Fe Fakeness

[PeaceBaby]

In practice, no. In principle though, as soon as there has been some mis-match between what the authority says and what the rest of the robot army can see, then that authority is over.

That's your Ni overlay speaking, not strictly Te though.

Individuals are supposed to maintain an independence that positively requires that they see for themselves. So the art of peculiarly extroverted judgment authority lies in making it possible for other people to see the world as it is. And perhaps in the case of extroverted feeling authority, to feel the world as it is?

Yes, that's right. That's exactly right as I feel it. Te and Fe are "always right", see? In fact, they may NOT be "right" or correct, but it's the vantage point of origin, it's the perspective both start from.

Te sees the building blocks as items in the world; Fe sees them as people. This connection.

I like how my Te dom husband expresses it, "If I didn't think I was right, why would I say anything, of course I think I am when I say what I think." Fe is just like that too ... but people are trickier, there's sometimes nothing objective to point to in the "real world" to substantiate perceptions, so, enter the creation of complex social structures, by which people and their behaviour can be judged as effective or ineffective (right or wrong). This also drives the need to seek out and find commonality in feeling, to strike consensus.

Ni - Fe is more consultative in this approach when the water is muddied for them I think. Many other Fe types are not so, and seem much quicker to levy judgement based on accepted "rules" of interaction in their social circles, "Oh you couldn't believe what she said yesterday" or "What she wore to the party was just so inappropriate". Ni's concern to see the picture clearly before they react on such data is the difference - so enter the trusted person(s). The trusted person can provide data that reframes the social judgement, "Did you know her husband lost his job? Obviously there's stress and money trouble" and that data can drive a new compassion that forgives the faux pas above.

-----

Aside:

You know what really bakes my beans though? Sometimes I get annoyed when I am not allowed in the circle, that I don't get to be a "trusted person" within my small purview or when I "lose my lustre" having unknowingly broken an Fe rule or two (which the Ni type will be unlikely to express verbally or aloud, you just feel judgement levied and the distancing) - gosh, it seems unfair. I make a place for a person in my life, a cozy Si place that's there forever to maintain our friendship, and poof an Ni person has moved on, and I get the sense that it doesn't matter much whether we had a friendship at all. Ah well, thankfully those moments are very few, three people that come to mind, from relationships originating in my twenties (where we're all just learning I suppose) and there's still a little pang of loss for me. I know they don't think ill of me. It's just that ... they don't think about me. Funny too, that Fi - Si place can be visited like time hasn't passed at all in the friendship, and we pick up where it left off ...

I am not complaining btw, I just tend to take ownership of the situation, "What did I do wrong?" as opposed to the Fe perspective of "I did what was the right thing to do". It's highly likely I didn't even do much of anything wrong, I just feel a need to give some type of explanation for myself, so I assume I must have done something. It's a common Fi vantage point I think. "What did I do to mess this up?" Then, enter an Fe user, who says, "Well, you must have done something!" and doubt and indecision enter in, and starts off an Fi - Si loop where every interaction is examined for error.

-----

I'm going on and on about this because I'm trying to get at the actual habit individual people seem to have when in thrall of Je, namely that of being directive. They assume authority. They assume the right to explain and dictate. They tell it like it is.

Well, yes - Te "tells it like you see it", and so does Fe, which dictates the how and why you should be feeling for the most successful outcome - either of which may or may not be correct btw. But assume a position of authority? Absolutely. Te and Fe both. Either an objective authority or a moral one - authority both.

Both are the leaders orchestrating either the people-dance or the logistics-dance.

Then there's someone like me, who watches you both doing what you do, and I can study it to emulate it in order to achieve my own objectives. But I am not inborn with this skill, but what I do have is a great ability to see what works and what does not, and can simulate each with generally a high degree of success. But each approach requires a high energy output, not being my natural bent.

But what's the analogous Fe-type-in-Fe-thrall action? Do they "tell it", lay it out in impersonal words? Do they emote it like it is, splashing out with histrionic gestures or Hindu calm faces or whatever? Do they have a goal?

Yes, they often have a goal, always have a direction, and use their people insights and well-placed nudges of emotion to get there. But maybe some Fe folks can say more about that, rather than me. I might use language that's not exactly what Ni - Fe would use.

 

[Nicodemus]

NTJ approach is bayesian
NTP approach is frequentist

NTJ approaches truth a priori
NTP approaches truth a posteriori

I haven't seen another INTJ on these forums yet. And until there is Se around here, things will be skewed. I have seen NTP's act like NTJ's on here though. Eg Steve Jobs appeared ENTJ, because of the environmental effect of ENTJ friend and rival Bill Gates over 25 years.

I know the argument style of NTJ and approach a mile away. Spent 10 years with both NTP and NTJ frameworks.

Ignore what I'm saying (aggravates Fe) or treat it as a 50/50 (Ti) "opinion", at your own expense to expedient learning.

That is not only almost meaninglessly vague, it can also be read as saying that all NTJs are rationalist while all NTPs are empiricists. We both know that is nonsense; well, I know it is. Furthermore, I was not even asking for what you believe NTJs to believe; I was asking for your personal conception of truth. So your second try does not really cut it either.

And how exactly is the rest of your post, the parts concerning your experience with fellow STJs NTJs, at all pertinent? I hope the third try will contain fewer attempts at autofellatio.

 

[five]

That is not only almost meaninglessly vague, it can also be read as saying that all NTJs are rationalist while all NTPs are empiricists. We both know that is nonsense; well, I know it is. Furthermore, I was not even asking for what you believe NTJs to believe; I was asking for your personal conception of truth. So your second try does not really cut it either.

And how exactly is the rest of your post, the parts concerning your experience with fellow STJs NTJs, at all pertinent? I hope the third try will contain fewer attempts at autofellatio.

All NTJ's use a bayesian approach to truth.

All NTP's use a frequentist approach to truth.

The approach one uses is tied to cognitives functions. The cognitive functions one uses determines the person's type. Cognitives are neural circuitry in the brain. This is mapped out eventually in our DNA.

I can't make it clearer.

You are getting annoyed because you have no way to see the truth of what I'm saying. Your own approach is not a priori, so you cannot evaluate my statements with respect to a global framework only withing the conceptual framework of MBTI space. This is very limiting however.

Classic Te vs Ti and Ne vs Ni.

Also instead of getting personal at the perceived arrogance of tone on my part, how about simply asking what you don't understand in a more structured and precise way and separate out the feeling from your response so that truth may be entertained better.

One can be arrogant in tone and humble in content. Or arrogant in content and humble in tone.

Being arrogant in tone has no implication on the objective truth of the statements.

 

[Zarathustra]

 

[five]

Another problem you have is that your whole model of MBTI has bad data points in it.

I only add things into my bayesian filters once I absolutely am sure 100% of the person's type. Feeding crap into a bayesian is very bad idea. It's foundational.

Feeding average data with some bad apples into a frequentist system is actually Ok for the system. It can handle it.

 

[five]

It's a classic Ti Ne Bias when they see crude Te or Ni arguments to assume faulty deductions, and hence discard the the main point that was being made.

 

[Zarathustra]

Or maybe you're just a bad writer.

 

[five]

And how exactly is the rest of your post, the parts concerning your experience with fellow STJs NTJs, at all pertinent? I hope the third try will contain fewer attempts at autofellatio.

It is rather arrogant to assume I'm arrogant. I merely pointed out the observation to continue to assert I'm the only INTJ around here and that has key relevance to the point I was making of bayesian (NTJ) vs frequentist (NTP).

In a bayesian model the node are treated with different weights some exceedingly extreme. Thus if an ACTUAL INTJ is talking about INTJ's then that will count say 90% vs 10% of someone else who is probably not one. In this case we can assume node as person. Hence whatever I'm going to say will just be another data point in the NTP's view. And it all gets averaged out. NTP's use statistical views on everything,without even realising it, using their Si's and Ne's for the data.

Now I'm not saying NTP's don't use bayesian approaches in the context of a model sometimes, but that is not their overall approach to EVERY piece of data coming in to their senses, it is not fundamental to the hardware, it is a emulated approach.

Eg1 if I go to supper and someone is explaining a business idea it is getting evaluated from a bayesian approach. I may know absolutely nothing about the industry he is talking about but I can make insights based on a priori knowledge from other domains.

If someone ask's me the if it's summer or winter, I take a bayesian approach to answer.
If someone want's to know who will win the 2012 elections my answer is bayesian. You may have noticed I talk about "fundamentals" before. These are simply important nodes in the NTJ bayesian hierarchy.

That is what gives NTJ's the confidence, the bayesian model just spits out an answer and its assumed "true" until proven otherwise. Proven otherwise, means shown evidence to cause the bayesian network to readjust itself to accomodate a learned fact.

Any of this making sense to anyone?

 

[five]

Here is another example.

Let's say my buddy Cliff says: "Hey Jesus told me Steve Jobs died of AIDS actually not cancer"

I will take a Bayesian approach to that fact. Here is what happens.

Does Jesus exist?
No (very strong node and high up in the hierachy)For Ti's sake No means 99.99% no etc.

Is the condition "Jesus existing" necessary for the statement Cliff made, necessary to be true?
Yes.

Therefore ignore the statement. No information can be learned from it. Steve Jobs may or may not have died of AIDS, but what Cliff is saying takes us no nearer to the truth of that.
Lastly, before one writes it off completely, can it be possible that actually Cliff is telling the truth?

Possibly but then he'd have to produce extraordinary evidence because "Jesus exists" being true, would have a profound effect on all subnodes in the hierarchy and a major shift would have to take place and recalibration. Hence the push back will be strong against the statement will be strong. Hence the requirement for evidence must be extremely high.

This will be viewed then by those that don't use a priori knowledge in everything they do to seem "arrogant" or "judgmental" etc or a whole slew of touchy feely things.

That is how truth works for all NTJ's.

I'm probably almost certainly maybe definitely bad at explaining things.

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ what if Jesus was really Jesús, Steve Job's best friend who had privileged information?

Or, if Jesús was really a code name for a secret mole high up in the Apple organization?

Don't we need to agree that we're talking about the same Jesus here First?

Cause, the answer to "Does Jesus exist?" may possibly be Yes, from a number of vantage points ...

*takes off silly hat*

 

[Zarathustra]

...

Yeah, that was the first thing I saw.

But watch out now, PB; now that you've disagreed with him he's gunna take away your INFP card and declare you an INTP.

...

Fyi, I wasn't familiar with the Bayesian vs Frequentist split in statistics, and I don't think that's what Nicodemus was pointing to.

I think he was pointing to your use of "a priori" and "a posteriori", which, I agree, was vague, misleading, and likely wrong.

As Nicodemus pointed to, and as I've argued many times on here, empiricism (Te) and rationalism (Ti) are a better way to look at it.

I'm probably almost certainly maybe definitely bad at explaining things.

Is it possible that you have Asperger's?

 

[five]

NTJ's knowledge is built from the ground up. Imagine the effort required to move a large foundational slab of concrete sitting under the Empire State building.

Those foundations are key nodes. the higher up the hierarchy, or lower down (if we using the building analogy). The more entrenched those nodes will be. So when you bring information to the party and it attacks those nodes you going to get a severe reaction if you bring shoddy claims.

NTP's approach things in isolation. They look at a theory and dissect it to make sure it's internally consistent with itself (Ti). They may also wait for data from Si and Ne to test the strength of the theory. These theories exist for the most part in isolation of other theories.

For the NTJ there is only one model of the reality. Theories just plug into a giant latticework and get absorbed as part of the bayesian network.

Does this make any more sense?

 

[five]

^ what if Jesus was really Jesús, Steve Job's best friend who had privileged information?

Or, if Jesús was really a code name for secret mole high up in the Apple organization?

Don't we need to agree that we're talking about the same Jesus here First?

No. Adding additional precision while it feels nice to the Ti user, will not alter overall, the point I was making.

I do welcome questions around the key points though.

 

[Zarathustra]

Does this make any more sense?

Frankly, you seem to be doing a poor job explaining stuff that we've covered already ad nauseam on this forum.

There's nothing novel or enlightening or interesting about what you're writing; you're just doing it in your own (poor) words.

Not that I would expect you to read them, but there are tons of threads covering this material in more accessible language.

And I'm not saying this because I'm an NTP who finds your language sloppy because you're an NTJ.

I just think you're a bad writer. And you might have Asperger's.

 

[Zarathustra]

Ti user

Told you, PB.

 

[five]

Here is another example.

Let's say my buddy Cliff says: "Hey Jesus told me Steve Jobs died of AIDS actually not cancer"

I will take a Bayesian approach to that fact. Here is what happens.

Does Jesus exist?
No (very strong node and high up in the hierachy)For Ti's sake No means 99.99% no etc.

Is the condition "Jesus existing" necessary for the statement Cliff made, necessary to be true?
Yes.

Therefore ignore the statement. No information can be learned from it. Steve Jobs may or may not have died of AIDS, but what Cliff is saying takes us no nearer to the truth of that.
Lastly, before one writes it off completely, can it be possible that actually Cliff is telling the truth?

Possibly but then he'd have to produce extraordinary evidence because "Jesus exists" being true, would have a profound effect on all subnodes in the hierarchy and a major shift would have to take place and recalibration. Hence the push back will be strong against the statement will be strong. Hence the requirement for evidence must be extremely high.

This will be viewed then by those that don't use a priori knowledge in everything they do to seem "arrogant" or "judgmental" etc or a whole slew of touchy feely things.

That is how truth works for all NTJ's.

One can see how I operate and live and breath this. I don't have to pretend because it comes naturally to me.

For example you can see how I used similar reasoning like the example I quoted above, to filter Zarathasura posts. My logic was his posts are not congruent with my Se experience of Ni Te users nor is his logic or style of debate etc. He has plenty of Fe and ego etc. He says he is one, which contradicts my bayesian network, I will rather ignore everything until that is resolved. Bayesian networks do not work well if the knowledge is polluted.

So he could be an INTJ but then I'd have to throwout almost 10 years of my own experience in real life and re-evaluate so many things. Hence the burden on proof is rather on him. If he doesn't want to prove it, that's fine too, he goes on the the ignorelist.

Now he of course would be welcome to do the same to me. But if he wants to engage it will be on mutual terms. My condition being that a person must accurately type themselves before I will consider what they are saying with regards to MBTI.

I try to stick to that ideal, and will assume people type themselves correctly until evidence indicates to the contrary.

That is not to say others aren't mistyping themselves as well, they probably are and I'm not just picking on Z. That is just a data point I can say for certain, there are plenty of less smart guys that aren't even on the radar.

 

[Zarathustra]

And that is what we call Pi tunnel vision.

A Pi dom need not have it.

But unhealthy ones generally do.

 

[five]

To further back up my claims about "foundations" and bayesian. Has any single person here put as much effort as I have into making sure the "seed" data is accurate?

I only have 80 samples in my collection but it took 3 years to produce. Just check the revision history in Google Docs. I did real life "interviews" debated endlessly with a extremely sharp INTP to produce a solid foundation.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...FRpdUotbWNZa0xRMEx0QlhiZkZkUEE&hl=en_GB#gid=4

Everyone always goes quiet when I stress the action card.

Gee I wonder why.

 

[Zarathustra]

Because no one cares about your stupid excel file.

And it's really weird how you always bring it up.

Once again: do you have Asperger's?

 

[Seymour]

[I wrote this yesterday, but didn't have a chance to finish and post it. My apologies for posting this after the thread has moved on.]

Here's my take on Fi and the emphasis we place on emotions.

First of all, I do think there is a certain amount of projection involved. I think it's hard to overstate how continually aware Fi-doms are of a kind of holistic emotional awareness. It's our primary indicator of where we are relative to our values and a detector for the emotional state of the people around us.

Consequently, when we are in a situation when our emotional state is thrown off, it's somewhat like operating with one eye covered or having a stopped-up ear. Yes, we can function but a lot of the precision we take for granted is lost. One of our primary senses is deadened and it's a continual distraction for us.

The emotions of others can throw us off, as well. Because tuning out our emotional state is draining and distrating, so is tuning out the effect from the perceived emotions of those around us. So, when those around us are upset/angry/sad/depressed/despondent we have to continually re-factor that into our mental model. "Why am I feeling down for no reason? Oh, right, Chris is feeling down today and I'm interacting with him."

So, I think Zara is somewhat right in that we tend to assume that emotional upset is as distracting for others as it is for us. We don't, I think, assume it's necessarily the cause of things, but we do tend to assume the upset is important and should be attended to. Why ignore the crying baby when clearly its needs can likely be met?

Conversely, though, I think Zara is partially wrong in that I emotions have far more effect on people than they like to admit. As Kenneth Dodge states:

I propose that all information processing is emotional, in that emotion is the energy level that drives, organizes, amplifies, and attenuates cognitive activity and in turn is the experience and expression of this activity. There is no such act that is nonemotional[...]

And there's a lot of truth to that, too. Emotion is what motivates and drives us and is one of the perceptible results of the whole valuation process. No one who acts, focuses or evaluates is emotion free.

Still, I respect Thinkers and those who strive to be objective and dispassionate when possible. I think it's impossible to succeed 100%, but I'm thankful for the attempts and their results. Still, I find mature Thinkers who acknowledge their biases and are aware of how emotion influences them much more credible than those who claim to operate from some plane of pure logic.

My own father was utterly unaware of his emotional state, and so was blind to the way it pushed him about. Years later he looked back and saw his emotional state and how it had influenced him. I think both he and I would have been much better off if he had been aware in the moment. He decisions would have been better... both objectively and because he could factor in his own subjective state and the skew it caused.

So, yes, FPs do place an emphasis on both their own emotional state and the emotional state of the people around them. It is partially projection, because most other types are better able to ignore, suppress, or sublimate their emotions. Still, those emotions still have their effect, which some (but not all) are far too blind to.

And those who use Je do not only adopt rational external systems, but they emotionally identify with those systems as well. The system becomes not only an effective tool but also a Value and a Truth to be defended over time—after all it has proven its worth! The very "selflessness" that Fe and Te sometime defend as a virtue is itself personally rewarding (in certain senses) because it allows Je users to identify with something greater, knowing they they earned their place there. In a sense, putting your own group or organization ahead of others is just a another form of selfishness.

So, we are all emotional creatures in some ways. Whether it is better to deny or to embrace, acknowledge and claim is debatable. Still, there is a certain freedom in admitting "Yes, I am fundamentally irrational, and I'll do my best to take that into account and acknowledge that my judgments are limited as a result."