What would the world do without Fe?

[proteanmix]

Well, Z edits lots of posts after posting them, he is just saying what he said knowing he may have missed any changes in the back & forth since his initial read ... why would we assume he was trying to be nasty to protean?

I ascribed the wrong interpretation to the edit space, but I was not incorrect in saying he wasn't accusing her of anything.

He was implying that I'd go back and edit in him asking me to correct my thinking...that it was not originally included. Oh and that he said I was argumentative and hostile, which once again coming from an INTJ makes me beam with delight!

Honestly, he wouldn't know it was pre-edited or not because the time stamp would not appear until more than 60 minutes have elapsed. So if I'd changed anything less than an hour of me posting it would show as no change at all.

I made my post (377) at 9:23 and he quoted me at 9:33. So he saw what I wrote (and it's in his quote of my post) and his poor Se skimmed over it.

If I edited his post, there would automatically be a record of it and it's clearly not there.

So what else am I to believe that he was trying to insinuate that I'd play some trickery and edit in something to cover my tracks?

 

[Jaguar]

Now at what point did I mention gender in that post?

You didn't, but it's the way some fellas describe the ladies.

 

[Glycerine]

She might be saying that empathy is a learned skill but it doesn't really relate innately to the functions...it's a learned near universal trait? Please correct me if I am wrong, pro.

 

[Qre:us]

I didn't assign the behavior.

I assigned the potential for the act, and not so much out of malice, but moreso out of the fact that sometimes people go back and edit posts, and, if I'd missed an edit in which she asked for clarification, that this might be the reason why.

Potential for the act versus the act itself is kinda moot when, in this context, you're "theoretically" talking of a past occurence. You were asking her for a post of hers, that she made in the past. So, behaviour already occured either way.

Meaning that, at the time you had asked for protean's post, the way you did, it indicates: either (1) whatever edit she had made to them were already done* OR (2) she will go to edit them in now, in the present, after your comment.

* if you truly believed that she had already made the edits in the past, before your post asking her for the example - then, it doesn't seem like, rationally, you would ask for her to remember or, for that matter, know, if you had caught the edited or unedited version - from the past.

Which leaves us with option (2).

 

[PeaceBaby]

So what else am I to believe that he was trying to insinuate that I'd play some trickery and edit in something to cover my tracks?

^ I wonder why that's the first thing that comes to your mind?

Z can verify that I'll call him out if I think he's being a tool. Your interpretation didn't cross my mind 'til you posted it though. Although I can see it as a possibility when you flesh it out as above.

 

[Qre:us]

My very, very quick scan of this thread indicates that this is a manifestation of Fe. So, like, that's progress, right?

No, no, we're regressing. As it was done by an "Fi-tert", and well, that puts a fly in our ointment.

 

[Zarathustra]

Potential for the act versus the act itself is kinda moot when, in this context, you're "theoretically" talking of a past occurence. You were asking her for a post of hers, that she made in the past. So, behaviour already occured either way.

Meaning that, at the time you had asked for protean's post, the way you did, it indicates: either (1) whatever edit she had made to them were already done* OR (2) she will go to edit them in now, in the present, after your comment.

* if you truly believed that she had already made the edits in the past, before your post asking her for the example - then, it doesn't seem like, rationally, you would ask for her to remember or, for that matter, know, if you had caught the edited or unedited version - from the past.

Which leaves us with option (2).

Hey!

This reminds me of something I put in my blog recently!

Plenty of reasoning, not much soundness...

If you hadn't noticed, many posts had been made, the line of discussion was rather convoluted, and, in that context, edits can be made and missed, and even original requests for clarification can be missed; I was simply stating that she show me where she'd asked for clarification, and that, if she had edited it in after the fact that, and that I'd missed it, then I would want it to be known that I hadn't seen it in her original post because it was not originally there.

 

[proteanmix]

To which you provided this response (which I have deemed irrelevant):

I missed this the first time but this is too good to pass up.

Because you said it is, means that it is actually so. Hmm. OK.

 

[Zarathustra]

I missed this the first time but this is too good to pass up.

Because you said it is, means that it is actually so. Hmm. OK.

I'm just stating it as a fact.

I have called it irrelevant.

That does not mean it is.

That's just what I've deemed it.

And I will continue to until you show me how it is relevant.

I have asked you to do so, but, thus far, you have not.

 

[proteanmix]

I'm just stating it as a fact.

I have called it irrelevant.

I will continue to call it irrelevant until you show me how it is relevant.

I have asked you to do so, but you, thus far, have failed to do so.

Z, I can't make your brown eyes blue. But I can strongly suggest you go to a optometrist and get your scripts updated. Don't you just hate people telling you what you say is irrelevant?

 

[Zarathustra]

I made my post (377) at 9:23 and he quoted me at 9:33. So he saw what I wrote (and it's in his quote of my post) and his poor Se skimmed over it.

Such a nice girl.

The truth (i.e., not just the throwing around of really pathetic typological attacks) is that, upon going back and reading it (once you pointed out which post it was in), I clearly remembered you saying that.

But if you look at my response that followed:

I saw a contradiction because if a function motivates you to a certain behavior, then how would you see the function at work if the behavior (empathy) can also be motivated by another function?

If these are motivations:

Are they doing it because they have familial associations or any other ties to Haiti?
Are they doing it because they're French and feel some kind of former colonial tie?
Are they doing it because they want to run for Haitian president and believe they can run things better?
Are they doing it out of the unbounded goodness of their heart?

How would you know Fi (for example) made a person empathize? The other motivations still resulted in empathy. IOW, how do you know the order is function>motivation>behavior vs motivation>function>behavior. That is the pointless part to me.

If I'm not understanding then please restate your question another way so I can get it.

I don't know where the communication gap is coming from, but... well, it certainly exists...

Look at what was said:

Above anything else, I believe empathy is a learned skill.

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)?

See bolded.

I said "associated with".

Somewhere in there, you came out with "motivated".

At this point, I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing with me about...

*chalks this one up to Fe/Ti, Te/Fi "differences"*

... I had clearly responded to her question.

 

[Zarathustra]

/ thread

Fi wins!

 

[Glycerine]

She might be saying that empathy is a learned skill but it doesn't really relate innately to the functions...it's a learned near universal trait? Please correct me if I am wrong, pro.

This is what she was getting at. Neither of you are necessarily wrong though. Sleep tight.

 

[Qre:us]

Hey!

This reminds me of something I put in my blog recently!

Um. Nope.

If you hadn't noticed, many posts had been made, the line of discussion was rather convoluted, and, in that context, edits can be made and missed, and even original requests for clarification can be missed; I was simply stating that she show me where she'd asked for clarification, and that, if she had edited it in after the fact that, and that I'd missed it, then I would want it to be known that I hadn't seen it in her original post because it was not originally there.

^

Plenty of reasoning, not much soundness...

Unless, you can justify one point:

If protean now says to you, that she had, in the past, say, edited her post [sans any apparent time-stamp], how would that in any way be informative from her perspective, of whether YOU thus read the edited or unedited version? How would she know or be aware of this difference - and present it with that knowledge in mind?

Aside: It'll only depend on your subsequent response, whether you say that it was indeed the version you read or otherwise. Which you can as easily admit or deny.


At the end of the day, your wording points to an intent with that request:

Huh?

Where was this?

(pre-editing it in, please.)

Pre as in before editing it in, please.

You're asking her now for a post that has already happened, already exists in its final form, original or otherwise, by asking her for its "before editing it in" version? Either you're asking her to jump through mod hoops to prove her innocence, or, this request is completely soundless, as it's a rationally impossible request to fulfill by a member [i.e., negating protean's mod-status].

To give you the "pre-edited" version when pre-edit or edit - both are in the past, i.e., already happened before your request, is impossible to distinguish, thus, deliver to you.

So either you made a rationally impossible request of Protean, or.......

You were referring to an edit about to happen, then your use of "pre-edit" makes sense.

Edit, to add: my one assumption is that your request to her wasn't intended to be rationally impossible, hence, my drawing the only conclusion it thus affords.

 

[Ivy]

What the hell, people. What the hell.

 

[garbage]

The world would die if it didn't have Fe


There, done.

 

[Glycerine]

For sure socially.

/thread (for me).

 

[Zarathustra]

What the hell, people. What the hell.

Agree.

The world would die if it didn't have Fe

There, done.

Disagree.

This is what she was getting at. Neither of you are necessarily wrong though. Sleep tight.

Agree.

But my point was that she said what she said as if it had contradicted what I had said, which it didn't...

My point was that either interpretation could just as easily be true, and thus both were groundless...

And lastly that, if both are groundless, than we shouldn't go about doing what she'd seemed to be proposing, which was that we stop putting up dichotomies related to different functional pairings.

***

Alright, my head hurts enough now. I'm going to bed.

:hi:

 

[skylights]

edit: was attempting to be funny but probably shouldn't even go there

herp derp

incidentally, vicky jo (lol) said this:

It's interesting to me how "suspicious" Pete seems to be with strangers, in contrast to me who perhaps trusts *too* easily and readily. (After all, I don't want anyone to feel unliked -- even before I meet someone I am predisposed to "take care of" their feelings.) I didn't pick up on this aspect during the interview itself, but this may very well reflect an Fe/Fi difference. I also want to add the caveat that something I love in this interview is how we don't "mesh" very well.

infj about infp. . i wouldn't mesh either, with vicky jo's hands all over me and her awkward leading questions. and then the infp in the video talks about how empathetic he is.

we just all want to claim trust and empathy, apparently.

 

[Ivy]

without fe, life would just be a li.


(sure hope nobody made that joke already)