[MBTI General] short rant on NFs

[bronte]

do you see any value in 'feeling' bluewing?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

It is interesting to see ways MBTI generates prejudicial thinking in different scenarios. As a newer phenomenon than social constructs like race or religion, and without the same kinds of social history and complexity, it provides an interesting opportunity for sociological studies. I sometimes wonder whether prejudices are more deeply ingrained in the context of socially constructed categories, if part of what generates these categories and the prevailing interest is the underlying need to make a lower resolution of the world in an attempt to make it more predictable and manageable. It would be interesting to see if people ever construct "us-them" categories and then consider "them" to be superior. Most of the time it is a way to define self as different and superior to "them"

I don't think it is possible to debate against a conclusion of superiority. It appears to be human nature to construct these categories and then define the other as inferior for whatever reasons and purposes. Accepting someone as your equal who assumes you are inferior can be challenging, but sometimes it makes the strongest case for equality.

It is possible to debate against a conclusion of anything, as all statements are either true or false. Now, when we deal with feelers who refuse to think objectively, debating against their position, whatever their position may be is a futile endeavor. They believe in what they believe not because they see a reason to believe in what they believe, but simply because it appeals to their fancies.

In other words, just make sure you think less, everything will be okay. All a matter of feel, you can always believe in anything you want, it will all be good.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

do you see any value in 'feeling' bluewing?

Some.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

It is possible, but the goals should really be agreed upon. That is, the meaning of life. Mr. Wing has basically said that detachment is the key to satisfaction, which even most NTs disagree with. Oh, I also don't know why Wing argues for NT superiority, as opposed to ISTJ superiority. Of course I could be wrong, but how often does that happen?

I'm not sure I understand that statement. The point of viewing others as equal who disagree even in fundamental assumptions about life is to acknowledge that we are equally limited by whatever our genetics and environments produced. I'm old enough now that most of my closely held assumptions about reality have been overthrown. It is humbling and it has changed the way I view anyone, including myself. Debating ideas to get it right is more important than ever to me, but also acknowledging how feeble our attempts really are and realizing that an idea whether right or wrong can be enlightening when I understand exactly how it was formed. Sometimes my own mind is convinced by its validity, sometimes there are kernals of truth that peek out, and sometimes the ideas remain false in my mind, but an understanding of how the human mind works has increased. That's how I approach it, and most people seem to consider me an NF, for whatever that is worth. I am trying to show one example of how a holistic analysis including the subject can function.

It is possible to debate against a conclusion of anything, as all statements are either true or false. Now, when we deal with feelers who refuse to think objectively, debating against their position, whatever their position may be is a futile endeavor. They believe in what they believe not because they see a reason to believe in what they believe, but simply because it appeals to their fancies.

In other words, just make sure you think less, everything will be okay. All a matter of feel, you can always believe in anything you want, it will all be good.

You are right that any conclusion can be debated against. If there is an assumption of superiority, which seems to be a fundamental part of how people think, I am suggesting that it is not generated by the ideas alone, but by a larger context. I'm not trying to say that it is your conclusion or anyone else's in particular, because a thread like this only provides a fragment of information. I was mostly addressing the whole concept of these rant threads that complain about a category of people as inferior, since it demonstrates that kind of thinking. Even with the specific individuals who start these, it might be more of a momentary thing.

My point is that it has seemed useful for me in detaching from my own faulty thinking in the past, to form a vantage point from outside myself that doesn't assume my ideas or myself as superior, but starts with a kind of null hypothesis each time that attempts to reexamine both angles as potentially equal at the start, and then move towards which is more likely correct. The level of skepticism in that approach might not be particularly useful for everyone, and even problematic in many scenarios, but effective in others.

 

[bronte]

What?

 

[Jack Flak]

I'm not sure I understand that statement. The point of viewing others as equal who disagree even in fundamental assumptions about life is to acknowledge that we are equally limited by whatever our genetics and environments produced. I'm old enough now that most of my closely held assumptions about reality have been overthrown. It is humbling and it has changed the way I view anyone, including myself. Debating ideas to get it right is more important than ever to me, but also acknowledging how feeble our attempts really are and realizing that an idea whether right or wrong can be enlightening when I understand exactly how it was formed. Sometimes my own mind is convinced by its validity, sometimes there are kernals of truth that peek out, and sometimes the ideas remain false in my mind, but an understanding of how the human mind works has increased. That's how I approach it, and most people seem to consider me an NF, for whatever that is worth. I am trying to show one example of how a holistic analysis including the subject can function.

The point is, there's nothing preventing a debate on what personality type is best suited to leading a rewarding life, as long as you define rewarding. If you don't define rewarding, the debate is pointless.

What I intended to show you is that you would almost certainly disagree with BlueWing's ideas of what is and is not rewarding, so to get yourself involved in the discussion is rather...Silly.

 

[ragashree]

Bluewing: You seemed by your numerous requests for me to elaborate on what I was saying either to be having difficulty in comprehending me, or to have a real wish for me to analyse your hypothesis in more detail. If you would like me to show you in more detail how your argument is flawed by your subjectivity and emotiveness, I would be delighted to do so on another thread in a more appropriate location, such as the phillosophy or psycholgy sub-forums. I am not going to do so further on this thread, however, as it has recieved far too much attention already and has become hijacked by discussion of your hypothesis since you posted. Please set up a thread for this purpose, inform me of it, and restate your original premise, and I would be happy to discuss ithe subject with you further.

So far I have seen nothing from you but conclusions. It is doubtful that you even understand my posts.

This appears to be precisely your failing. I see no evidence that you understood the statement I made, despite the fact that you have quoted it. I reiterate, please respond to what I have actually said. And do so in a direct manner if you wish me to take you seriously. I made an offer to discuss this on annother thread. The offer remains open as far as I am concerned.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

This appears to be precisely your failing. I see no evidence that you understood the statement I made, despite the fact that you have quoted it. I reiterate, please respond to what I have actually said. And do so in a direct manner if you wish me to take you seriously. I made an offer to discuss this on annother thread. The offer remains open as far as I am concerned.

Discuss what exactly? Most of the time I have to guess to figure out what it is that you're saying.

 

[bronte]

I'm not sure I understand that statement. The point of viewing others as equal who disagree even in fundamental assumptions about life is to acknowledge that we are equally limited by whatever our genetics and environments produced. I'm old enough now that most of my closely held assumptions about reality have been overthrown. It is humbling and it has changed the way I view anyone, including myself. Debating ideas to get it right is more important than ever to me, but also acknowledging how feeble our attempts really are and realizing that an idea whether right or wrong can be enlightening when I understand exactly how it was formed. Sometimes my own mind is convinced by its validity, sometimes there are kernals of truth that peek out, and sometimes the ideas remain false in my mind, but an understanding of how the human mind works has increased. That's how I approach it, and most people seem to consider me an NF, for whatever that is worth. I am trying to show one example of how a holistic analysis including the subject can function.

Toonia! So well put!

'Im old enough now that most of my closely held assumptions about reality have been overthrown. It is humbling and it has changed the way I view anyone, including myself. Debating ideas to get it right is more important than ever to me, but also acknowledging how feeble our attempts really are

Questioning our reality doesn not mean Bluewing that we have no sense of self - even 'thinking' humans are feeble most of the time and need to listen and learn from each other.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

The point is, there's nothing preventing a debate on what personality type is best suited to leading a rewarding life, as long as you define rewarding. If you don't define rewarding, the debate is pointless.

I would be curious to see what a debate like that would look like. Isn't that like debating whether apples or oranges taste better? Can rewarding be defined in a way that isn't too subjective for it to be debatable?

What I intended to show you is that you would almost certainly disagree with BlueWing's ideas of what is and is not rewarding, so to get yourself involved in the discussion is rather...Silly.

I am familiar with BlueWings ideas. It is irrelevant to me whether or not I agree with him on what is rewarding. It seems completely reasonable that it would be different for him than for me.

I might not be understanding your position.

 

[ragashree]

Your hypothesis, which I would have hoped was contextually evident, as I clearly stated this in my penultimate post. If you are both reading and understanding what I am saying there should be no need for guesswork:

Bluewing: You seemed by your numerous requests for me to elaborate on what I was saying either to be having difficulty in comprehending me, or to have a real wish for me to analyse your hypothesis in more detail. If you would like me to show you in more detail how your argument is flawed by your subjectivity and emotiveness, I would be delighted to do so on another thread in a more appropriate location, such as the phillosophy or psycholgy sub-forums. I am not going to do so further on this thread, however, as it has recieved far too much attention already and has become hijacked by discussion of your hypothesis since you posted. Please set up a thread for this purpose, inform me of it, and restate your original premise, and I would be happy to discuss ithe subject with you further.

You are demonstrating precisely the lack of contextual awareness that I mentioned in my first response to you. This tends to confirm my own hypotheis about your difficulties in processing external data:

You have typed yourself as INTP - I can believe that, as a core weakness of the natural INTP process is often in data collection, where insufficient focus on obtaining accurate information through perceptive Ni may result in formulating a theory that though logically sound in itself, is lacking in external applicability through omission of key data.

 

[Jack Flak]

I might not be understanding your position.

My position, demystified: "BlueWing is full of it."

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Your hypothesis, which I would have hoped was contextually evident, as I clearly stated this in my penultimate post. If you are both reading and understanding what I am saying there should be no need for guesswork:



You are demonstrating precisely the lack of contextual awareness that I mentioned in my first response to you. This tends to confirm my own hypotheis about your difficulties in processing external data:

Your thesis:.......

Your axiom:.......

Your premises

Premise 1:.....

Premise 2:...........

Your thoughts are too confused at this point.

 

[Amargith]

Sigh, you're like one of those people who insists that everyone talks their language, as the other language/culture is inferior. Allow me to borrow from Harry Potter and go: 'Broaden your mind!'

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Sigh, you're like one of those people who insists that everyone talks their language, as the other language/culture is inferior. Allow me to borrow from Harry Potter and go: 'Broaden your mind!'

Yeah, how narrow-minded of me to expect that people make sense! Anything that feels right should be fine! So don't you worry my friend, your feelings really are valid. Just try not to think too much okay?

 

[ragashree]

You appear to be confused yourself. I was attempting to state neither an axiom nor premises. We can do this on the separate thread for this purpose, if you like. I think it would be more appropriate there. Again, you are displaying lack of contextual awareness by asking me to state either thesis, axiom or premises when these things are not relevant to what I am actually saying.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

You appear to be confused yourself. I was attempting to state neither an axiom nor premises. .

If that is the case then you do not have an argument, or simply do not have anything worthwhile to contribute.

 

[Lady_X]

Sigh, you're like one of those people who insists that everyone talks their language, as the other language/culture is inferior. Allow me to borrow from Harry Potter and go: 'Broaden your mind!'

which would make sense...if jack is right about him being an istj

sorry to you other istj's...but you know you kinda do that.

 

[ragashree]

You are continuing to evade my initial request. In fact you have not even given me any evidence that you understood it.

 

[Jack Flak]

which would make sense...if jack is right about him being an istj

Yeah, not just me, Nocaps too. *eats apple*