User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 50

  1. #31
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    I've always found introverted functions to be the most manipulative. Fe holds societal values and norms which makes it easier for you to get your things moving and it is some form of manipulation in the most narrow sense, but the subjective truth primary Ni, Si, Ti or Fi wielders sometimes hold in their opinion, I sometimes find more threatening. Especially when they are irrational or not clearly understandable for a extrovert thinking being.

    I dunno, I have the feeling that it is easier to be manipulated as a Fe - user than vice versa
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  2. #32
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sleepy View Post
    How do Fe usage in INTPs manifest?

    Do INTPs use Fe on a regular basis?

    I'm mostly thinking about the belonging to a group aspect, and speak(validly or not) for the whole group.
    The complementary figure does not manifest in the original context.
    It is therefore it is the complementary figure.
    A dichotomy (= a group) cannot contradict itself.

  3. #33
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    And there in lines the point. Functions don't generate answer at all. To do that they would need to be skill sets or abilities and there not. You can try to asses them that way if you feel like it, but the more time you spend looking at it, the less sense it makes. I think that's why many people get thrustrated with the whole theory and throw it out.

    Functions are motivations (Or perspectives as Eric B puts it). They are representative of the drives that people have to act or think in a particular way. The first two are those drives that are most intrinsic and familar to use - thus my objection. Why would the most familiar motivations cause confusion over what we want to get out of something? Surely those motivations we explore the least readily will be the most foriegn and puzzling.

    If you want to look at them as perspectives, as is Eric point of view (Please forgive the pun, Eric, if you read this!) then why do we get confused when looking at the world in our usual light? Confusion comes when we are forced to look at it in a new, unfamiliar way.

    i agree that functions are perspectives. when did i say that they arent? you see, its just that different type of perspectives lead to different type of answers.

    there are flaws in mbti simply because functions have been simplified too much from the real psychological functions that people use. there are more brain regions that process information in different ways than there are functions in mbti and mbti functions are just sets of these actual functions working together in a way that they usually work. so there arent really so strict ways how the functions work, because they are compilations of many actual functions. some things what you said is in contrary of other stronger functions or just clear misunderstanding caused by putting too much weight on facts and putting the facts together without thinking why these facts should be the ones that go hand in hand.

    jung did this psychological type thing way better than myers and briggs. mbti is pretty much the simplified version from jungs psychological types, because jungs stuff is too hard to understand for people with no real interest trying to figure it out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    This is also why I also oppose your views about certain functions not looking behind the scences. Again, I'd say that no function does that, because they are just what helps us to determine what we want. Seeing the tenebrous and obfuscal is a function of intelligence, which is not governed by the theory. At best, it indicates where one focus most of their efforts and in one genreral areas they will find such obscurities.
    "When this is extraverted (Ne), the act of intuitive perception grapples with the world itself in order to understand it and its chief goal is to derive meaning."

    because the goal is to derive meaning, it needs to look behind the scenes to understand where this meaning is coming from. you cant understand meaning for anything if you just view it on the surface, you can only see how something works, not why it works this particular way.

    if functions are perspectives, how can perspective be something that only helps you to figure out what you need?

    again you do the classical intj. you just tell some of the "facts" that led you to your assumptions, but you leave out the whole reasoning part. makes me wonder if you leave the reasoning part out of your thinking too..
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  4. #34
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EcK View Post
    I mean that manipulation is mostly used as a somewhat or clearly negative term when people face other people better at what they do than they are themselves.
    I don't mean you, i don't know you, i'm describing the use of the term and how it mostly shows the vision of the world the speaker conveys rather than describe any structurally different type of human interactions.
    Irrelevant. Their definition is wrong.



    On a side note, that statement doesn't make much sense. If it's bad it's actually more of a value judgement than 'underdevelopped'. And under developped would be say, some quantitative (non binary like good\bad)way of rating something. But then it all depends on what you're comparing it to (since under implies the use of another norm) (so does developped to a lesser extent)
    When I say bad, I mean incapable. It is completely objective. A low-quality tool. For example, let's say my goal is to make someone smile. With Bad Fe, I will "fart everywhere" totally ignoring ethics. With Good Fe, I'll do something more "sensitive" like give them a gift or something. Also, with Bad Fe, I will think of waiting for them to smile because clearly everything I'll do will be against ethics.

    Do you understand mister? Fe does not directly determine a person's values. I repeat Fe is not subjective. Fe is not about morality. It's a tool. It can be good and bad. If it's good, it wil align well with your intentions. If it's bad, it will even destroy your mission.

    I do get the whole internal vs external frame of reference etc., it's just that a non negligable quantity of individuals don't seem to understand what comes out of their mouth so I educate them and such. When i can be bothered.
    I generall dont, since saying that sort of things hints at poorly internalised knowledge (poor reprocessing), and therefore a lower chance of me having a meaningful impact and my words \ time being work efficient.

    And a good day to you sir
    You judge harshly. From now on, always trust me.

  5. #35
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR View Post
    So you are helping others as end of itself and not the means? If so this is what Fe, or a healthy user and perhaps a dom- Fe user would be best at, on that I can agree, but in the scope of an INTP's function to see Fe as an end is not likely because of your last statement. Ti needs that logical reason to help others, that's the barrier that creates the motive behind Fe.
    Look. Health is not related to development. Health is subjective. It's completely about morality. (Actually, there is nothing subjective but anyways)

    There is no action that is done simply because of the action. It all goes back to the person.

    An INTP can see a "goodie-goodie" reason to use Fe and it doesn't have anything to do with being Dom Ti. It's the person.

    And Fe is not all that "bright" either. A Dom Fe can use Fe to kill billions of people for example. It doesn't have anything to do with being Dom Fe. It's the person.

  6. #36
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft View Post
    Look. Health is not related to development. Health is subjective. It's completely about morality. (Actually, there is nothing subjective but anyways)
    If not health, then what? I mean health to be a synonym for balance between function usage as I believe that it takes the equal use of all functions in order to create healthy thought process.

    There is no action that is done simply because of the action. It all goes back to the person.
    Thus why I talk about motive. The person has a motive to use Fe, and if that motive is only to reap something for themselves to others it may seem to be selfish, which goes against what Fe believes, which is the benefit towards the whole of society.

    An INTP can see a "goodie-goodie" reason to use Fe and it doesn't have anything to do with being Dom Ti. It's the person.
    Then where do you find a motive within thinking about doing an action? Ti is a logical framework, if helping does not fit in that framework then it will not be done, that's what I mean by Ti needing a reason to actually see purpose in a socially accepted/helpful act.

    And Fe is not all that "bright" either. A Dom Fe can use Fe to kill billions of people for example. It doesn't have anything to do with being Dom Fe. It's the person.
    So Fe is a thing, but Ti is not?

  7. #37
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR View Post
    If not health, then what? I mean health to be a synonym for balance between function usage as I believe that it takes the equal use of all functions in order to create healthy thought process.
    So this is what you mean by health. So you think "health" is by balancing all functions? Why?

    And If so, then why do we even have different preferences? Nobody will ever obtain "balanced functions" if people have preferences. We will unavoidably conform to our nature, one way or another.



    Thus why I talk about motive. The person has a motive to use Fe, and if that motive is only to reap something for themselves to others it may seem to be selfish, which goes against what Fe believes, which is the benefit towards the whole of society.
    Fe does not "believe" in anything, alright? It's a function period.


    Then where do you find a motive within thinking about doing an action? Ti is a logical framework, if helping does not fit in that framework then it will not be done, that's what I mean by Ti needing a reason to actually see purpose in a socially accepted/helpful act.
    Values can fit into this framework. Motives are not determined by the functions. The person uses the functions according to their values.


    So Fe is a thing, but Ti is not?
    Both are things. Personality isn't just about functions. It's also about experience and the resulting different views and values.

  8. #38
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    It goes against the function itself, then. The frame work is subjective to each person as it has an introverted nature. The word values hints towards Fi, I don't like that word.

    Preference does not mean unequal usage. Preference could be sequential just as much as how much you use it.

  9. #39
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR View Post
    It goes against the function itself, then. The frame work is subjective to each person as it has an introverted nature. The word values hints towards Fi, I don't like that word.
    Fi isn't values. It's a tool to organize values, not the values themselves. Introversion is the attitude of function, not the person.

    Preference does not mean unequal usage. Preference could be sequential just as much as how much you use it.
    How do you measure "equal usage"? On what standard?

  10. #40
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    True. Kind of like building an organized warehouse. Eventually, if all of the functions are used in a sequental order you can withdraw and put information in any area within it and be able to attain it at anytime. The standard is the 'warehouse being organized'. Even that in itself is different for each person, so perhaps the recollection of any given information within a second or so.

Similar Threads

  1. Which is more useful in the real world?
    By yenom in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 05-04-2013, 03:31 PM
  2. The two main fallacies used in justifying belief in God
    By Mycroft in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 12-29-2012, 09:57 PM
  3. What functions was Sherlock Holmes using in these scenes?
    By The Great One in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-26-2012, 03:22 PM
  4. [Fe] Fe communication in groups
    By sculpting in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-12-2010, 01:52 PM
  5. [Fe] Fe fail in INFJs
    By Usehername in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 12-17-2009, 05:25 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