[MBTI General] Woah, you're reading way too much into it

[THEANO]

I've heard it (the original statement, not that I am vulgar and acting on ephemeral impulses due to my 'NF' bend), and also "you are overthinking everything"

 

[ThatGirl]

"Fyodor Pavlovich learned of his wife's death when he was drunk; it was said that he ran out into the street with his hands raised to heaven in joy, shouting : 'Lord, now lettest thou thy servant..' :* others say he wept convulsively like a child, so much so that, despite all the revulsion he aroused, he was pitiful to behold. Very probably, both accounts are true--that is, he rejoiced in his liberation and shed tears for his liberator at one and the same time. In most cases, people, even evil-doers, are much simpler and more naive than we generally suppose. And the same is true for you and me." Fyodor Dostoevsky, Brothers Karamazov.



Human behavior used to befuddle me, and I did overthink it.

I thought human behavior was very complex!

But recently I realized that people with complex motivations tend to be logical, as one needs to be logical to devise anything complex. Those were not the people who confused me the most as their behavior was very consistent with their ostensible principles as well as easy to understand to an outsider observer. When it was not easy, they were willing and able to explain their behavior.

The illogical people, mostly NFs who confused me the most. Recently I realized there is nothing complex to it, just vulgar people acting out on their ephemeral impulses and passions, and the thoughts behind them are crude and simplistic. Their behavior is exactly what it appears to be, no need to devote much thought to it.

Your excerpt made me want to read more. Nice post.

NFs apply logic it is just not easilly understood by you. There is in fact is a reason to all that anyone does.

Your use of the word vulgar causes me to need a defiinition for its context. Repulsion as the word vulgar suggests is subjective not objective.

 

[Lateralus]

How many times have you been told this?

How many times was it true?

Differentiate circumstanses please.

I'm usually aware of when this happens and I keep those thoughts to myself.

 

[Lateralus]

Your excerpt made me want to read more. Nice post.

NFs apply logic it is just not easilly understood by you. There is in fact is a reason to all that anyone does.

Your use of the word vulgar causes me to need a defiinition for its context. Repulsion as the word vulgar suggests is subjective not objective.

He has a vendetta against NFs. Isn't that obvious? He spews that junk all over the forum.

 

[Simplexity]

He has a vendetta against NFs. Isn't that obvious? He spews that junk all over the forum.

Junk, I actually find it fascinating. An interesting case study in fabrication, there is a lot to be learned by observing his posts. I'll leave it up to you to interpret what I meant. In fact I would even go so far as to say they encapsulate a lot of issues in one succinct verbose passage.

 

[Nonsensical]

One of my close friends, an ENTP, who, though, doesn't have the greatest commitment to school, is really like this. He's in my math class, and our teacher is a very strong Sensing type, it's clear. My friend will hear something, and he will start to argue with her, and he will really dig deap into something, and get all confused, and then give up.

Bottom line is, that he looks wayyy too far into these sort of things, and is clearly a strong ENTP. Furthermore, I find this trait in many NTs.

 

[Typology]

Haha. I overthink EVERYTHING. Doesn't matter. Could be what I'm having for dinner, social situations, school work you name it. Any time I'm not doing anything, my head's usually somewhere up in the clouds, assessing whatever I did that day, or am going to do. Also, I can carry on a bullshit story longer than anybody I know, that usually doesn't end well though...

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Your excerpt made me want to read more. Nice post.

NFs apply logic it is just not easilly understood by you. There is in fact is a reason to all that anyone does.

Your use of the word vulgar causes me to need a defiinition for its context. Repulsion as the word vulgar suggests is subjective not objective.

It is true that NFs use logic, but we should note that we tend to use our lower functions less frequently and with less proficiency than our higher function. For example, I use Sensing less than a Sensing type. I am not focused on concrete entities as frequently as they are, and when I am focusing on what can be observed with the senses, I do not recollect what I observe nearly as easily as they do.

The same can be said regarding the relationship NFs have to logic in comparison to the relationship a Thinking type has to logic. They abuse logic. I cannot understand their reasoning because the following is the case; if we were to express their arguments in the language of symbolic logic, many of them would have the form of P, therefore not P, or quite simply A, therefore B, as well as many other absurdities.

In other words, I do not understand their arguments not because their arguments are legitimate and I have failed to understand them, but because they are illegitimate. In other words, they are not saying anything, they are meaningless in the strictest sense of the word.

Regarding the word vulgar, it is indeed the case that in the most conventional sense of the term it is a value judgment, as it means 'of lower, or inappropriate taste'. However, I use it as synonymous with the word simple or crude. I call what is crude vulgar or of 'lower taste' because in order to be in tune with the finer aspects of our nature (such as those represented by the sciences, philosophy and the fine arts) one needs to be a complex thinker. Quite simply because one cannot attain a vision of such complex things without first having thought them through. Yet if one is not competent at logical reasoning, one cannot do this, therefore one must rely on his feelings or instincts. Inevitably, things that this person would favor, (or have a taste for) would be simple, or crude, which I use as synonymous with vulgar.

 

[THEANO]

Regarding the word vulgar, it is indeed the case that in the most conventional sense of the term it is a value judgment, as it means 'of lower, or inappropriate taste'. However, I use it as synonymous with the word simple or crude. I call what is crude vulgar or of 'lower taste' because in order to be in tune with the finer aspects of our nature (such as those represented by the sciences, philosophy and the fine arts) one needs to be a complex thinker. Quite simply because one cannot attain a vision of such complex things without first having thought them through. Yet if one is not competent at logical reasoning, one cannot do this, therefore one must rely on his feelings or instincts. Inevitably, things that this person would favor, (or have a taste for) would be simple, or crude, which I use as synonymous with vulgar.

I tried to understand the aversion evoked by some of BW's posts by following several of the threads all the way to the beginning.
The outcome of the exercise made me believe the following (which, if this runs true to the previous pattern will either be ignored with implied disdain, or arrogantly dismissed with a few (or many) carefully chosen barbed words that will include self-quotes of some technical terminology).
1) He has "dated an NF for almost a year".
2) It obviously was not the kind of experience that brought him unbridled joy and satisfaction.
2) Words have incredible power to evoke thoughts and emotions. BW seems to have an extraordinary facility to use vocabulary to satisfy some deep-seated (perhaps unconscious) need to make himself believe that a certain group of people is unworthy of his regard.
3) This group seems to include only 'F' individuals
4) He chooses his vocabulary with the precision of a surgeon to evoke negative emotions in the group that seems to be his target. Hell, even before any NFs offer rebuttals to his 'logic', they are defeated because they were made to appear a lesser person by his labels - labels that put them on defensive before they even offer their views.
"Vulgar", "crude", "abusing" logic", "illegitimate" arguments. Those words, in my opinion, are used deliberately to debase and hurt, while allowing the user to hide behind their less common meanings that can be run up a flagpole for anyone reacting negatively to them....to once again score a point for 'logic vs gut reaction'

I do not believe an INTP would allow his/her feelings to guide their action and vocabulary choices to this extent. I believe that BW, as much as he'd love to be one of those lofty INTP's he so greatly admires, is actually a member of one of us, the 'vulgar, crude' groups he tries so desperately disassociate himself from. I believe that is also the reason he rarely just expresses his thoughts and beliefs without resorting to quotations and technicalities. It's always easier to hide behind others' words

Ah, yeah, just my opinion...after all, look at the topic of this thread

 

[Valiant]

How many times have you been told this?

How many times was it true?

Differentiate circumstanses please.

I do this when I believe someone is knowingly ignoring or insulting me somehow. Then my ENFJ friend tells me that I read too much into other peoples' actions. I think that it's because his Feeling functions are much cooler and more advanced than mine.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I tried to understand the aversion evoked by some of BW's posts by following several of the threads all the way to the beginning.
The outcome of the exercise made me believe the following (which, if this runs true to the previous pattern will either be ignored with implied disdain, or arrogantly dismissed with a few (or many) carefully chosen barbed words that will include self-quotes of some technical terminology).
1) He has "dated an NF for almost a year".
2) It obviously was not the kind of experience that brought him unbridled joy and satisfaction.
2) Words have incredible power to evoke thoughts and emotions. BW seems to have an extraordinary facility to use vocabulary to satisfy some deep-seated (perhaps unconscious) need to make himself believe that a certain group of people is unworthy of his regard.
3) This group seems to include only 'F' individuals
4) He chooses his vocabulary with the precision of a surgeon to evoke negative emotions in the group that seems to be his target. Hell, even before any NFs offer rebuttals to his 'logic', they are defeated because they were made to appear a lesser person by his labels - labels that put them on defensive before they even offer their views.
"Vulgar", "crude", "abusing" logic", "illegitimate" arguments. Those words, in my opinion, are used deliberately to debase and hurt, while allowing the user to hide behind their less common meanings that can be run up a flagpole for anyone reacting negatively to them....to once again score a point for 'logic vs gut reaction'

I do not believe an INTP would allow his/her feelings to guide their action and vocabulary choices to this extent. I believe that BW, as much as he'd love to be one of those lofty INTP's he so greatly admires, is actually a member of one of us, the 'vulgar, crude' groups he tries so desperately disassociate himself from. I believe that is also the reason he rarely just expresses his thoughts and beliefs without resorting to quotations and technicalities. It's always easier to hide behind others' words

Ah, yeah, just my opinion...after all, look at the topic of this thread

Some concerns.

1) If BlueWing is an F, it is deeply puzzling how he is able to have such great precision in the words he uses. As you state "He chooses his vocabulary with the precision of a surgeon "

In order to be precise one must be logical, because only logic evinces structure in all things. If one does not clearly see structure in ideas he discusses, he cannot have an exact idea of what he is doing. Certainly there are some Fs with a good handle on the Thinking function, but rare. What makes one an F is the stronger psychological predisposition towards an emotive valuation rather than logical analysis. An F in a scenario like this would most naturally make a value judgment first, (or be tempted to the most), like some Fs have said this is offensive! Secondly, an F would proceed to analyze the matter. Yet BlueWing consistently analyzes before making value judgments. The terms 'vulgar', 'crude', 'simplistic' are used primarily in their most precise linguistic fashion possible, they mean to describe what is to be regarded as a fact rather than one's emotive mindset. Hence, this is a manifestation of a Thinking cognitive faculty more than a Feeling.


2) Alternatively, if BlueWing is a T, he is not naturally in tune with Feelings, therefore likely lacks EQ, unless he is one of the excpetional Ts who excell at activities they are not naturally talented in. He has shown no evidence here of having a high EQ. Thus, because he does not understand how he makes people feel he could not be making the statements he makes specifically to evoke a negative emotional reaction from the audience. As is common of a Thinking type, he is chiefly concerned with understanding reality.

3) "I believe that is also the reason he rarely just expresses his thoughts and beliefs without resorting to quotations and technicalities. It's always easier to hide behind others' words "

He produced an original work on typology.

Principles of Typology

I am not sure what quotations you have in mind, though sometimes I quote Jung to better illustrate my point. I do not let Jung explain my entire idea, I quote him after I have explained my views. I quote Jung strictly to help the reader better understand my message by simply giving him the same message stated in different words. It is an expository technique frequently employed in philosophy and ought to be frequently employed in many avenues of technical writing.


4) "I do not believe an INTP would allow his/her feelings to guide their action and vocabulary choices to this extent."

Where is the evidence that BlueWing is guided by feelings? This is unpersuasive as there is he usually explains his reasoning in tedious detail. I grant, however, that in the case of many Fs who simply do not understand logic, the reasoning flies over their heads. In that case it simply does not matter how clear and thorough the reasoning may be, they just lack the logical aptitude to see it.

 

[Lateralus]

I do not believe an INTP would allow his/her feelings to guide their action and vocabulary choices to this extent. I believe that BW, as much as he'd love to be one of those lofty INTP's he so greatly admires, is actually a member of one of us, the 'vulgar, crude' groups he tries so desperately disassociate himself from. I believe that is also the reason he rarely just expresses his thoughts and beliefs without resorting to quotations and technicalities. It's always easier to hide behind others' words.

He may not be an INTP, but he's a T. He's a T with a vendetta, and he's not thinking clearly. What's amusing is that he tries so hard to appear objective, but he can't pull it off. He can't help but take shots are NFs, there's so much animosity there.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

He may not be an INTP, but he's a T. He's a T with a vendetta, and he's not thinking clearly. What's amusing is that he tries so hard to appear objective, but he can't pull it off. He can't help but take shots are NFs, there's so much animosity there.

Any reason to think he is not thinking clearly? Taking shots at NFs? Seems to be the case that he is just telling the truth and because NFs are addicted to intense emotional experiences dramatize the situation and in effect get an illusory notion that they are being victimized.

Your conclusion, as it stands, is worthless because you provided no reasoning to suppor it with.

 

[THEANO]

BW's response was exactly as I thought it would be.
I've known F's who are incredible linguists with vast lexicons used with clinical precision.
Being able to do so is not limited to non-F's.

so, once again instead of trying to understand the meaning behind the post, BW stuck to the tried and true. He dismissed the argument as worthless because it was posted by an NF, same 'type' as his ex GF or BF (though he no doubt makes himself believe that he only dismissed it because it was worthless)
BF makes me smile, because behind all that bravado I think is a lonely man who is still punishing his 'ex' through his covert attack on her kin while hiding it under a blanket of philosophy and research, but all he really wants is a hug

 

[SolitaryWalker]

He dismissed the argument as worthless because it was posted by an NF, same 'type' as his ex GF or BF (though he no doubt makes himself believe that he only dismissed it because it was worthless)

I dismissed the argument because it was unsupported.

What if we introduced the way of reasoning that allows us to accept arguments that are unsupported. Would that be a good thing?

In some ways yes, as now we have a fast and easy set of techniques to prove our point.

We could simply say Anything, as our premise, and anything else as our conclusion.

Suppose I wanted to prove that God exists.

Premise: I had a wonderful feeling today.

Conclusion:Therefore God exists.

Suppose I want to prove that God does not exist.

Premise: My eyes are green.

Conclusion:Therefore God does not exist.

Or even easier. I could simply state the conclusion without even going to the premise.

Conclusion: God exists.

or

Conclusion: God does not exist.

Why? The former over the latter or the latter over the former? With the recent technique we introduced, it does not matter, it is whatever your heart desires.

In summary, we have introduced two new techniques regarding how we should reason in order to prove a point.

The form of the first one is as follows,

Anything, therefore anything else.

(Premise: Anything Conclusion:Anything else)

This is a fun and easy way to go about proving a point, yet unfortunately, as an instrument for acquisition of the truth this is worthless.

BW's response was exactly as I thought it would be.
I've known F's who are incredible linguists with vast lexicons used with clinical precision.
Being able to do so is not limited to non-F's.

Skill or lack thereof does not make you a certain type. There is a high correlation between being a T type and being good at T tasks, but because the correlation is not at a 100%, we cannot adduce that the latter is guaranteed by the former.

Being a T type simply means having a stronger natural predisposition towards Thinking than Feeling. One could be good at both, but if one is a Thinking type one gravitates towards the use of one more than towards the use of the other.

 

[bronte]

Bluewing

I'm fairly new here but last night I was reading through some old posts and found one from you saying that if you were not an intp then the type you would prefer to be would be infp

so what happened since then? - you seem to have no respect for feeling types at all - you'd rather we didnt exist!

You say that we are at the mercy of our feelings and that that means we are inherently illogical and irrational - Ok point taken (its something I'm aware of and work on - do you work on your feelings being aware of them-using them wisely - dveloping your compassion and care fore others?) but not all emotions are negative - life would be empty without them - what about love, joy, excitement, passion, euphoria

I'm asking this not to be glib but to understand

 

[THEANO]

BW, do you bleed when you cut yourself? Somehow I keep getting this robotic image that you will no doubt take as a compliment. Robot with a programmed output device that is stuck in one groove
Bravo, I have to give you credit, though. Predictably, once again, you managed (with all the subtlety of a sumo ballet dancer), to put f's in their place.
Now rest on your laurels.

BTW, I am pretty sure your eyes must be brown
Oh, and here is what I believe you are missing and hoping for

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I'm fairly new here but last night I was reading through some old posts and found one from you saying that if you were not an intp then the type you would prefer to be would be infp

At the time I misunderstood what Fi was. I thought it was a lot like Ti or that it had a very clear, systematic account of the personal values it endorses.

Yet, I was unaware that Feeling alone cannot give a systematic account of anything, as only Thinking can see structure in things. I was misled by the Jungian notion that Feeling is a Judging function like Thinking. I was not clearly aware to what degree Thinking is a judging function and to what degree Feeling is because I have not thought through that problem at the time. I mistakenly assumed that they contained close to the same quantity of the judging element because Jung placed them in the same group. This was just one aspect of typology I overlooked.

 

[bronte]

At the time I misunderstood what Fi was. I thought it was a lot like Ti or that it had a very clear, systematic account of the personal values it endorses.

Yet, I was unaware that Feeling alone cannot give a systematic account of anything, as only Thinking can see structure in things. This was just one aspect of typology I overlooked.

But even then there must have been something that you liked/respcted or you wouldnt have said this. I think that you have got into a habit on here of proving your point and proving others wrong rather than trying to understand. It is very arrogant to think that you can learn nothing from the people who post here - to me the joy of discovering type was to learn about others - how they work, think, feel - and how fantastic it is that we are not all the same. I was also drawn to it as a parent to understand how different my children were to myself and my husband - they are both extravert sensors - and I love their sense of immediacy, their practical skills and ability to engage with just about anybody!

I think that you are cutting yourself off from people here and in so doing are missing out - Jung said that introverts are in danger of 'saying no to life'.

(and despite my 'feeling' I can see patterns! - really! Part of my job involves working in a resarch dept and I am sorrounded by intps/entps who belive it or not I manage to keep up with and I respect them and they respect me)

 

[THEANO]

That's a lovely post, Bronte. Thank you for sharing that. I doubt you'll get far (actually, the poor INTP may have passed out from the shock of getting a hug from me in the previous post )
I hope for everyone's sake that they will learn to respect the good in each other as people and not step on each other in order to feel 'loftier'