[MBTI General] NFs and truth

[Gabe]

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.

 

[proteanmix]

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.

 

[Maverick]

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.

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).

 

[Nocapszy]

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.

 

[Nocapszy]

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.

 

[marm]

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.

 

[Kiddo]

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.

 

[Atomic Fiend]

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.

 

[Gabe]

"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.

 

[tovlo]

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.

 

[Domino]

Illness and pain. They don't go away, regardless of mantra. That falls into reality.

 

[Nocapszy]

"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.

Uh... well... I don't know if you noticed, but I wasn't comparing NFs to NTs per se... there was one little contrast, but it was only a part of the thesis. I don't understand why you're taking this like it's an attack of some kind.

Remember they're both called rational functions.

Only because they're not perceiving functions. That's literally the only criteria. If they both did the same things, then there wouldn't be different names for them.

Why don't you give me one of these 'axioms' that your INFP friend chooses not to believe in them.

Mathematics for one. And she's not the only one who does that kind of shit. My brother doesn't believe in history, though I'm thinking that might just have been an (failed) attempt at getting out of doing his homework.

Also, another friend INFJ can't tell the difference between a guy who likes her and a guy who likes her vagina. Well, it's not that she can't tell, I think she just kids herself a lot, because she'd rather be in a relationship that she knows (somewhere in her mind) is fake, than not be in one at all.


More clarification -- I'm not sure if I said this already, but in case I didn't. I think NFs will only reject or be unsure of the truth when it's not what they want to be real.

If it doesn't affect them negatively or isn't necessary for the survival of themselves/values, then they're perfectly fine with reality as it is.

But for trivial things like "where do babies come from? The stork." NFs I think are the most willing to accept that, because

A. it doesn't have to make sense for them to believe it -- that is not to say that if it DOES make sense that they don't
B. it sounds cool

It's the same recipe for imaginary friends and all that kind of shit.

 

[white]

I do not think NFs believe whatever they want, to the exclusion of objectivity, at least, to any balanced NFs. Merely that they find ways to make the truth more easily acceptable to them, as their compass is an internal world of relationships, so how things can fit into their web matters more. If I don't read the NFs here wrong, their thoughts seem to go along "of what use is the world, if we do not have each other".

This does not detract from truth in any way, merely the acceptance of it is different?

I actually think NFs second-guess themselves a lot more than NTs, and that is where the compassion comes in, and if you see the approach to finding truth as an unravelling of layers, then they do it better.

To see truth in a softer light, if you wish. I think they're more honest with themselves than NTs. As someone else pointed out here, little lies vs big ones.

An NT's world is frequently harsher. But we do also have to question if someone who goes for brutal honesty is after the honesty or the brutality. The former will work in favour of objectivity. The latter could cloud things worse than emotions and consideration for others would. To add to the analogy. "Of what use are others if it is the wrong world".

The truth does not change. Only the perception, if you see the distinction.

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

Or just enterprising.

That is hope.

Illness and pain. They don't go away, regardless of mantra. That falls into reality.

I could be wrong, but I think Se is your way out. :hugs:

 

[Athenian200]

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.

Yeah, I'm like that too... preferring to focus on what I want. I would like to have 8GB of memory and the fastest processor available, along with Quad SLI GeForce 8800 Ultras, but in fact I have a somewhat more modest setup because I can't afford that. But I still WANT to have it, even though I can't. I would also like to live in a mansion and have billions of dollars in my bank account, maybe get some cosmetic surgery to improve my appearance as well. Come to think of it, I also want true social equality between several currently existing groups, and the abandonment of the old traditions that created those divisions. I know it won't necessarily happen, but I enjoy imagining it...

Have you heard the saying, "Look to a gown of gold, and you will at least get a sleeve of it?" What I don't understand about T's is why they're satisfied with nature and reality as they are. I want to try and make reality as close to my idea of how it should be as possible, even if it isn't necessarily logical to do so.

Absolutely not. SFs might be worse. In fact many a time I've said something rude to an SF and they struck me.

You mean they actually, physically hit you, just for being rude? I think anyone who does that should go to prison, because that's not an excuse.

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.

What?! That's absurd... How can you not "believe" in geometry? It may not affect all my decisions, but I can't deny it's existence and validity for it's own purpose. It's practically staring me in the face as I type... it governs the shape of so many things. And besides, I find near-perfect geometric shapes (cubes, spheres, triangles, etc.) to be aesthetically pleasing for some reason. What could you possibly have against geometry, other than having difficulties in Geometry class? Did their parents use to beat them with a tetrahedron or something? Honestly, I think xxFP's are sweet and I try to be nice to them, but the way many of them (perhaps not all of them) govern their values make me more than a little uneasy. Let's just say it's very easy for an xxFP to incorporate values that aren't very good, and it's near impossible to get rid of them once they're in there.

The way I see it is...

Te can be held accountable to the goal of a set of procedures.

Ti can be held accountable to the nature of logic.

Fe can be held accountable to the feeling states of other people.

Fi can be held accountable to... what? Itself?

 

[cafe]

Uh... well... I don't know if you noticed, but I wasn't comparing NFs to NTs per se... there was one little contrast, but it was only a part of the thesis. I don't understand why you're taking this like it's an attack of some kind.

Only because they're not perceiving functions. That's literally the only criteria. If they both did the same things, then there wouldn't be different names for them.


Mathematics for one. And she's not the only one who does that kind of shit. My brother doesn't believe in history, though I'm thinking that might just have been an (failed) attempt at getting out of doing his homework.

Also, another friend INFJ can't tell the difference between a guy who likes her and a guy who likes her vagina. Well, it's not that she can't tell, I think she just kids herself a lot, because she'd rather be in a relationship that she knows (somewhere in her mind) is fake, than not be in one at all.


More clarification -- I'm not sure if I said this already, but in case I didn't. I think NFs will only reject or be unsure of the truth when it's not what they want to be real.

If it doesn't affect them negatively or isn't necessary for the survival of themselves/values, then they're perfectly fine with reality as it is.

But for trivial things like "where do babies come from? The stork." NFs I think are the most willing to accept that, because

A. it doesn't have to make sense for them to believe it -- that is not to say that if it DOES make sense that they don't
B. it sounds cool

It's the same recipe for imaginary friends and all that kind of shit.

If what you are saying was true, NFs would be very unlikely to be paranoid, have issues with anxiety, or to suffer from depression, wouldn't they?

NFs don't necessarily consider truth and fact the same thing, nor see concrete reality as the only reality.

Math I believe is pretty real, but there will always be new developments.

History . . . I like history, but you don't want to look at any event, etc from only one perspective.

Sexual relationships, for me: no marriage = no boom-booms.

It can take me awhile to decide that someone is taking advantage of me beyond what I consider acceptable and a little longer still to do something about it, but I have come to that point more than once.

SJs pretend that the way things look is the way things really are.
SPs pretend that there aren't going to be any consequences.
NTs pretend that they know what they are talking about.
NFs pretend that reality is what you make it.

Or something like that.

I don't see that NFs have an unusual level of disconnect from reality compared to different types. It's just a different kind and it probably makes about as much sense to others as the other types' disconnects do to us.

 

[Atomic Fiend]

More clarification -- I'm not sure if I said this already, but in case I didn't. I think NFs will only reject or be unsure of the truth when it's not what they want to be real.

If it doesn't affect them negatively or isn't necessary for the survival of themselves/values, then they're perfectly fine with reality as it is.

But for trivial things like "where do babies come from? The stork." NFs I think are the most willing to accept that, because

A. it doesn't have to make sense for them to believe it -- that is not to say that if it DOES make sense that they don't
B. it sounds cool

It's the same recipe for imaginary friends and all that kind of shit.

You know you could have just as easily said that NF's are more prone to denial. That is what your trying to say right? We know the truth but refuse to acknowledge it as such. The whole thing with the stork and the imaginary friend comes off more as an insult then an observation, as the I've met every type of NF IRL, and none of them have had imaginary friends. Of course I know you don't mean it literally, but as an example.

Denial isn't exclusive to NFs. I was going to say that it was primarily a Fi thing, but anyone who wants something that isn't bad enough goes through it.

Just because thinking isn't our primary function doesn't mean we're idiots. Hopefully you already know this and this is all just a case of miscommunication.

 

[Nocapszy]

You know you could have just as easily said that NF's are more prone to denial. That is what your trying to say right? We know the truth but refuse to acknowledge it as such. The whole thing with the stork and the imaginary friend comes off more as an insult then an observation, as the I've met every type of NF IRL, and none of them have had imaginary friends. Of course I know you don't mean it literally, but as an example.

Edit: Yes, basically denial. The term didn't happen to cross my mind.

Denial isn't exclusive to NFs. I was going to say that it was primarily a Fi thing, but anyone who wants something that isn't bad enough goes through it.

Just because thinking isn't our primary function doesn't mean we're idiots. Hopefully you already know this and this is all just a case of miscommunication.

How many times do I have to say that I'm not attacking you. Believing what you want instead of what is, is not the same as saying you're stupid.

There's no miscommunication. I think most of you are extrapolating wrongly from my post that I think NFs are stupid, and that's exactly the opposite of how I feel.

I've said before and I'll say again, NFs are gg. I have more NF friends than S friends altogether. Well, I suppose that's not true. I initiate contact with the NFs more than with the Ss.

I think some of the things you guys DO is stupid, but that doesn't make you stupid altogether...

I get the feeling I'm being manipulated.... like... you guys know I don't actually think you're dumb, but you want to hear me say that you're smart.

...

Now I kind of don't want to make this post. I hate being manipulated. Oh well I can't be sure, and I don't want there to be "miscommunication" so I'm making this perfectly clear.


Also, I thought you were INTP. Did you reevaluate or were you just pretending over on INTPc?

 

[TenebrousReflection]

This sorta touches on something I'm dealing with presently, but may or may not be what you are refering to.

I have reached a point where the "truth" of a situation seems fairly clear and there is little I can do to interperet it otherwise, but I still retain a vision of what I think could be and keep trying to ignore that truth and find some new solution. Basicaly I know what the situation is and I know there is little to no hope of changing it, but I still see a clear vision of what could be. I accept the truth "for the moment" but refuse to believe that the truth is unalterable thinking that I'm just going about things the wrong way and that a solution thats agreeable with my vision can exist and I just need to keep looking to find it.

Its not exactly how I see things, but I'm fond of the Adam Savage saying "I reject your reality and substitute my own".

In a more general sense, I think it has to do with whether or not I can detach myself from the situation to see things objectivly or not. The more emotionaly invested I am in something, the more blind to reality I am. I "read between the lines" and try to interepret what I see to fit my vision. Sometimes that means reading things that were never written (at least not intentded). I don't see it as "rejecting the truth" I see it as "misinterpereting the obvious". Does that make sense to others?

 

[marm]

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick.

Great quote. PKD has a nice way of saying things.

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

I can feel this doubtful of 'reality' at times. Certainly, belief and perception are impossible to separate. The beliefs we can see the clearest are someone else's.

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.

I'm attracted to this perspective because its very accepting and I know that you mean it genuinely.

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.

I think I have something akin to this internal compulsion of yours. To deny to myself a perceived factual reality would feel like sacrelige.

I do not think NFs believe whatever they want, to the exclusion of objectivity, at least, to any balanced NFs. Merely that they find ways to make the truth more easily acceptable to them, as their compass is an internal world of relationships, so how things can fit into their web matters more. If I don't read the NFs here wrong, their thoughts seem to go along "of what use is the world, if we do not have each other".

That comes close, but its not the relationships with other people that is the fundamental value for me. Its simply relationships of subjective experiences and realities(mine and others; intrasubjective and intersubjective) of whatever ilk. A fact in isolation is meaningless. Its how the fact connects with other facts and to the world that creates a greater meaning. True, this does involve your statement that "of what use is the world, if we do not have each other".

An idea of truth that I like is the Buddhist view of Dependent Co-arising. Its simultaneously abstract and idealistic, experiential and relational. It feels like an NF kind of idea to me, objectively unprovable and yet highly meaningful.

I actually think NFs second-guess themselves a lot more than NTs, and that is where the compassion comes in, and if you see the approach to finding truth as an unravelling of layers, then they do it better.

That hits the nail on the head. I know that I second-guess myself endlessly and one of the ways I think of truth is as existing in layers. There is something to the correlation of uncertainty of truth and compassion. The more uncertain I feel, the more compassionate I feel. I idealize compassion, and maybe a part of me idealizes self-doubt along with it. Uncertainty creates an openess in my experience which feels 'true'.

An NT's world is frequently harsher. But we do also have to question if someone who goes for brutal honesty is after the honesty or the brutality. The former will work in favour of objectivity. The latter could cloud things worse than emotions and consideration for others would. To add to the analogy. "Of what use are others if it is the wrong world".

Maybe NFs are less likely to brutally honest in the way of NTs, but to be fair I know I can be brutally honest when I feel one of my values has been treaded on. The difference might be that the healthy NF under normal circumstances would rather not be brutally honest even if the facts are obvious to them. Some NFs can be quite abrasive when they feel they're in the right.

From an INFP's perspective:

The truth does not change.

Introverted Feeling

Only the perception...

Extraverted Intuition

That is hope.

Fi idealism projected into Ne future possibilties.

Have you heard the saying, "Look to a gown of gold, and you will at least get a sleeve of it?" What I don't understand about T's is why they're satisfied with nature and reality as they are. I want to try and make reality as close to my idea of how it should be as possible, even if it isn't necessarily logical to do so.

That's a nice saying. I'd never heard it before.

That relates to what I've heard about optimists. Supposely, optimists are less accurate in their perceptions of present reality, but they're more capable of creating new future realities. It takes some severe depression to cause an NF to lose their hopeful imagination. Depression often only fuels an NFs dreaming of what could be.

Let's just say it's very easy for an xxFP to incorporate values that aren't very good, and it's near impossible to get rid of them once they're in there.

This might be true. Once a value is deeply implanted in my psyche it takes on a life of its own.

Fi can be held accountable to... what? Itself?

Fi is held accountable to collective moral ideals even if they aren't as ameliorable to specific social conditions as Fe would be. Fi isn't merely personal subjectivism.

If what you are saying was true, NFs would be very unlikely to be paranoid, have issues with anxiety, or to suffer from depression, wouldn't they?

I for one can vouch for anxiety and depression.

NFs don't necessarily consider truth and fact the same thing, nor see concrete reality as the only reality.

Yep. I'm more likely to argue about 'truth' rather than to argue a specific truth.

 

[Nocapszy]

What?! That's absurd...

I may have used those words exactly.

How can you not "believe" in geometry?

I'm not so sure she meant she didn't believe in it. She doesn't have a very broad vocabulary, so my guess is she couldn't think of a better word.

Though, looking at what both my friend and my brother were saying -- it almost appears as though they reject those things so they can shirk responsibility. Perhaps this is just motive?

It may not affect all my decisions, but I can't deny it's existence and validity for it's own purpose. It's practically staring me in the face as I type... it governs the shape of so many things.

All physical things to be precise.

And besides, I find near-perfect geometric shapes (cubes, spheres, triangles, etc.) to be aesthetically pleasing for some reason. What could you possibly have against geometry, other than having difficulties in Geometry class?

I think it may be as simple as that -- they dislike anything they don't excel at (or probably more likely, anything where they're not praised) and reject it as an irrelevant truth, so they don't have to be involved in it any longer.

Makes enough sense to me. "If it doesn't make you feel good, fuck it. Who needs it?"

Did their parents use to beat them with a tetrahedron or something? Honestly, I think xxFP's are sweet and I try to be nice to them, but the way many of them (perhaps not all of them) govern their values make me more than a little uneasy. Let's just say it's very easy for an xxFP to incorporate values that aren't very good, and it's near impossible to get rid of them once they're in there.

The way I see it is...

Te can be held accountable to the goal of a set of procedures.

Ti can be held accountable to the nature of logic.

Fe can be held accountable to the feeling states of other people.

Fi can be held accountable to... what? Itself?

Well, you have to look also at the perception axis. Fi... makes shit up (everything from compliments to imaginary friends to entire stories. Perception I think just helps out with those things), in addition to the values thing.