected to the realities of Sensation data. The abstractions of rational thought aren't necessarily any more realistic than the abstracting tendencies of NFs. All types see reality partially. NFs only have some advantage in the sense that they're hyper-aware of this paritality(subjective bias).

NTs are better at finding the distinctions between ideas.
NFs are better at finding the relationships between ideas.

NTs are better at analyzing and systematizing mental constructs.
NFs are better at seeing the context inherent to multiple perspectives.

I agree completely. A good way to tick me off is by being an intellectually arrogant jerk telling me Theory X or Ideology Y is completely objective and true and anyone who disagrees with them are simply letting their feelings blind them from the truth. Usually it's in the form of a political argument with an NT Libertarian or Marxist bashing my center-left political views for whatever reason.

 

[entropie]

(Yes, I know I'm bumping an old thread, so shoot me)

I agree completely. A good way to tick me off is by being an intellectually arrogant jerk telling me Theory X or Ideology Y is completely objective and true and anyone who disagrees with them are simply letting their feelings blind them from the truth. Usually it's in the form of a political argument with an NT Libertarian or Marxist bashing my center-left political views for whatever reason.

You are totally subjective, I belive your feelings towards libertarians blinded you from the truth !

 

[TaylorS]

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.

LOL, that reminds me so much of my arguments with NT Libertarians it's funny. What usually happens is a retreat into the "rights are God-Given" intellectual cop-out or a fall into Is-Ought and Appeal-To-Nature fallacies.

 

[Stanton Moore]

I belive there is just one form of logic. It is a linear, very clear process.

The trouble is that it is almost impossible to make any logical statement about the truth, without bringing along a lot of your own subjective perspective.
It may be that NF's ability to synthesize a picture of reality that consciously includes this subjectivity is actually closer to reality than simply positing your truth as objective.

 

[heart]

I wish the NT would give more specific examples of what makes them believe that NF, espeically NFP ignore "truth."

You mean like truth such as if you spend too much money your bank account will be overdrawn? If you don't cook a burger to 170 F you may get food posioning?

Or is it some abstract, unprovable "truth" that the NT wants a particular NFP in their life to accept?

 

[TaylorS]

I belive there is just one form of logic. It is a linear, very clear process.

The trouble is that it is almost impossible to make any logical statement about the truth, without bringing along a lot of your own subjective perspective.
It may be that NF's ability to synthesize a picture of reality that consciously includes this subjectivity is actually closer to reality than simply positing your truth as objective.

I very much agree. there is no such thing as a truely objective perspective.

 

[Sentura]

the problem i have about an "absolute truth" is that we as humanity know next to nothing about the universe, or how it works. i don't mind that we excel in what we have made ourselves, such as math of various kinds, but as soon as you interpolate the absolute abstract image of math on the concrete physical universe, there's bound to be errors everywhere.

this is why in physics you can only prove things empirically; there cannot be anything absolutely proven in the real world. because of that, and because of the discovery of quantum mechanics, i am very much beginning to doubt that this world is as objective as we try to rationalize it as. it would be ignorant to assume that we know, or are even able to comprehend every truth about the universe.

 

[entropie]

Wouldnt it be boring if we would know everything ?

 

[Sentura]

Wouldnt it be boring if we would know everything ?

it depends how you define everything. to me, everything means even the undefined, and things beyond the spectrum of comprehension our mind offers. how would you ever be able to know the unknowable?

 

[Erudur]

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*

I love the irony of how somebody can make such an unsubstantiated (unsubstantiatable) absolute statement like this.

That is all. As I am not an NF, I will leave now.

 

[entropie]

it depends how you define everything. to me, everything means even the undefined, and things beyond the spectrum of comprehension our mind offers. how would you ever be able to know the unknowable?

Well everything is everything, including the unimagineable.

But I get your point, good luck with your search and enjoy it, its the best part

 

[Phenix]

Wave/particle duality implies that a wave function is indeterminate until observed. The way humans sense/perceive/observe is ipso facto interpretive. Our brains interpret outside stimuli and associate meaining. This would suggest that even our most solid observed facts are formed through a process of interpretation and that all reality could then be considered interpretive.

 

[Stanton Moore]

So this is how yal talk among yourselves? lol. Funny/sad.

 

[KDude]

I don't think I'm that detached from my senses. Everyone lives on the same planet, with the same basic bodily functions to "interface" with it.. If you don't, you should call up your doctor and check that out. It doesn't sound good. And there's an element of Ne that's very much tied to the present, external circumstances. It's called extroverted intuition for a reason. Fi and Ti both have access to it. Fi isn't any less in touch with truth or more presumptuous. It places different kinds of importance and value on information, but it doesn't mean it's out of touch with information itself.

Extraverted iNtuiting involves noticing hidden meanings and interpreting them, often entertaining a wealth of possible interpretations from just one idea or interpreting what someone’s behavior really means. It also involves seeing things “as if,” with various possible representations of reality. Using this process, we can juggle many different ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and meanings in our mind at once with the possibility that they are all true. This is like weaving themes and threads together. We don’t know the weave until a thought thread appears or is drawn out in the interaction of thoughts, often brought in from other contexts. Thus a strategy or concept often emerges from the here-and-now interactions, not appearing as a whole beforehand.

 

[chachamaru]

There is a Truth out there, because there is a False out there. Binaries are poor analogies to this fact, but it's simple to understand.

 

[JoSunshine]

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.

I don't know who you are Mavrick, but clearly, you are brilliant

NF's not caring about the truth is horse shit...that's my honest opinion.