What would the world do without Fe?

[Zarathustra]

I have no problem maintaining my own personal values while adhering to societal norms.

But is there one you feel a natural pull towards, while the other might feel more like an obligation?

The structure of your sentence made your personal values seem like your default setting, and societal norms as something that you more or less put up with...

(Maybe not that strong, but something along those lines...)

See, the kicker for me between someone who genuinely prefers Fe to Fi is that they genuinely feel a strong and consistent pull within them to connect with those outside themselves, and that this pull is more important to them then a pull to connect with that inside themselves.

Those who prefer Fi, on the other hand, seem to possibly feel a similar pull to connect with those (or that) outside themselves, but it is definitely weaker than the pull to connect with that which is inside themselves.

Are you saying that these two pulls are completely balanced for you? That they are both equally genuine, and that you do not prefer one over the other? Or do you feel both pulls, have a preference for one over the other, but engage the other as well?

Genuine question...

 

[Zarathustra]

Mostly out of shits and giggles.

Oh, and also cause I thought you said...

[Zarathustra said he'd rather see false dichotomies brought up in order to be smashed down, than not see dichotomies brought up at all.]

I'm trying to shoot one down before I go to bed. All in a day's work.

Must be moreso the former, cuz I can't exactly tell what false dichotomy you are arguing against that I've asserted...

Mind cluing me in on that?

Otherwise, I might be taken by the impression that you're just a hostile, argumentative person, who creates fights out of thin air for no real reason at all...

 

[Kalach]

Has a conclusion been reached?



Well, to be honest, I don't buy the trust/distrust dichotomy, and I'm not sure whether I'd buy the empathetic one (what is this? Fe=sympathy, Fi=empathy? ), but I do believe the authentic/inauthentic one, at least based on a certain understanding of authenticity (which, admittedly, could very much just end up being tautological/circular).

I'll use this as a jumping off point for a rant. Sorry.

Breadth and depth are, perhaps, misplaced expressions for the difference between e and i. It seems likely that those expressions describe effects rather than in principle nature. What I mean is, if Xe and Xi are the same function and differ only in what realm they seek to attend to, then both Fe and Fi are authentic when they reach appropriate judgments about their realms. Fi authenticity is perhaps easier to identify because there's just you to compare the judgment to. Fe judgment... well, hell, it's only inauthentic when it makes deliberately invalid judgment, right? So what is valid Fe judgment?

Fe judgment arises from having affect directly created by things that happen outside you. (Right?) Fi judgment, formally speaking, arises from having affect created indirectly. There's some intermediary process or device, like a project or an action that requires interpretation before it causes affect. The interpretation may be instantaneous and the feeling may register immediately, but formally it's still an indirect result. It has to travel to the inner world and get judged first.

Gosh, explaining this is hard. The lil e's and i's change the realm on and in which the function operates, and thus the content of the words used to talk about "feeling" change, or are being used inappropriately. (Which means there is a genuine and meaningful use of the word "authentic" when speaking of Fe feeling.)

What I do find interesting is how one can see function attitudes creeping into the discussion. Talk of a relationship being good or bad or healthy or unhealthy... as if these were objectively determinable... WHICH THEY ARE UNDER THE Fe GAZE! Interestingly, a person emphasizing Fi might well use the same language, but they'd be talking of an indirect determination of goodness, badness or health, using objective facts to inform subjective consideration rather than speaking directly of objective facts (the Fe feeling).


Is there a bridge? Can people emphasizing Fe and people emphasizing Fi discover similar values and overlap? I wonder if this is not a misguided question. Both are judging functions and thus both are informed by perceiving functions. How hard is it one day to perceive the existence of people *legitimately* different from oneself?

(Or am I secretly importing Fi values if I say that "live and let be aware" is Teh Way, thus not actually allowing much room for those who'll prefer emphasizing Fe?)

 

[Jaguar]

But is there one you feel a natural pull towards, while the other might feel more like an obligation?

The structure of your sentence made your personal values seem like your default setting, and societal norms as something that you more or less put up with...

So, I can't take my car and run it through the front of a restaurant. What am I really losing to adhere to societal norms? Lol.

To be honest with you Z, no, I really don't feel like I am "obligated." I do as I please. Sure, I might take more license in public than most people I know, but you see, despite the fact that I might be the only person on an entire airplane who will shout, "Jesus H. Christ!" when an infant has been screaming its head off for 15 minutes straight, what happens is all the people on the plane will burst into laughter. Then, when the plane lands, people come right up to me and whisper:

"You have no idea how much I wanted to shout what you just did."

Now, guess where else that happens? Right here at TypeC. I get messages all the time from certain types of people who thank me for saying exactly what they wanted to say. So, what I am losing? Nothing! Is society rejecting my unusual boldness in exercising my right to free speech? No! Laughter is a form of acceptance and encouragement. Not a deterrant. However, telling a cop to FOAD when I was in my 20's got me in trouble. But the case was dropped . . .

See, the kicker for me between someone who genuinely prefers Fe to Fi is that they genuinely feel a strong and consistent pull within them to connect with those outside themselves.

Let's be fair here. Are you sure this isn't merely a difference between extroverted and introverted individuals? Forget functions. Forget MBTI. My Mom and I are both E's and Dad and my brother are both I's. Mom and I = big socializers. I was that way since 1st grade. What were you like as a kid? What were your parents like?

Those who prefer Fi, on the other hand, seem to possibly feel a similar pull to connect with those (or that) outside themselves, but it is definitely weaker than the pull to connect with that which is inside themselves.

I went off on a rant when my health insurance bill skyrocketed. I called up headquarters and blasted the poor woman on the phone. God bless her soul for being so patient and not reacting. At the end of my rant she said, "Are you aware that the whole time you were yelling, you never once mentioned yourself? You should be an activist and fight for the rights of others because you care more about other people than you care about yourself." She rendered me silent. I just sat there then realized, she was right!

I have always had a heavy pull toward people. It's in my nature to shoot the shit with total strangers on the street, as if I have known them for 20 years. There is nothing "fake" about it. I really am that outgoing. I am generally interested in people ( why would I have a psych degree?) and what makes them tick. I am not a "thing" person. I am a people person.

Are you saying that these two pulls are completely balanced for you? That they are both equally genuine, and that you do not prefer one over the other? Or do you feel both pulls, have a preference for one over the other, but engage the other as well?

Let's try it this way- did it ever occur to you that a pull could be so natural for us we are not even aware of its power? When is the last time you said, "Damn, I really prefer breathing!"

Could it be that what we *think* is stronger is actually weaker?
Could it be that what we *think* is weaker is actually stronger?

Food for thought, my man. Food for thought.

Edit: You know, I was thinking about that health insurance rant, and it symbolizes how I feel about my role within society. I can fight for the rights of others so well because I see their rights equal to MY rights. I am fighting for ALL rights. No wonder I don't have this big gap in values. If I fight for my rights, I am fighting for your rights. If I am fighting for your rights I am fighting for my rights.

 

[skylights]

This is what I think the problem is. I admit this could be totally contained to me, but this is what I think.

Take the statement "Fe starts from a position of distrust." I automatically have this word map unfold in my mind. I hear the word "distrust" and this is what appears. A lack of faith or belief in something.

Contrast this to "Fi starts from a position of trust." Same thing appears in my mind. Belief in something as true, trustworthy.

I'm not joking, those are literally the images and associations that pop into my mind.

Do you see how it's already starting off on the wrong foot? There is no neutrality in descriptions. It's the same thing when people say "Fi is authentic." You're automatically setting up an oppositional force. If one thing is real then the other is fake. If one is, the other isn't. Do I believe that is the case? No, I don't. But many people do. And because it's hard to break out of either/or thinking. I fall into it too...I'm not absolving myself.

i do see, and i understand how negativity could have been read into it. though really, my goal really was neutrality. i believe all the functions at their hearts are completely neutral. if you check out my lists, i tried to parallel between the functions - giving each a parallel and equally bad/good attribute. the theory of functions wouldn't make sense otherwise. and i maybe my wording and conveyance of my point was bad - i'm guessing that must be true because many people seemed to have pulled this one point out...

actually, also, they weren't meant so much as descriptions as associations, generalizations, tendencies. none of it was meant to be set in stone...

anyway the entire point of my initial post was NOT AT ALL Fi = trust and Fe = distrust. (bold/caps for skimmers)

it kills me that that was even pulled out of it because that is so far from my point. my thought was that i propose that Fe is more in tune to trust or distrust of others, building off the idea of it being more attuned to the interpersonal. Fi, being attuned to intrapersonal stuff, would have less reason to be attuned to trust. my Fe dom friend was cool with interacting with the distrustful guy because she had an understanding of his trust levels. i didn't even realize it was trust issues until she pointed it out. i thought he just hated me for whatever reasons of his own. she's good at seeing why and how people interact with one another the way they do. and it matched with my idea of Fe being good interpersonally, so it seemed relevant...

and distrust might have some bad connotations, but open trust isn't much good either. that's when you become used, a doormat, taken advantage of, etc. it's not even a virtue at that point - look at these associations for a better opposite of distrust. it's a complete lack of awareness, it's being oblivious to others and their affect on you. and your affect on them.

that website is really cool, btw. i'm definitely bookmarking it.

I think the problem you're running into is you're trying to break processes down into places they can't go. They're inadequate to cover this. They don't stretch that far. It's not being resistant to categorizing functions, it's about understanding they have reached the end of their rope and outlived their usefulness. It's like a woman trying to put her ass into jeans that will not fit. Give it up, it's not happening! Once things are this granular (trust, love, intimacy, feeling understood, etc.) the distinctions are lost.

I agree with most of what you said, Protean, but I still think one needs to have these discussions to figure out how far the functions really do stretch...

I mean, isn't that largely the point of this forum? Discovery via discussion?

right, exactly. hence me asking for feedback. the point was throw an idea out there, either it's accepted or rejected and preferably gives new insight upon us saying why. the point was not claim something as true and have people get pissed off.

and i totally agree with you, proteanmix, theory can be overapplied. but i also feel like we can always make connections, and there's value in that. it's just like those word maps - i'd love to throw down a word map for Fi and Fe. that's kind of what i was trying to do. assign Fi intrapersonal and Fe interpersonal. of course they're not exact equals, otherwise the "define the functions in one word" thread wouldn't be umpteen pages long. but they're close associations. F and T need to be clearly enough divided so that we can see ourselves in one or the other, otherwise the theory is pointless. the same is true for Fe and Fi.

I am totally OK with this, but it takes 300+ posts of confusion to even reach this conclusion.

Instead of saying Fi=authentic, Fe=fake, ask how does Fe/Fi manifest its authenticity?

Instead of saying Fi=trust/Fe=distrust, ask how does it manifest itself these functions?

Instead of saying Fi=empathetic (this one boils my blood!), ask how would it manifest through these functions?

You get the picture. That way, you can accommodate and stretch stretch it further, without putting them at loggerheads and like the freaking Montagues and Capulets. Tupac vs. Biggie. People end up dead like that.

i like this idea too... i feel like i was trying to do this? but enough about defending myself. the point remains that we're still going to have to draw lines somewhere. both functions can't claim association to everything...

 

[proteanmix]

Must be moreso the former, cuz I can't exactly tell what false dichotomy you are arguing against that I've asserted...

Mind cluing me in on that?

Do I have go back I retrace the posts? Work on your Se along with that Fe!

You quoted me originally with that whole that a priori knowledge thingy thingy.

But couldn't you just turn around and say that the skill one is learning is to use a function associated with empathy (Fe, Fi: take your choice)?

I answered that...what would happen if you turned it around. I didn't say your created a false dichotomy. Also, I'm not arguing with you.

Otherwise, I might be taken by the impression that you're just a hostile, argumentative person, who creates fights out of thin air for no real reason at all...

If that makes you feel better go right ahead although I'm quite surprised to see such statements come from an INTJ.

 

[Kalach]

I'll use this as a jumping off point for a rant. Sorry.

Breadth and depth are, perhaps, misplaced expressions for the difference between e and i. [...blahblahblah...]

And to continue the lecture, the reason for starting with breadth and depth as if it were an issue was to explore how Fe judgments do get made. Well, (a) it's not guaranteed that Fe will pay attention to the group, but it is guaranteed that the person will be attending to the direct sense of rightness and wrongness in the order of the outside world. It's guaranteed they'll be affected by what they attend to. It's guaranteed they'll make judgments about it all based on that affect (and on however many years they've been alive and what they learned and experienced in that time). Is it guaranteed to be shallow? It is guaranteed to be working with what is objectively there, and while the person is an in principle limited machine so they won't pick up every sign nor will they have learned everything there is to learn about possibilities and realities, still they're not automatically inadequate at reading (and judging) signs.

Signs. They're read the signs. From out there. So norms and established group dynamics will be an issue, one issue, and an interpretable and malleable issue. Etc and so. Work out the rest of it yourselves. Or note that if Fe is inauthentic then Te is untrue. If you consider yourselves capable of determining genuine truths using extroverted thinking, then the Fe people probably live in a world of genuine feeling too.

Do they screw around with it to create results? Do Te people?

 

[Zarathustra]

Do I have go back I retrace the posts?

The point is that you couldn't, even if you tried.

You've been doing nothing but arguing for argument's sake.

Your actual arguments have been vapid and irrelevant.

Work on your Se along with that Fe!

My Se is just fine; you can ask SillySapienne.

How bout your work on that inferior Ti?

You quoted me originally with that whole that a priori knowledge thingy thingy.

Your grip on this whole matter seems oh-so-tight...

I answered that...

Actually, you didn't.

You thought you brought up a point that somehow contradicted what I said, but what you brought up was completely irrelevant to what I had said.

I didn't say your created a false dichotomy.

Then what were you "knocking down", what did it have to do with me, and why did you bring it up as if it did?

Also, I'm not arguing with you.

If you're not arguing, then what were you doing "just for shits and giggles"?

If that makes you feel better go right ahead although I'm quite surprised to see such statements come from an INTJ.

I don't argue to argue.

I argue to gain a better understanding of the truth.

I won't presume to speak for other INTJs, but, based on this discussion: you seem to be projecting.

 

[Qre:us]

Good thoughts, protean.

And, thanks for sharing your view on uumlau's response to Pitseleh's post where she shared her upbringing. I am not aiming to hazard a guess at protean's thought, but, what I felt, as an initial reaction:

He (u) is so submerged in "function-talk", defending the validity and effectiveness of evaluations using singular functions, that there was no acknowledgement of what Pitseleh actually shared.

I dunno - to me, the gravity of it. Even if Pitseleh made that remark in passing [and with a ].

If I felt compelled to respond quoting that post, I would initially feel compelled to give a certain "respect" to that truth shared by that person. Some acknowledgement, rather than using that as a jump-off for a counterpoint.

It felt, to me, a weird discord in response by uumlau towards Pitseleh's post, but I do believe he was just using her post as a jump-off point for his own thoughts, and it was nothing against consciously trying to dismiss her, or her experiences. And, I dunno if he even thought on this level of evaluation: the collective sympathy/emphathy phenomenon?

- Fe/Fi difference in reaction? Or just differing levels of social courtesies?

The mind boggles. I dunno.


Oh: and I most certainly don't know how the receiver herself, Pitseleh, reacted to it...just sharing my take on it.

Instead of saying Fi=authentic, Fe=fake, ask how does Fe/Fi manifest its authenticity?

Instead of saying Fi=trust/Fe=distrust, ask how does it manifest itself these functions?

Instead of saying Fi=empathetic (this one boils my blood!), ask how would it manifest through these functions?

There's 1000 ways to go about exploring something, the process matters in the quality of outcome [reliability & validity]. And, conclusions drawn from that....

Take the statement "Fe starts from a position of distrust." I automatically have this word map unfold in my mind. I hear the word "distrust" and this is what appears. A lack of faith or belief in something.

Contrast this to "Fi starts from a position of trust." Same thing appears in my mind. Belief in something as true, trustworthy.

Oh, web associations!

I'm not joking, those are literally the images and associations that pop into my mind.

The adjectives chosen sets the mood, dims the light.

Ah, the fallacy of false dilemma.

Light/dark
/ (<- come on, I dare someone to admit it, that they may have considered to associate this emoticon with "Fe")

Do you see how it's already starting off on the wrong foot? There is no neutrality in descriptions. It's the same thing when people say "Fi is authentic." You're automatically setting up an oppositional force. If one thing is real then the other is fake. If one is, the other isn't. Do I believe that is the case? No, I don't. But many people do. And because it's hard to break out of either/or thinking.

And, it limits exploration and critical thinking. Because it goes in a back and forth repetitive cycle of: "Yes, you are!" "No, I'm not."

I think the problem you're running into is you're trying to break processes down into places they can't go. They're inadequate to cover this. They don't stretch that far. It's not being resistant to categorizing functions, it's about understanding they have reached the end of their rope and outlived their usefulness. It's like a woman trying to put her ass into jeans that will not fit. Give it up, it's not happening! Once things are this granular (trust, love, intimacy, feeling understood, etc.) the distinctions are lost.

Gestalt theory summed it up nicely, I think.

Or huffing off in a tantrum. <------THAT IS A JOKE

Lol

You get the picture. That way, you can accommodate and stretch stretch it further, without putting them at loggerheads and like the freaking Montagues and Capulets. Tupac vs. Biggie. People end up dead like that.

You mean stop the ridiculous triggers for functions-war?

But...but...but...what'll be our ?

 

[proteanmix]

My Se is just fine; you can ask SillySapienne.

Biased. Kinda like how a mother would never believe her sweet little boy is a serial killker.

How bout your work on that inferior Ti?

I'm working it out right now, homie!

Your grip on this whole matter seems oh-so-tight...

And if you're not arguing, then what are you doing?

What were you doing "just for shits and giggles"?

Discussing a topic with you, which is becoming more shitty and less giggly as time goes on.

I don't argue to argue.

I argue to gain a better understanding of the truth.

I won't presume to speak for other INTJs, but, based on this discussion: you seem to be projecting.

Would you care to address any of my points in my posts? Think of it as a thought exercise. I made the attempt to explain myself and you've been mostly blowing me off...even asked you to clarify if I'd misunderstood. Nor have I made any attempts to psychoanalyze you to discredit you.

 

[Glycerine]

Good thoughts, protean.

And, thanks for sharing your view on uumlau's response to Pitseleh's post where she shared her upbringing. I am not aiming to hazard a guess at protean's thought, but, what I felt, as an initial reaction:

He (u) is so submerged in "function-talk", defending the validity and effectiveness of evaluations using singular functions, that there was no acknowledgement of what Pitseleh actually shared.

I dunno - to me, the gravity of it. Even if Pitseleh made that remark in passing [and with a ].

If I felt compelled to respond quoting that post, I would initially feel compelled to give a certain "respect" to that truth shared by that person. Some acknowledgement, rather than using that as a jump-off for a counterpoint.

It felt, to me, a weird discord in response by uumlau towards Pitseleh's post, but I do believe he was just using her post as a jump-off point for his own thoughts, and it was nothing against consciously trying to dismiss her, or her experiences. And, I dunno if he even thought on this level of evaluation: the collective sympathy/emphathy phenomenon?

- Fe/Fi difference in reaction? Or just differing levels of social courtesies?

I dunno.


Oh: and I most certainly don't know how the receiver herself, Pitseleh, reacted to it...just sharing my take on it.

I was a little but I didn't take it personally. Ironically, I was a little surprised by Protean's response and was seriously wondering what I should be feeling and thinking. "Should I take offense to his post or approach his post intellectually?" Her post was much appreciated by me nonetheless. Based on Uumlau's post history, I figured his motive was truly not to bait and offend people so I didn't hold anything against him. He and I are on good terms, FWIW.

 

[proteanmix]

Good thoughts, protean.

And, thanks for sharing your view on uumlau's response to Pitseleh's post where she shared her upbringing. I am not aiming to hazard a guess at protean's thought, but, what I felt, as an initial reaction:

He (u) is so submerged in "function-talk", defending the validity and effectiveness of evaluations using singular functions, that there was no acknowledgement of what Pitseleh actually shared.

I dunno - to me, the gravity of it. Even if Pitseleh made that remark in passing [and with a ].

If I felt compelled to respond quoting that post, I would initially feel compelled to give a certain "respect" to that truth shared by that person. Some acknowledgement, rather than using that as a jump-off for a counterpoint.

It felt, to me, a weird discord in response by uumlau towards Pitseleh's post, but I do believe he was just using her post as a jump-off point for his own thoughts, and it was nothing against consciously trying to dismiss her, or her experiences. And, I dunno if he even thought on this level of evaluation: the collective sympathy/emphathy phenomenon?

- Fe/Fi difference in reaction? Or just differing levels of social courtesies?

The mind boggles. I dunno.

The first thing that jumped out at me at that post was that she said she was in an orphanage for five years and no one seemed to respond to that. IDK, what that was either.

Oh: and I most certainly don't know how the receiver herself, Pitseleh, reacted to it...just sharing my take on it.

Yes, that's true. She seemed to joke it off as well so maybe it was no harm, no foul. But I do think it's interesting how much people tend to gloss over pretty heavy statements people make in passing. And again, you can't tell if they said it casually, meaning it casually or if they said it seriously hoping someone would notice.

Oh, web associations!

I love those things...they're like tetris blocks projecting onto my eyelids!

You mean stop the ridiculous triggers for functions-war?

But...but...but...what'll be our ?

If anything, I strive to keep people entertained and lend my hand in forum drama in any way I can.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I feel like the invisible woman here at the moment.

I asked Pitseleh myself in this thread about whether that was true or a joke. The threw me off, just like Jag making comments that are falsehoods but putting a winky beside them. So, I asked.

I didn't think uumlau "blew it off" - if I can be so bold as to assume he missed that as well, just as I did.

 

[Glycerine]

The first thing that jumped out at me at that post was that she said she was in an orphanage for five years and no one seemed to respond to that. IDK, what that was either.


Yes, that's true. She seemed to joke it off as well so maybe it was no harm, no foul. But I do think it's interesting how much people tend to gloss over pretty heavy statements people make in passing. And again, you can't tell if they said it casually, meaning it casually or if they said it seriously hoping someone would notice.

Yeah, I somewhat regret saying that because it was a really dark comment but it was kind of like saying, "Do you guys seriously think Fe or Fi is starting out at mistrust? Isn't life experience an important factor in determining stuff like that?" Plus, I had been thinking about trust issues outside of MBTI earlier. I was thinking of deleting it but I had to go do some errands and Uumlau made his post before I got back.

 

[Jaguar]

But couldn't you just turn around and say that the skill one is learning is to use a function associated with empathy (Fe, Fi: take your choice)?

Depending upon the source you read, it may assign empathy to either Fe or Fi.
I got fed up with listening to two women, in particular, bitch about empathy so many times in this forum that I decided to post a source where empathy was listed under Fe. But you will find it listed under Fi as well. So for those women, or any other women, to engage in any more catfights about it I will presume it's personally motivated-trolling-rather than really seeking an answer.

 

[Jaguar]

just like Jag making comments that are falsehoods but putting a winky beside them.

Which mod do you want me to get to make you stop trolling? Your choice.

 

[Qre:us]

Based on Uumlau's post history, I figured his motive was truly not to bait and offend people so I didn't hold anything against him. He and I are on good terms, FWIW.

Yup! From what I've observed, he's not of that character. I truly think it was a lack of thinking along those terms/considerations, in the first place. An overlooking of sorts.

Also, have you mentioned this fact about yourself before anywhere else on the forum? Because something in me is tickling my memory that I knew of this fact about you, thus, didn't think it was a joke - even with the .

Thus, I may have also had more information to evaluate the context of your post, than uumlau.

If anything, I strive to keep people entertained and lend my hand in forum drama in any way I can.

If it comes with a side order of progress in discussions in this forum, rather than repeating/rehashing ol' arguments, all the more

 

[Qre:us]

I feel like the invisible woman here at the moment.

I asked Pitseleh myself in this thread about whether that was true or a joke.

You did!

After protean pointed it out that, in her perspective, it seemed odd:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/1292472-post317.html

I didn't think uumlau "blew it off" - if I can be so bold as to assume he missed that as well, just as I did.

Very likely. I believe as much as well.

 

[Zarathustra]

I'm working it out right now, homie!

Well, apparently it's still very out of shape.

It seems to not even know what it's arguing about.

And it seems to want to blame its lack of capability on other people's functions.

Discussing a topic with you, which is becoming more shitty and less giggly as time goes on.

Yeah, that shittiness is called you being confronted with the vacuousness and hostility of your own argumentative nature.

You picked an argument, made some shit up (out of thin air) about whether functions "motivate" empathy, which wasn't even an issue that I had raised, but that you nonetheless felt compelled to argue and actually thought was a reasonable response to what I did say.

But it's alright... I'm sure that inferior Ti doesn't even know what's going on right now.

And what it doesn't know can't hurt it.

Would you care to address any of my points in my posts?

My point was that the argument you picked wasn't even relevant to what I had to say.

If what you said was actually relevant, there would be a point in actually addressing it, but, seeing as how that was not the case, other than to point out its complete and total irrelevance, what about it exactly should I be addressing?

Think of it as a thought exercise.

Hon, I don't need the thought exercise...

My T is strong and fine as is.

I made the attempt to explain myself and you've been mostly blowing me off...

How have I blown you off?

I asked you what relevance your point about the order of "function", "motivation", and "empathy" (function>motivation>order or motivation>function>order) had to do with my point about learning to use certain "functions associated with empathy (either Fe or Fi)", and you still have provided no modicum of it.

If you want to take a stab at showing the relevance again, I'm all game...

even asked you to clarify if I'd misunderstood.

Huh?

Where was this?

(pre-editing it in, please.)

Nor have I made any attempts to psychoanalyze you to discredit you.

No, but you felt the right to do so to Silly, in order to discredit me:

Biased. Kinda like how a mother would never believe her sweet little boy is a serial killker.

And you also felt the right to call into question my functional aptitude, once again, in order to discredit me.

So... well... that speaks for itself...

***

Bottom line: You brought up a completely irrelevant point that had nothing to do with what I'd actually said, I called you out on it, and you've been dissembling ever since.

As I said before: you've given me all kinds of reason to be taken by the impression that you're just a hostile, argumentative person, who creates fights out of thin air for no real reason at all...

 

[Glycerine]

You did!

After protean pointed it out that, in her perspective, it seemed odd:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/1292472-post317.html




Very likely. I believe as much as well.

Please read post #394 for my reasoning.