[NF] NF Arrogance

[doppelganger]

Soooo? You present it like you believe it. And the idea is formed on a false premise of what Feeling and Thinking even are. That premise is being pointed out.




But apparently, I shouldn't ever use sarcasm with you.

The idea is being mocked, and you're thoroughly missing the point in the mocking, which reveals the flaw in the premise. The interpretation of what is rational is heavily biased by your own preferences. FYI, ENFPs like to agree with people and stroke their egos to get their foot in with them (the emotional manipulation INTPs so fear). That has a lot more to do with Extroverted Intuition than Feeling. An ENFP telling you what your ego wants to hear? No - impossible! This makes your ego extremely relevant to this discussion, as does the parallel of the fragile male ego needing to believe women are irrational.

The first part of my post was conveniently ignored (or you know, "danced around"). You show a poor understanding of what Feeling even is. Try reading Jung and a few other books, or you know, hit up those stickied threads, and then come back to the discussion. I'm tired of schooling people on this topic.

The ENFP video is posted on NFGeeks, a site devoted to NFs. So your premise that he's somehow stroking my NT ego is false. I also don't think this style of argumentation that tries to read into people's intentions is useful because there is no way to do this reliably, and it isn't necessary since the argument has to stand on its own merits and should therefore be evaluated on its own merits. Finally, your sarcasm was also off the mark since it presumes the ENFP (and I) believe that NFs can't reason and therefore have no business trying--ie, it is based on a false premise. That was the point.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Hello NFs! Some of you may be familiar with the youtube channel, NFGeeks. In one video, Mike, the host of the channel, made the interesting observation that NTs are arrogant but in "the right way", while NFs are arrogant but in "the wrong way". By this he meant that NTs know that they are better at NT-type thinking and aren't shy to say it; at the same time, however, they also know they are bad at feelings and readily admit that. In contrast to this, NFs like to believe they are not only good at feelings but also just as good at NT-type thinking as NTs are, and become upset when challenged on this belief; funnily, he also quipped that after NFs take umbrage, they fall into a round of questioning and self-loathing, wondering if they were too insensitive to their critics! So NFs think they're good at what they're not naturally good at, while questioning the thing they are actually good at, and hence, "errant NF arrogance".

My first question is what do you think of this idea of NF arrogance?

While I think anyone can be arrogant, the bolded sums it up nicely by implying that NTs embrace arrogance. While an NF may give into it - that doesn't mean they think it's the wonderful way to be. Not that any generalizations are accurate.

The danger for NT arrogance is that they think they can analyze everything as objective, so while they may say they aren't good at "Feeling" skills, they will not see those are being particularly important because all their thoughts are "objective'.

 

[OrangeAppled]

The ENFP video is posted on NFGeeks, a site devoted to NFs. So your premise that he's somehow stroking my NT ego is false.

In this case, I was wrong as to your relationship to the ENFP, but it doesn't remove the likelihood of why such ideas would appeal to an INTP (as they so often do).

I also don't think this style of argumentation that tries to read into people's intentions is useful because there is no way to do this reliably, and it isn't necessary since the argument has to stand on its own merits and should therefore be evaluated on its own merits.

So because you cannot measure something, then you want to pretend it doesn't exist and is not relevant? Sorry, I can't abide by that. Let's just cover our ears and go "la la la!" then.

FYI, the argument doesn't stand on its own merits, no matter how you approach the argument, unless you throw out the very definitions of the cognitive functions in favor of your own biased projections.

Finally, your sarcasm was also off the mark since it presumes the ENFP (and I) believe that NFs can't reason and therefore have no business trying--ie, it is based on a false premise. That was the point.

That's not what the sarcasm was jabbing at....it's your apparent understanding of what Feeling is that is being jabbed at. See my longer post above.

You also continue to "dance around" my points which address the OP. Cherry-picking is not exactly "logical".

 

[doppelganger]

The first part of my post was conveniently ignored (or you know, "danced around"). You show a poor understanding of what Feeling even is. Try reading Jung and a few other books, or you know, hit up those stickied threads, and then come back to the discussion. I'm tired of schooling people on this topic.

You do realize Jung's theories are mere speculation and have not been scientifically verified, right?

 

[atlascatcher]

For me, the entire premise of this post was discredited after you mentioned the question stemming from NFGeeks. I don't think "NT-type thinking" and "feelings" are related to type. If you want to rephrase your [quoted] question, [excuse me] discussing which types are better at Te/Fi and Ti/Fe, you might have an argument.

I also second the notion of people thinking I have the ability to come off as arrogant when I am actually not, given the situation.

 

[OrangeAppled]

You do realize Jung's theories are mere speculation and have not been scientifically verified, right?

Type is not scientific....who said it was?

Now we have a strawman in addition to cherry-picking? Nice logic!

 

[doppelganger]

1. Type is not skill set. Type does not determine ability, and it certainly doesn’t determine intelligence. When you go down that road, then you are basically being prejudiced. Type is ego, and it possibly best determines YOUR own biases concerning how you perceive and judge.

Really? So if there are disproportionately more NTs in the hard sciences, for example, that would be an accident, the outcome of mere chance and not skill or cognitive ability?

Since it has not been defined, I can only presume by “NT thinking” or “rationality” you mean things of an intellectual nature. This likely has more to do with intelligence, followed by an interest in such matters. Given that NFs are commonly interested in such matters, then it’s a matter of intelligence.

NTs on average are not smarter than NFs, so there is no argument left. Even if you consider IQ a valid measurement, INxx types are most commonly the highest averages, not NTs. This means INFx types are up there with INTx types. INFx are also found to over-represented in higher education and the sciences, which shows an interest in intellectual realms.

Here's one test of IQ and its correlation with MBTI types. There are others and you've probably seen them. Four of the top six performers are NTs. Only one NF appears in this group.

Intelligence Test Performance and Myers Briggs type | Personality Research

2. Feeling and Thinking are both rational in Jungian terms. Thinking is impersonal classification and Feeling is evaluative reasoning, assigning of worth, using the human experience as the gauge. Feeling uses emotion more because it is relevant data, but feeling is NOT emotion. In reality, emotion and cognition have no clear line, but in Jung’s theory, the dominant function is the most differentiated from non-cognitive stuff (ie. emotions, memory, fantasy). This makes dominant feeling types possessing of the most rational feeling. What does that mean for dominant thinking types? Since they have inferior feeling, it is not differentiated from emotion, and so they project their emotional experience of the feeling process onto others.

So feeling is not emotions, yet there is no clear line dividing them. So if there's no clear line, how do you know they are different?

In short, because an INTP’s use of feeling is irrational and emotional, they assume it is the same for others. This related to misogyny because of the projection aspect - to fear the “other” as something crazy and out of control. That is how we experience our anima or animus, aka, our inferior function.

Was Jung an INTP? If not, how is this passage relevant to the one above or to this thread? Unless you're now claiming the ENFP is really an INTP in disguise?

So for an NT to say “NFs are not as good at rational thinking” is denying the rationality of feeling, which says more about the NT making such a statement than the NFs. An NF saying “I am good at rational thinking” is generally asserting the rationality of their Feeling, not laying claim to being good at the kind of impersonal classification NTs favor. Since this is all ego, it has more to do with personality and how one experiences reality than skills and abilities anyway.

Again, it was an ENFP who made this claim, not me. And since Fe is my inferior function, why don't you elucidate this rational feeling function for me. Examples?

 

[doppelganger]

Type is not scientific....who said it was?

Now we have a strawman in addition to cherry-picking? Nice logic!

Your whole argument is based on Jung's idea of feeling as distinct from emotions. So don't you think it is rather important that Jung's idea has not been validated?

 

[doppelganger]

In this case, I was wrong as to your relationship to the ENFP, but it doesn't remove the likelihood of why such ideas would appeal to an INTP (as they so often do).

Why is that even important? How do my supposed inclinations change the truth value of the argument?

So because you cannot measure something, then you want to pretend it doesn't exist and is not relevant? Sorry, I can't abide by that. Let's just cover our ears and go "la la la!" then.

How do the supposed motives of the ENFP change the truth value of his argument? Why can't that be evaluated by itself?

FYI, the argument doesn't stand on its own merits, no matter how you approach the argument, unless you throw out the very definitions of the cognitive functions in favor of your own biased projections.

OK, then if you can refute the argument on the basis of the definitions of the cognitive functions, then why not do that and leave out the guessing games about motives?

You also continue to "dance around" my points which address the OP. Cherry-picking is not exactly "logical".

See my post above.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Really? So if there are disproportionately more NTs in the hard sciences, for example, that would be an accident, the outcome of mere chance and not skill or cognitive ability?

More cherry-picking.

Convenient of you to separate this block from the part you responded to:

Since it has not been defined, I can only presume by “NT thinking” or “rationality” you mean things of an intellectual nature. This likely has more to do with intelligence, followed by an interest in such matters. Given that NFs are commonly interested in such matters, then it’s a matter of intelligence.

Here's one test of IQ and its correlation with MBTI types. There are others and you've probably seen them. Four of the top six performers are NTs. Only one NF appears in this group.

Intelligence Test Performance and Myers Briggs type | Personality Research

More cherry-picking. I’ve seen many, many others, as I'm sure you have also . The INFx types are almost always in the top 4 types, along with the two INTx type. All the iNtuitives typically average above Sensing types. That one you posted is the only one I’ve ever seen with an ST in the top 4. Most show no correlation with Thinking, only with iNtuition.

This only means something if you think IQ means something, and if the type test results are remotely accurate (people mistype a lot). Even if you do think it's valid, approaching this as NTs vs NFs seems faulty. The groupings have more meaning as IN vs EN.

So feeling is not emotions, yet there is no clear line. So if there's no clear line, how do you know they are different?

Nope, that’s not what I said. Cognition does not equal feeling….."no line between cognition and emotions" refers to ALL cognition, not just the Feeling variety. There is no actual Feeling thought process(es) in reality; it's about the ego, not specific, real time thought processes we use. That was & is my point, which keeps going over your head.

I spelled it out for you, but you are willfully misunderstanding it, in addition to cherry-picking and inventing strawmen.

Was Jung an INTP? If not, how is this passage relevant to the one above or to this thread? Unless you're now claiming the ENFP is really an INTP in disguise?

Jung's type is heavily debated, so I'm not sure your point there. I DO think he was INTP, as a side.
A person is capable of seeing outside their ego, but his bias does come through and is even acknowledged by him.
He notes he struggled to see Feeling as rational at first (paraphrasing, of course).

I never said a type dooms you to a certain bias, but it does lead to certain dynamics between people that begin to form larger social dynamics. Again, the sarcasm is lost on you. You're the one wanting to narrowly assign traits and abilities to people based on type. You refuse to see this in terms of ego & the visible personality which arises from it, which is really what this typing system is about, not intelligence or skills.

The ENFP is irrelevant to this now that we've established it was not a personal conversation between you & him...
However, it's easy to explain his admission - he is not a dominant feeling type anyway. He experiences Feeling as less differentiated than an F-dom, and his dominant function is not a rational one. The observation that ENFPs & INFJs are the most guilty of this supposed undue arrogance may have more to do with them being dominant iNtuitives, not having tertiary Thinking.

Anyhow, you are the one making the argument here and you are given the burden to defend it. You seem unable to do so.

Again, it was an ENFP who made this claim, not me. And since Fe is my inferior function, why don't you elucidate this rational feeling function for me. Examples?

I already explained to you why it doesn’t matter where the claim originated. You have yet to address this, likely because it hits a sore spot with your ego.

Do your own research. I already told you to read more. I am not your personal reference library. As I first noted, the conversation cannot continue if you do not grasp the basics of this theory.

I think addressed the posts you made following the quoted one as well, even if I did not quote them.

So we’re done. Go rile up another type. This topic is tired.

 

[á´…eparted]

 

[doppelganger]

More cherry-picking.

Convenient of you to separate this block from the part you responded to:

Since it has not been defined, I can only presume by “NT thinking” or “rationality” you mean things of an intellectual nature. This likely has more to do with intelligence, followed by an interest in such matters. Given that NFs are commonly interested in such matters, then it’s a matter of intelligence.

I read the first line and it was a straightforward statement. And the next paragraph doesn't change a thing. Interests follow abilities, so if NTs are more interested in the hard sciences, then the question still remains, doesn't that indicate a correlation between type and abilities (or interests)?

More cherry-picking. I’ve seen many, many others, as I'm sure you have also . The INFx types are almost always in the top 4 types, along with the two INTx type. All the iNtuitives typically average above Sensing types. That one you posted is the only one I’ve ever seen with an ST in the top 4. Most show no correlation with Thinking, only with iNtuition.

Your assertion was that "there is no correlation between IQ and type". That link, and all of the ones you mention here, show there is a correlation.

This only means something if you think IQ means something, and if the type test results are remotely accurate (people mistype a lot). Even if you do think it's valid, approaching this as NTs vs NFs seems faulty. The groupings have more meaning as IN vs EN.

You're the one who mentioned IQ, but now you're arguing IQ doesn't mean anything. Make up your mind.

Nope, that’s not what I said. Cognition does not equal feeling….."no line between cognition and emotions" refers to ALL cognition, not just the Feeling variety. There is no actual Feeling thought process(es) in reality; it's about the ego, not specific, real time thought processes we use. That was & is my point, which keeps going over your head.

I spelled it out for you, but you are willfully misunderstanding it, in addition to cherry-picking and inventing strawmen.

You're the one inventing strawmen. I didn't say "cognition equals feeling". I said if feeling (which is part of cognition) can't be separated from emotions, then how do you know they are different? And you have no answer to this.

And earlier you said "feeling is evaluative reasoning", but now you say, "there is no actual Feeling thought process(es) in reality; it's about the ego, not specific, real time thought processes we use."

So where's the clear explanation that "keeps going over my head"?

And you keep referring to the "ego" but haven't defined it. Yet you berate me for "willfully misunderstanding you"! Makes sense.

Jung's type is heavily debated, so I'm not sure your point there. I DO think he was INTP, as a side.

You wrote:

2. Feeling and Thinking are both rational in Jungian terms. Thinking is impersonal classification and Feeling is evaluative reasoning, assigning of worth, using the human experience as the gauge. Feeling uses emotion more because it is relevant data, but feeling is NOT emotion. In reality, emotion and cognition have no clear line, but in Jung’s theory, the dominant function is the most differentiated from non-cognitive stuff (ie. emotions, memory, fantasy). This makes dominant feeling types possessing of the most rational feeling. What does that mean for dominant thinking types? Since they have inferior feeling, it is not differentiated from emotion, and so they project their emotional experience of the feeling process onto others.

In short, because an INTP’s use of feeling is irrational and emotional, they assume it is the same for others. This related to misogyny because of the projection aspect - to fear the “other” as something crazy and out of control. That is how we experience our anima or animus, aka, our inferior function.

You started by talking about Jung and ended by talking about INTPs. I simply asked if you did this because Jung was an INTP? Or because you thought the ENFP was really an INTP? Or what exactly? Why bring INTP and misogyny into a discussion about Jung's theory?!

I never said a type dooms you to a certain bias, but it does lead to certain dynamics between people that begin to form larger social dynamics. Again, the sarcasm is lost on you. You're the one wanting to narrowly assign traits and abilities to people based on type. You refuse to see this in terms of ego & the visible personality which arises from it, which is really what this typing system is about, not intelligence or skills.

Again, you haven't said what the ego is, so how can I "refuse to see it"?!

The ENFP is irrelevant to this now that we've established it was not a personal conversation between you & him...
However, it's easy to explain his admission - he is not a dominant feeling type anyway. He experiences Feeling as less differentiated than an F-dom, and his dominant function is not a rational one. The observation that ENFPs & INFJs are the most guilty of this supposed undue arrogance may have more to do with them being dominant iNtuitives, not having tertiary Thinking.

I'm glad to see you share the love with other types and don't lavish it all on INTPs.

Anyhow, you are the one making the argument here and you are given the burden to defend it. You seem unable to do so.

Ahem, I offered the idea for consideration--ie, what do you think of this? I didn't say I agreed with it.

I already explained to you why it doesn’t matter where the claim originated. You have yet to address this, likely because it hits a sore spot with your ego.

Do your own research. I already told you to read more. I am not your personal reference library. As I first noted, the conversation cannot continue if you do not grasp the basics of this theory.

The idea of feeling as a rational evaluative function is yours, so the onus is on you to prove it. And until you do, I don't have to address your claims since they are nothing but unsubstantiated assertions.

Like I said, Jung's ideas haven't been scientifically validated. All of your mumbo jumbo is nothing but speculation.

So we’re done. Go rile up another type. This topic is tired.

This is my thread. You're a guest. A very rude one.

 

[Poki]

E types are more arrogant then I types. N types seem to be more arrogant then S types. T types seem to be more arrogant then F. And I really don't know about P vs J arrogant. I think they are equal in amount of arrogance

 

[doppelganger]

So we’re done. Go rile up another type. This topic is tired.

Let me note in passing that, unlike you, I didn't resort to insults and insinuations (not that I can't because...). I was a little sarcastic one time or two, but in the circumstances, considering the unsolicited vitriol that you and others have directed my way, I am satisfied with my conduct and have nothing to regret.

Your point, however opaquely it was put forward, is a simple one. Rational feeling is a function like rational thinking. And F-doms are just as capable of one as T-doms are of the other. Because of this, F-doms suffer from no T-envy, as that ENFP imagines, and there is no such NF arrogance as he describes. F-doms are happy with their evaluative reasoning and don't wish they had NT reasoning instead, or even in greater measure.

Your point is completely speculative and has no scientific support. And it is contradicted by some NFs who believe there is such a thing as NF arrogance.

 

[ceecee]

Despite being a woman, despite being unable to 'think' based on the 'science' of typology(lol), this OA person seems to be able to articulate herself very well, and since any judgement of the degree of another's articulation (positive or negative) is also an implicit judgement on that person's or class's ability to to 'think', then I judge her an excellent thinker.
But what do I know...

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.

 

[Poki]

Let me note in passing that, unlike you, I didn't resort to insults and insinuations (not that I can't because...). I was a little sarcastic one time or two, but in the circumstances, considering the unsolicited vitriol that you and others have directed my way, I am satisfied with my conduct and have nothing to regret.

Your point, however opaquely it was put forward, is a simple one. Rational feeling is a function like rational thinking. And F-doms are just as capable of one as T-doms are of the other. Because of this, F-doms suffer from no T-envy, as that ENFP imagines, and there is no such NF arrogance as he describes. F-doms are happy with their evaluative reasoning and don't wish they had NT reasoning instead, or even in greater measure.

Your point is completely speculative and has no scientific support. And it is contradicted by some NFs who believe there is such a thing as NF arrogance.

From what I have seen NF does wish they were better at Ti combined with Se, just as I was better at Ne Fi. Enough to be envious, but not in an unhealthy way. Think its more Ne butting heads then has to do with T

Edit: lmao...aren't N types suppose to get along better with N types?

 

[digesthisickness]

Let me note in passing that, unlike you, I didn't resort to insults and insinuations (not that I can't because...). I was a little sarcastic one time or two, but in the circumstances, considering the unsolicited vitriol that you and others have directed my way, I am satisfied with my conduct and have nothing to regret.

You really can't see how your OP may be quite insulting? No, this theory wasn't dreamed up by you, but they were perfectly fine until you showed up and told them all about how some 'expert' is sharing a video about how envious and arrogant they are and how they're not even good at being arrogant. It went further into saying they turn to self-loathing, etc. And, then you shared how some random S sees things and their theory about how the ENFP could be right.

I can see how it would be insulting, especially to a NF who doesn't think/feel that way at all, showing that it's pure conjecture and straight out of said ENFP's ass.

The fact that you've gotten different answers to this should be enough for you to see it's not factual and YOU should be letting it go because it's obvious that it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You've gotten your answer. The answer is some think so, some don't. The theory of his doesn't hold up well enough to give it any credence. Period.

Demanding NFs who should only have to say it's not true for them to prove it is just ridiculous and, yes, insulting. To quote you with one word added:

Your point is completely speculative and has no scientific support. And it is contradicted by some NFs who believe there is [no] such a thing as NF arrogance.

 

[Ene]

ar·ro·gant adjective \ˈer-ə-gənt, ˈa-rə-\
: having or showing the insulting attitude of people who believe that they are better, smarter, or more important than other people : having or showing arrogance

Merriam-Webster Online


Mike has credentials, yes. He specializes in typology and has many valuable things to say, but sometimes, he just rambles, because that's human nature. Sometimes, even professionals say things that are just bull. He is educated, but he is not the supreme authority on any topic. My point is, that there is no such thing as right and wrong arrogance. Arrogance is merely arrogance. At best, it insights tensions and causes divisions. At its worst, it feeds the fires that lead to hatred. As far as I'm concerned, nothing beneficial comes from it, regardless if it is NT or NF style, if there even is such a thing. He probably giggled when he said it because it "seemed like a good idea at the time."

 

[Rasofy]

I think it's a dumb idea, and you're a misogynist.

Salomé, is that you

 

[skylights]

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.

I think it depends on what you mean by rational, as well as the individual NFs and NTs in question. If "rational" is meaning adhering to logic, then certainly NTs typically will place more importance on logic and typically will have more skill and experience in thinking in logical terms. However, if "rational" is meaning reasonable, as in using wise and well-honed judgment, then both type groups can be skilled in that area. Also, as others have pointed out, type only indicates preference, not ability. The two often correlate, but it is not necessarily true that an NT will always have better logical reasoning than an NF, or that an NT will be better at dealing with feelings than an NF. Consider a mature ENTP's warm, jovial Fe versus an immature ENFP's unevenly-applied, explosive Fi, or a mature INFJ's insightful, analytical Ti versus an immature INTJ's combative and Ni-restricted Te.

So, while in general I think it is safe to say that NTs have better logical reasoning on average than NFs, there is some degree of T tendency to assume that people who present emotionally are not good decision makers, which is not necessarily an accurate or well-founded judgment. As a consequence, I think Fs more often are underestimated when it comes to critical thinking and ability to make beneficial and applicable judgments. I also suspect that NFs are not particularly good at being arrogant because it messes with our ability to make accurate intra- and interpersonal assessments, and so if we are arrogant, it tends to visibly backfire on us, whereas it is less likely to impact judgment in an NT's typical realms of focus.

I have watched NFGeeks only a time or two - I'm not much of a video person - but it's a decent point that arrogant NFs can present their arguments as if they are objective truth when there may be substantial holes in the logical reasoning. But I disagree with Mike and agree with [MENTION=16382]Ene[/MENTION] in that I do not feel there is a "right way" or "wrong way" to go about being arrogant - I don't think much anything beneficial comes of it, no matter who it's coming from. It may take longer for arrogance to impact an NT's reasoning, but they can also be particularly blinded by not fully realizing the F consequences of it - like why it might not be a point of pride or even possible to be "better" at arrogance. Though evidently ENFPs can fall prey to that line of reasoning, too.