[Jungian Cognitive Functions] FPs: yes, we CAN tell the difference between someone being natural vs fake

[Glycerine]

No, it really goes after the "tone" of people. The ability to sense "fake" is really the ability to sense when something doesn't match up. It doesn't mean something is wrong, but it does mean that something isn't quite right.



Yes, this does seem to be a trait of the FP types - an overall desire to evaluate what a person is really like. On the xNFP side, I note that ENFPs are particularly good at making snap observations along these lines, while INFPs tend to withhold a "final" judgement.



Good synopsis.

There is an interesting aspect of Nardi's research, where there's a missing piece of the symmetry in terms of the "Intuitive listening" section of the brain. All of the FPs use this section a lot. That's the main consistency. A corollary consistency is that the Ti doms don't use it much at all. In between, it's a bit of a jumble. ENFJs, ENTPs, ISFJs, ENTJs and INTJs, all use it, though not as intently as the FPs.

Strangely, INFJs are missing from that list. This might just be an artifact of the limited sample size, but it's possible that it isn't a priority. Instead, it appears that INFJs rely on literal details (exact words used) and a strong social context to evaluate people. Combined with their Ni, it amounts to being a very similar thing, but it's remarkable to see how the evaluation might be different.

On a side note, I recall that there was a "Sense Motive" skill in D&D 3rd edition, which is kind of analogous to what Elfboy is claiming in the OP. One thing that I kind of wanted to add to that system (I no longer play), was a "Deduction" skill that was more Intelligence-based, which would work sort of like Sense Motive, except it would be about spotting inconsistencies in a more thinking-style, than feeling style. I bring this up because it is entirely possible to have a thinking-based bs-detector, except it isn't detecting duplicity so much as it is likely detecting incompetence or ignorance.

It's interesting that you say that about FPs. As a strong Fe user, I am interested in figure out what people are all about but the area I seem to focus is detecting the inconsistencies in people. The tone and meaning vs what's being said done. Also, attributing meaning to a particular vibe in the context of a person/situation. I rely mostly on on in the moment observation (Se) and vibes (Fe + Ni) in assessing folks. I compare and differentiate the vibes to read people. So I probably use inductive reasoning moreso than deductive reasoning for this so theoretically, it's fairly different.

 

[uumlau]

It's interesting that you say that about FPs. As a strong Fe user, I am interested in figure out what people are all about but the area I seem to focus is detecting the inconsistencies in people. The tone and meaning vs what's being said done. Also, attributing meaning to a particular vibe in the context of a person/situation. I rely mostly on on in the moment observation (Se) and vibes (Fe + Ni) in assessing folks. I compare and differentiate the vibes to read people. So I probably use inductive reasoning moreso than deductive reasoning for this so theoretically, it's fairly different.

Note that ENFJs are in the list of people who, EEG-wise, appear to employ various aspects of intuitive listening. The interesting part is that Fi vs Ti, the usage of this style of listening is fairly consistent (Fi very frequent, Ti not so much). For the other "in between" types, it's very hit-and-miss: ISFJs use it, INFJs don't; ENFJs use it, ESFJs don't. And of course there may be issues with the data; they should be considered "interesting" data points, not definitive results.

Also, it helps to keep in mind that very disparate types use the same regions, but have very different personalities. INTJ vs ISFP is a good example of sharing thought patterns, but couldn't be more different in terms of overall goals/personality. There is no 1-to-1 mapping of types/functions to these various regions, except that people of the same type appear to use the same regions in the same ways. Just because two types "have Ti" doesn't imply that they use region X or region Y: it depends on a lot more than that. Interestingly, it seems to largely depend on some of the raw Jungian typology, in that P vs J doesn't matter, but whether the dominant function is perceiving or judging matters. P or J is what other people see and can measure, while the nature of the dominant function determines how they think.

 

[Glycerine]

Ahhh. I wasn't trying to dispute it. I was just interested in how the different types seem to act in different ways. Thanks for the information.

 

[Southern Kross]

There seems to be an idea that "Fi reads people" (as if it's a tool...). I don't think this is quite how it works.

An xxFP has perceptions via Pe - Se types often note tangible indicators (ie. body language) & Ne types work with those intangible "vibes".

What Fi does is make the judgment call based on an understanding of how people work. This is an understanding that has been refined in the mind via exploration of the self (which is used as a sort of prototype for understanding people), & in the case of NFPs, via invisible patterns observed in people over time. I admit that "figuring people out" is a little game I play with myself, and practice tends to improve such "skills" (oh yes, I am psychoanalyzing you!).

No, it really goes after the "tone" of people. The ability to sense "fake" is really the ability to sense when something doesn't match up. It doesn't mean something is wrong, but it does mean that something isn't quite right.

Yes, this does seem to be a trait of the FP types - an overall desire to evaluate what a person is really like. On the xNFP side, I note that ENFPs are particularly good at making snap observations along these lines, while INFPs tend to withhold a "final" judgement.

I very much agree with these points. I think OA is right about the NFP approach being different to simply reading people in the moment. Instead, we try to build up an overall picture of that person in feeling tones - we try to get a feel for what this person is about, what drives them etc and fine tune that image over time. The perception of fakeness then comes from seeing a contradiction between present behaviour and what we 'know' about that person.

In some ways this can seem quite backwards, perhaps particularly so to FJs, because we don't evaluate a person's behaviour based on individual encounters, delving deeper using inferences from there, but instead evaluate them in comparison to the individual signs and standards that person has previously demonstrated and set.

I think FPs are more aware of the division of self within people; that there can in fact be an immediate, transitory self as well as an inner, enduring self, and that these can be incongruent with each other. This can make FPs very understanding if, say, a person behaves badly, if they know that this isn't a reflection of their true, inner self. It can also make us more critical of someone if we see incongruence and that person then makes out that there is no distinction between the two selves (which appears to us to be fakeness). There can, of course, be good reason to do the latter, and FPs, as they mature, need to learn to recognise the difference between positive and negative usage of it.

There is an interesting aspect of Nardi's research, where there's a missing piece of the symmetry in terms of the "Intuitive listening" section of the brain. All of the FPs use this section a lot. That's the main consistency. A corollary consistency is that the Ti doms don't use it much at all. In between, it's a bit of a jumble. ENFJs, ENTPs, ISFJs, ENTJs and INTJs, all use it, though not as intently as the FPs.

Strangely, INFJs are missing from that list. This might just be an artifact of the limited sample size, but it's possible that it isn't a priority. Instead, it appears that INFJs rely on literal details (exact words used) and a strong social context to evaluate people. Combined with their Ni, it amounts to being a very similar thing, but it's remarkable to see how the evaluation might be different.

Yes this is interesting and I'd like him to explore this more in his research. Maybe then people would stop bagging FP insights as imaginary nonsense.

Perhaps the reason INFJs aren't included is, like you say, they are developing an understand of an individual from a common social context - so that their perception starts from an already formed springboard/foundation (much like Si) rather than from scratch (as is more the case with FPs). The FPs assume nothing and perhaps make up for this by delving into people using this intuitive listening - maybe it is how we form our foundations.

 

[BlackCat]

EQ>Fi