But there are times when the premise is just off and it is not possible to explain it in terms of type, yet the person demands that.
Except that it isn't rejecting and shaming an entire category of people who may or may not be guilty of a behavior. It only applies to people who actually do the behavior, regardless of type. It's not calling anyone evil, but just a request to see if anyone cares to stop an irrational behavior that is unlikely to result in productive discussion. You agree it can be taken too far, right? There are limits. The only question is where is that limit? Each person will answer differently. I think calling entire categories of people evil is prejudicial and not analytical. Is that a point that needs further evidence to be convincing?The beauty of personality forums like this is that you can discuss the various differences between types and to get a better understanding of where people are coming from and how they process information. The type rant threads themselves don't bother me so much as people's inability, or rather, refusal to understand where other people are coming from. I wouldn't be so quick to vilify an OP of said thread types, but try to see what they do not understand of the type they are attempting to shame. Being around so many TJs in my life, I've learned to seek clarification of the things they say since they can often times be much more blunt with their words. Are they trying to offend me? Most times not. But since they don't wrap emotion into their words, they don't find issue in delivering words in such a way.
Typology and this site on the whole, has allowed me to access other types so readily that I get personally offended by people's words far less easily since I can now better understand various personally type approaches.
In a way, shaming those that shame certain personality types, is really no different to me.
I totally understand where the OP of this thread is coming from though and can see the frustration in it for sure.
All FJs are manipulative emotional sluts, [MENTION=23583]Yamato Nadeshiko[/MENTION] being the biggest one.
What's funny is that the most emotionally manipulative person I come into regular contact with is an ENFP... but you don't see me making threads whining about how Fi types are emotionally manipulative and accusing anyone who disagrees of hiding something. lmaooo
Its also hilarious how unhealthy Fi types can actually manipulate situations seemingly even better than some of the twisted Fe types I've come across in my life. Gotta love it when they talk about how brutally honest they are and how important it is to keep it real but then they flip a table when you give them the same medicine.
What's funny is that the most emotionally manipulative person I come into regular contact with is an ENFP... but you don't see me making threads whining about how Fi types are emotionally manipulative and accusing anyone who disagrees of hiding something. lmaooo
yeah but any type can be emotionally manipulative. it comes down to the person and not their type sure different types might express it in different ways. but that does not mean all Fi users are emotionally manipulative. like i know SJ who are very controlling and perfectionist but i know SJs who are not same with every other fucking type. thats like saying i meet one person from montana and they have red hair and i go around trying to convince people that if someone has red hair they're from montana and if they don't have red hair and claim to be from montana they're lying
Except that it isn't rejecting and shaming an entire category of people who may or may not be guilty of a behavior. It only applies to people who actually do the behavior, regardless of type. It's not calling anyone evil, but just a request to see if anyone cares to stop an irrational behavior that is unlikely to result in productive discussion. You agree it can be taken too far, right? There are limits. The only question is where is that limit? Each person will answer differently. I think calling entire categories of people evil is prejudicial and not analytical. Is that a point that needs further evidence to be convincing?
Its also hilarious how unhealthy Fi types can actually manipulate situations seemingly even better than some of the twisted Fe types I've come across in my life. Gotta love it when they talk about how brutally honest they are and how important it is to keep it real but then they flip a table when you give them the same medicine.
I don't think it's about Fi or Fe being better at manipulation... and unhealthy Fi or Fe type can both be manipulative. What would make the discussion interesting and not shitty and biased like the current threads about it is how unhealthy Fi/Fe differ with manipulation. How they do it in different ways. Also, the keyword is unhealthy. The current threads assume that all Fi/Fe users are like this.
Just because there's an ENFP in my life that I have problems with, doesn't mean I project all of my problems with her onto all ENFPs. Which is exactly what these "truth about the functions" threads are doing.
This requires people admitting a type to have flaws. It doesn't mean admitting them for yourself or that they define a type, but being able to discuss specific ways your type may tend to "go wrong". As noted, if the premise is off, then yes, question it and maybe look at different ways to understand it.
Some types really put a wall up in these types of discussions and take questioning the premise too far. Every thread that discusses their type's flaws turns into scrutinizing the motives of the OP and dismissing their arguments as invalid because they don't deem them a trustworthy source. Yes, I am referring to NFJs mostly, as that's the go-to tactic. But hey, I have learned from observing it and applied that tactic at times, because sometimes a perspective really is total bunk and doesn't deserve exploring.
So really, Im right in saying that it's not that you care if someone holds a certain view about a type, or whether it's wrong or right. It's the presentation of how they approach the argument?
I'm looking for content, not presentation.