User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 101

Thread: NF Arrogance

  1. #51
    Member doppelganger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    Firstly, why are you even considering this argument? I mean it comes from a NF so it's illogical by default, right?
    I did consider the argument, so by your reasoning doesn't that show I don't regard NFs as "illogical"?

    Secondly, it's kinda bullshit, because NTs rarely admit they are bad at feelings.
    How often do you even hear NTs talking about emotions? Maybe this is why you don't hear it. I readily admit I'm better at handling logic than emotions.

    And when they do admit it, often they do so with disdain because they generally consider the emotional realm to be silly, trivial and irrelevant. In this case, admitting to not being good at it is a lot like 'admitting' you don't find Twilight intellectually stimulating - it's actually an indirect boast of superiority.
    NTs often dismiss emotions, but not because they don't think emotions are important (especially their own) but because they don't think emotions are relevant. For example, I don't think people's emotions are pertinent in this thread. The idea of emotions is germane since that is a topic of discussion. But not people's emotions themselves, since this is not a discussion about values but about truth--ie, is this argument true? Not is this argument good or bad?

    And it is because NTs are usually concerned with truth that they don't take emotions into consideration. Not because they don't think emotions and values are important.

    Thirdly, what NTs (and clearly some pandering NFs too) really mean when they say they're better at NT-thinking is that they're better at serious, intellectual thought. No shit that NFs, "become upset when challenged on this belief" that we're capable of it. Why don't you just say, "stop pretending like you're smart"?
    No, what NTs mean when they say they are better at NT-type thinking is they are better at logic. At assessing the truth of propositions.

    Also, feelings ≠ Feeling. I can't be bothered actually explaining that for the Thousandth time, so I'm holding out that you might actually catch on.
    If you don't explain it, then how can I be bothered to understand it?

    Have you considered for a second that it's not compensating and that maybe NFs are actually more than capable of rational thought? Or do you just sigh patronizingly and shake your head in amusement like we're monkeys dressed up like humans, riding around on tricycles?
    Do you have evidence NFs are "more capable of rational thought"?

    I'm not going to pretend that I'm better at using Te or Ti than NTs, but I don't think that means that I should never dare question a NT's logic or judgement, or debate with them. I certainly don't see how it's arrogance, overcompensation, or an act of denial for me to engage in logical argument.
    Show me where that ENFP says NFs can't think rationally? On the contrary, he said NFs can think rationally, only not as well as NTs can. And since you admit you can't use Ti-Te as well as NTs, you apparently agree. So why your post? One word: Strawman.

  2. #52
    Member doppelganger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    93

    Default

    the NFGeeks video:

    NT Love! (Valentine's Day Special) - YouTube

    the irony of a video on NF love for NTs in this thread isn't lost!

  3. #53
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,595

    Default

    One thing that strikes me a bit strange about the premise of the OP is the assumption that NFs are arrogant about logic? I don't see that as a "thing" that goes on regularly. I can see intuitive based feelers assuming too much skill at reading people or putting too much faith in their gut instinct, but some can dismiss the importance of logic.

    I also wondered about the assumption of having the "right" kind of arrogance. Arrogance by its nature is subjective because it is based on the ego, on a need to orient oneself as superior to others. It prefers self over others. It desires to be "right" and to have its own way, to dominate. A purely objective or empathetic state is not compatible with arrogance, so when Ts or Fs are arrogant, how is there a "right" way? I spent 12 years with an artistic INTP mentor, 15 years in relationship with an E9 INTP, and six years with a hyper-brilliant INTP partner, and have spent some years in the past on the INTPforum and here. All of these people were remarkably brilliant and valued objectivity. They were capable of clarity of logic, and most were not arrogant. I did notice in some cases (both intimate and acquaintance) that when these objective thinkers turned the corner into their subjective realm, there were times they couldn't see it at all. When distressed the hyper-rational type will easily project their subjective assumptions outward as objective fact. That can be an example of arrogance or not, but it is strikingly clear that T's do not have the market on observing the divide between the objective and subjective anymore than anyone else when it is very personal.

    There have been some extremely Feeler types here who can say "I'm feeling and thinking this way, but I know it is a highly personalized thing and I don't consider it to be objectively true". Because their identity and credibility is not caught up in being "objective", they lose nothing by admitting their subjectivity while most Ts are toying with their very sense of self and their external image when they admit their loss of objectivity.

    I mention these things to show there is a counter argument to the OP. I don't think any type has the right or wrong form of arrogance. It is easy enough to backwards reason any foregone conclusion using MBTI, but with so many people, each with complex inner workings in the world, every possible configuration occurs. General trends are possible within categories, but most are backwards reasoned based on personal experience and have absolutely no statistical basis or testing or anyway to demonstrate their validity.

    So we have these grand arguments online because we are each arguing for the credibility of our own experience and often a desire to project that experience onto the whole of reality by backwards reasoning ways it can apply to larger categories of people. I didn't read this entire thread, so I don't know if that's happening right now, but wow does it happen all.the.time on the forums.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

  4. #54
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,488

    Default

    I haven't noted anything like this. I'm an ENFP, and I do well at deductive reasoning, and all them logics. When I talk to NF friends, they tend feel the need to tell me that they're not very smart; They usually are very smart, they just don't associate anything other than formal reasoning with intelligence.

    Formal reasoning is skill that is learned. It may be the some people are more predisposed to be interested in it, but I refuse to believe that certain types are naturally better at it.
    Likes N/A liked this post

  5. #55
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doppelganger View Post
    @OrangeAppled

    If one examines what you've said, this is what it comes down to. Feeling and thinking are both cognitive functions (cfs). Feeling supposedly isn't emotions, but there is no clear line between cfs and emotions, so for all intents and purposes, emotions are part of the cfs. But feeling is not a "real-time thought process" like thinking is, so they are two distinct fcns.
    You added this. "Thinking", the Jungian term, is not a real-time thought process either. All the cognitive functions represent thinking (in the regular use of the word), but they don't exist as measurable processes we can study in a person's brain. Instead, they are representations of whole mentalities which form the ego. Jung describes the intangible structure of the psychology, he does not speak of actual processes in the brain.
    That's why this not scientific at all. It's more of a philosophy. It's very spiritual.

    You fail over and over to get that point; are you even reading the whole posts?
    Why do you think I keep bringing up the ego?
    Types are about ego, not one's actual ability to use a thought process.

    Thinking, at least in T-doms, doesn't access emotions so is separate from them. Feeling uses emotions so is close to them.
    In theory, the Thinking type endeavors to do this, but they aren't really able to, and so hilarity ensues. Of course, this is really their EGO, which is heavily influenced by the inferior function, which for T-dom is...FEELING. Only their feeling is less differentiated, or experienced more as one with emotion (as opposed to using it and able to sort it rationally). They project this onto Feeling types. You are being a prime example of this; thanks!

    Given that in real life, there are many, many thought processes people use and these are not clearly separated from emotion, the Thinking types' ego is at odds with reality (guess what? every type's ego is at odds with reality in some way...).

    "Using" is not equal to "being one and the same" either. Emotions are a part of the data Feeling uses, it is not the Feeling process it itself.

    You're using vague wording to try and twist something to what you want it to be. If you think I don't notice imprecision in wording, then you are wrong. You gloss over my careful phrasing, subtly change a few words so the whole meaning is changed, and then you fall back on the trusty cherry-picking and straw man.

    None of this is intellectually honest of you.

    The P fcns don't access emotions, so they are separate from them.
    According to.....? Why wouldn't the perceiving functions be perceiving emotions? That would very much be a part of the data they would "see". They are also not exempt from cognition, so they wouldn't have the clear line with emotions either.

    So emotions are exclusively connected to feeling.
    False. Twisting the wording again. Feeling, in order to correctly reason on the value of something in terms of the human condition, MUST consider emotion. It would not reach conclusions which make sense if it did not consider emotion. Remember that Feeling is not a real time process - instead, the person is characterized by this mentality.

    Perception would not ignore physiological responses either....is that not something the 5 senses could pick up? Would intuition fail to see how emotion will affect possibilities, future outcomes, and the underlying dynamics of reality?

    In reality, no type is able to clearly separate emotion from cognition, because their type is not a real time process, but it's their ego.

    Let's review:
    All of the cognitive functions are forms of thinking. None of them are separated clearly from emotion in reality, and we cannot neatly match up any of the 8 cognitive function-attitudes with real time thought processes. Instead, they are representations of cognitive styles which are more like whole mindsets, not individual processes, and they are meant to describe the ego, not meant to describe someone's ability to think a certain way.


    But there is no clear line between feeling and emotions--since there is no clear line between cfs and emotions--so feeling and emotions are, for all intents and purposes, identical. So the picture you paint is distinct cfs T and F, where T excludes emotions and F is indistinguishable from emotions.
    I answered this already.... "using" and "being" do not have the same meaning. You're trying to conflate Feeling with emotion instead of understanding that it USES it.

    Thinking is no more a real time cognitive process than Feeling is, but it is the ego. The actual Thinking types will use thinking forms which are just as "indistinguishable" from emotions as other types will.

    So how is this really different than MBTI?
    If you understood MBTI correctly, then it wouldn't be. The MBTI web site tells you that emotion and feeling are not the same. Gifts Differing explains that both Feeling and Thinking types are able to use the non-preferred style in situations which call for it. In other words - we can operate outside of the constraints of our ego, which is great and important for self-growth.

    Like I said, REEEEEAD!!!!!!

    The only thing you've really changed is hiding emotions inside the cfs, rather than identifying them up front with feeling. This is a sleight of hand since it gives the appearance of making emotions disappear in the cfs. But they can't disappear because both T and the P fcns exclude emotions, leaving only feeling to carry them, thus making them indistinguishable from each other. So when examined from an objective pov, there is no real difference between what you described and MBTI, not wrt the identity of feeling and emotions.
    According to you, not according to anyone else. I explained above why that conclusion is wrong and makes no sense given what this theory is about.

    I'm taking it you've never actually read Jung. Have you ever read Gifts Differing, at least?

    One can see this in your description of feeling:

    There is no actual Feeling thought process(es) in reality; it's about the ego, not specific, real time thought processes we use.
    So feeling is not a "thought process" like a logic thought process, it is just part of the "ego" and not any "specific, real time thought process". How is this different than emotions?

    Wow....how much do you need stuff spelled out for you?

    That sentence can have ANY of the 4 functions in the spot where "Feeling" is; that was an example, and I'm sorry now that I chose to use Feeling.

    This works also:
    There is no actual Thinking thought process(es) in reality; it's about the ego, not specific, real time thought processes we use.

    Again, I don't think you understand the difference between Jungian terms and the regular usage of these words. In Jungian terms, Thinking and Feeling do not mean what they mean in the layman's usage of them, but you keep trying to conflate them.


    Your whole demonstration is an illusion, poorly disguised in bluster and insinuation, and motivated ultimately by you-know-what.
    Stick to cherry-picking and straw men, because you fail at witty barbs. And do not imagine you have not made personal insults. They just didn't have any flavor to them. Dry insults do not make you morally superior nor are they entertaining. At the very least, be entertaining.


    Your homework OP - read Psychological Types and Gifts Differing. Until you do, you cannot move forward in your lesson.

    ----


    In regards to the OP, in case it got lost - No, I don't think NFs are "as good at NT thinking as NTs", or that NFs have an arrogance about this. Why? Because what in world is NT thinking? I think what individuals are good at is influenced by many factors, and intelligence, opportunity, application, education, interest, etc, will be major factors in whether someone who identifies with an NF ego is able to succeed in an area that some people associate with NT egos. If a person succeeds there, then why shouldn't they take pride in their accomplishments? Should they pretend to be stupid to soothe NT egos?
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe
    Likes Southern Kross, lulabelle liked this post

  6. #56
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    But you know if you don't do it, no one will...

    I just have so much love to give. I cannot help myself.... So much love!




    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe
    Likes Hard, Southern Kross liked this post

  7. #57
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    17

    Default NF Arrogance

    Quote Originally Posted by doppelganger View Post
    The ENFP is really just saying that NFs believe they are just as rational as NTs. That's what he means by NF arrogance. Does anyone think this is true? Do NFs think they are as rational as NTs? NTs certainly don't think they're as good with emotions as NFs.
    No I don't think I'm as rational as other NTs - or even ST. I think I understand my own emotion quite well and that I'm more emotionally intelligent than the NTs that I have encountered - not sure if that's arrogance or not
    Last edited by ai116; 10-05-2014 at 02:49 PM. Reason: fix

  8. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    I also wondered about the assumption of having the "right" kind of arrogance. Arrogance by its nature is subjective because it is based on the ego, on a need to orient oneself as superior to others. It prefers self over others.
    That's not what was being referred to in the video as arrogance. The video said that NTs were arrogant about their strength (thinking) but humble about their weakness (feeling), whereas NFs were arrogant about their weakness (thinking) and humble about their strength (feeling). It's pretty clear from the video that what is meant by "arrogant" is "have a high opinion of" and by "humble" "have a low opinion of". In other words, that NTs correctly assess that their strength is strong and their weakness is weak, while NFs incorrectly assume their weakness is strong and unnecessarily doubt the strength of their strength.

    I don't think the words "arrogant" or "humble" were terribly well-chosen. They mislead by injecting an emotional state into an unemotional judgment.

    I did notice in some cases (both intimate and acquaintance) that when these objective thinkers turned the corner into their subjective realm, there were times they couldn't see it at all. When distressed the hyper-rational type will easily project their subjective assumptions outward as objective fact. That can be an example of arrogance or not, but it is strikingly clear that T's do not have the market on observing the divide between the objective and subjective anymore than anyone else when it is very personal.
    My experience as an INTP suggests that you are right about this. I believe it is likely an NT-wide phenomenon.

    This is not something that happens to me very often at all, but when it does, holy crap am I irrational. When I say "irrational", I'm not talking about a bit of sloppy thinking, or some kind of thinking that isn't logic but could still be reasonably considered to be a form of thinking. I'm talking about the F part of me flipping out and (metaphorically speaking) turning into the Incredible Hulk and screaming and throwing things. And if the T part of me, normally so dominant and in control, is dumb enough to mention to the Hulk that, logically speaking, the Hulk's view of the situation is incorrect, the Hulk would grab it by the throat, scream "Hulk not wrong! Hulk MAAAAAD!", and throw it out the window.
    Likes digesthisickness, labyrinthine liked this post

  9. #59
    ✿ڿڰۣஇღ♥ wut ♥ღஇڿڰۣ✿ digesthisickness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ancalagon View Post
    That's not what was being referred to in the video as arrogance. The video said that NTs were arrogant about their strength (thinking) but humble about their weakness (feeling), whereas NFs were arrogant about their weakness (thinking) and humble about their strength (feeling). It's pretty clear from the video that what is meant by "arrogant" is "have a high opinion of" and by "humble" "have a low opinion of". In other words, that NTs correctly assess that their strength is strong and their weakness is weak, while NFs incorrectly assume their weakness is strong and unnecessarily doubt the strength of their strength.

    I don't think the words "arrogant" or "humble" were terribly well-chosen. They mislead by injecting an emotional state into an unemotional judgment.


    My experience as an INTP suggests that you are right about this. I believe it is likely an NT-wide phenomenon.

    This is not something that happens to me very often at all, but when it does, holy crap am I irrational. When I say "irrational", I'm not talking about a bit of sloppy thinking, or some kind of thinking that isn't logic but could still be reasonably considered to be a form of thinking. I'm talking about the F part of me flipping out and (metaphorically speaking) turning into the Incredible Hulk and screaming and throwing things. And if the T part of me, normally so dominant and in control, is dumb enough to mention to the Hulk that, logically speaking, the Hulk's view of the situation is incorrect, the Hulk would grab it by the throat, scream "Hulk not wrong! Hulk MAAAAAD!", and throw it out the window.
    If only you'd have started this thread instead.

    I wonder if it's less about NFs thinking they're stronger with their weakness (for those who have noticed this about themselves), and more about having to defend having any strength at all in their 'weakness'. Seems as if they have to always be reminding someone that they are very capable of being rational in discussions like these, so maybe there is a connection.

    Either way, though, I haven't come across NFs who downplay their strengths (that I can remember right now). More often they have to explain that their strengths ARE strengths at the same time they have to explain that their 'weakness' can still be very strong.
    ✻ღϠ₡ღ✻
    (¯`✻´¯)
    `*.¸.*'ღϠ₡ღஇڿڰۣ
    •.¸¸. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒჱܓ. இڿڰۣ.¸¸.இڿڰۣ´¯`·.─♥


    Cerebral Artery
    http://www.facebook.com/CerebralArtery
    Likes labyrinthine, Ivy liked this post

  10. #60
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    Just....stop that shit. You have no idea how that one little comment not only invalidates everything you say (even when it's excellent), it makes people want to push you off a cliff.
    The part you bolded was ironic.
    And it didn't invalidate anything I said. Even if I wrote 'all of the preceding is bullshit', it wouldn't invalidate it, unless the reader wants it so.

Similar Threads

  1. Famous Living NFs
    By Economica in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 144
    Last Post: 08-04-2009, 02:33 PM
  2. [MBTItm] Meritorious NFs?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 07-07-2009, 10:44 PM
  3. [NF] Question for NFs.
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 02-09-2009, 01:24 AM
  4. [NF] NF idealism - patronizing, arrogant, hypocritical, naiive?
    By Kaveri in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 10-04-2007, 10:39 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