Fe Fakeness

[Glycerine]

I don't think they're fake.. but might have a harder time getting swallowed up by.. the umm.. expected expressions/emotions/demands/etc.. If someone were to keep some time and space for themselves though, they wouldn't let that happen.

Displaying emotion at all though is not Fe. This would mean that Fi is stoic. Which is not the case. I think?

That was my point exactly!

 

[Anew Leaf]

this

It will appear to be fake to that Fi user - if they are under the assumption that displays of emotion are fake. But will it make it fake? Not necessarily yes and not necessarily no.

What is "more real"? The way a colourblind person views the colour red or the way a non-colourblind person views it? There can't be a definitive objective answer because it changes depending on who is doing the viewing.

and this

Since Fe is a "shadow" to an Fi type, and shadows are projected, then the feeling of "fakeness" is a projection. That's how you feel when imagining yourself looking at the situation through an objective lens, when your ego thinks humane evaluation should be the realm of the subject.

Make the most sense to me in looking at the situation.

I like Fe in moderation. (There is nothing quite like an ENFJ hug when you are feeling down.)

I recently saw the movie "The Help" with my ENFJ and INTJ girl friends. The INTJ and I were pretty stoic throughout the movie, although her and I did admit to a tear here and there. The ENFJ sat between us and SOBBED the entire movie. I loved it. She was emoting everything I was feeling and in a way it was rather calming for me. I didn't feel such a need to bottle myself up, but at the same time since some kind of emotions were being expressed, I also didn't feel the need to "chime in" with my own tears.

I tend to find Fe "fake" when it pushes at me. When Fe people expect me to share my innermost self with them no matter what it costs to me - just because they want to get some kind of emotional connection with me... And have no clue how much effort and vulnerability this involves for me.

Otherwise I think there is a great deal we can learn from each other. I really DO need to be more forthcoming about what I am feeling, but sometimes my Fe friends could take a page from the book called "Keep it to yourself at times."

 

[Fidelia]

This construction is highly problematic from the get-go.

It's not anywhere close to accurate to say that "Fi invariably causes Fi users to assume that displays of emotion are fake".

When would any Fi user say that there is no such thing as an authentic display of emotion? That doesn't even sound close to the truth...

And how would Fi users simply assuming that demonstrations of emotion are fake actually cause demonstrations of Fe to be fake?

One's assumption about something doesn't cause that something to be a particular way (except in cases when the interpreting agent causes changes in the interpreted agent by virtue of his interpretation); the interpreted is whatever it is by virtue of what it is; the interpreter's assumption about its nature is completely secondary to its nature.



Meh.

Nice "proof".

Unfortunately, it's disconnected from reality.

Even using your method: why can't one's judgments as they relate to external social norms be demonstrated?

It seems like they would be a rather easy thing to demonstrate, really.

And such demonstrations would be called a demonstration of Fe.

You see them all the time (on this forum and irl).



This is spot on.



This is also highly accurate, but it's general and vague enough of that there are some caveats I'd need to add to fully accept it.

I'm not so sure about the accuracy of the last clause -- it doesn't really ring true to me. Kinda hollow. Might be because it's an Fe-user's attempt at describing Fi.

I also think that there's another way of looking at the fakeness of Fe that is not merely projection.

But that's a more complicated matter.



This is about the most blatantly false thing I've read in a long time.

See allegorystory's post.



This, I actually agree with.

It's somewhat related to what EricB said...

You can still see that way of judging as inauthentic, though...

Value and inauthenticity are not necessarily mutually exclusive ideas.

Do you really, really care about accuracy this much and it drives you nuts when people generalize too much, do you do this for entertainment, are you looking to provoke a response by poking those around you, or do you feel this kind of exchange is what sharpens real discussion? (I'm not heckling, really!)

What I take away from an exchange like this is "You are of low intelligence" "You cannot even construct an initial argument properly", "You know nothing compared to me", "I have all the answers". It frustrates me, because I expect you have some interesting thoughts to consider, and I would like to be open to them, but the overwhelming waft of arrogance and superiority that that communication style conveys to me (and I'm not saying others would perceive it in the same way), makes it hard for me to listen open-mindedly. Please give me some context for why that is your initial reaction and conversations response to most discussions, or what your intent is so that I can perceive it differently.

I would be the first to say that I have a real disconnect with the thought process/communication style of many INTJs and I would like to understand it better. I would think that both being Ni doms would make it easier to understanding each other. Seems to be method of communicating, as well as maybe Te/Fi thrown in there.

 

[Glycerine]

If we are talking about the manifestations of values rather than emotions, I think I could see where this is going. I guess trying to "gauge" where another person is coming from before deciding what you want to do would look "fake" to someone else who has figured it out. ex. person A: Glycerine, do you want pizza for dinner? Me: No. Person A: Me: Did you want pizza? Person A:..... yes.....

If I answer in the affirmative, Person A: Glycerine wants pizza (code for "I really wanted pizza too but I am going to answer vicariously through Glycerine")

I could see why that would piss off more internally focused folks.

 

[Zarathustra]

Honestly, Fidelia, I'm glad you asked.

This is how I used to communicate on this forum, and I haven't done it much for quite some time (other than that one thread, I haven't posted much in a long time).

I know it can seem like I'm just being an asshole, but there are answers to all of the questions you had.

I actually thank you for asking so that I could publicly clarify my intentions.

Do you really, really care about accuracy this much and it drives you nuts when people generalize too much[?]

Yes.

To be more accurate, it bothers me when people pass something off for truth that is not truth.

It would be rather easy (and accurate) to ascribe this to Te.

...do you do this for entertainment[?]

Eh...

sorta?

I dunno, I'd say "entertainment", if it is a reason, ranks reasonably low down on the scale...

That's not to say that I can't derive pleasure from doing so, but there are bigger reasons than merely entertainment.

...are you looking to provoke a response by poking those around you[?]

That would depend on what you mean by "response"...

I would say I intend to provoke many different kinds of responses.

It always depends on the context...

...or do you feel this kind of exchange is what sharpens real discussion?

Yes.

Iron sharpens iron.

But I don't go around swinging my sword just to provoke conflict.

I genuinely swing my sword depending on the truth value of what I read.

If there is something blatantly untrue, I take a hack at it.

If the creator disagrees, they can choose to defend and hack back.

Perhaps I will learn something new or realize something about what they said that I had not before.

Or perhaps I will show their position to be as untruthful as I originally suspected it to be.

This leads me closer to the truth.

It also leads the other person closer to the truth.

They might be butt hurt about it, but I try to frame my language in such a way that it gives the person what I believe they deserve (and can take). If they're still butt hurt about it, then they should consider realigning themselves to be more closely in line with the truth.

I am working on putting less insults into my messaging, but sometimes it is completely deserved (people actually thank me in reps for it).

I'm trying to calibrate how best to eviscerate the argument without getting personal, if getting personal is undeserved.

In some cases, I think it weakens the effect of my argument; in some cases, I think it does not.

In the end, for me, it's all about which most effectively presents my position.

And I try to make my position as consistent with the truth as possible.

(I'm not heckling, really!)

I believe you.

What I take away from an exchange like this is "You are of low intelligence" "You cannot even construct an initial argument properly", "You know nothing compared to me", "I have all the answers". It frustrates me, because I expect you have some interesting thoughts to consider, and I would like to be open to them, but the overwhelming waft of arrogance and superiority that that communication style conveys to me (and I'm not saying others would perceive it in the same way), makes it hard for me to listen open-mindedly.

There's a lot to say about this.

See, for me, the truth of the argument is what matters.

If you let your emotions get in the way of evaluating the truth-content of my message, then that's your problem, not mine.

My argument's relationship to the truth does not change based on your emotional response.

I find it a weakness to let such things get in the way.

Perhaps I know the effect my language can have, but I use it intentionally to say, "Your emotional response does not matter! Only the truth matters!"

Kind of a way of jarring people a bit psychologically so they must ask themselves, "I am being bothered by this message, but it seems somewhat true as well... I don't know, my emotions seem to be clouding my ability to properly evaluate it... Why is this happening? What should I make of it? What should I do?"

*

I think it should also be noted that I don't just go around berating people, nor do I only cast negative opinions.

I evaluate truth content of utterances.

As such, I correct when appropriate, I eviscerate when appropriate, I agree when appropriate, and I give praise when appropriate.

Look at what I originally wrote: 3/6 evaluations were some form of positive response, and 3/6 were some form of negative response.

And by "positive" and "negative", I'm not so much referring to the tone of my response as I'm referring to my evaluation of their truth content.

The tone will go along with the evaluation of truth content, but it comes only secondarily.

*

From another angle, you might want to consider this a performance piece.

It would be dishonest of me to say that I didn't somewhat craft my response to demonstrate the stark difference between what I come here for and what, for example, you come here for, or, perhaps, better put, what types of communication are perfectly acceptable, in my opinion, but, obviously, not too acceptable, in yours.

Why do you think the INTJs in that other thread are more-or-less on my side?

We feel that our method of communication is not considered acceptable here, but that yours is.

Imagine that, coming to a typology forum "for all types", but finding that your method of communication is not considered acceptable.

We have to pare back on our natural inclinations in order to be accepted here, but you do not.

*cue the "yeah, but my method is acceptable, and yours is not" instinctual response*

Please give me some context for why that is your initial reaction and conversations response to most discussions, or what your intent is so that I can perceive it differently.

I think I've described it pretty well above.

If not, I am willing to further clarify.

I would be the first to say that I have a real disconnect with the thought process/communication style of many INTJs and I would like to understand it better. I would think that both being Ni doms would make it easier to understanding each other. Seems to be method of communicating, as well as maybe Te/Fi thrown in there.

I would say, and I know you know this, the difference in method of communicating is caused by the Te/Fi-Fe/Ti divide.

I think INJs are actually one of the best windows into perceiving and understanding that divide, since we are Jungian cousins whose functional order starts with the same function, and then goes straight into the dividing difference.

Frankly, you do get a lot of what I'm doing, cuz whenever you offer up possible interpretations of why I do what I do, you list a bunch of good ones, but, the fact of the matter is, you just don't like how it tastes.

Truly, and I don't mean this offensively, the same holds true for how yours tastes to me...

 

[five]

To be more accurate, it bothers me when people pass something off for truth that is not truth.

Whilst this is a general NT trait. NTP's don't seem to do anything about untruth and ENTJ's get distracted and move on (being extroverts). I think it really really bugs INTJ's though.

General untruth, I'm ok with. There are plenty of deluded souls out there. It's untruth by someone I care about or respect that must be dealt with.

Being together with a highly subjective ESFJ has been challenging

Iron sharpens iron.

Absolutely.

See, for me, the truth of the argument is what matters.
If you let your emotions get in the way of evaluating the truth-content of my message, then that's your problem, not mine.
My argument's relationship to the truth does not change based on your emotional response.
I find it a weakness to let such things get in the way.

Everyone should just stop and think about this. I've said the same thing for years, yet it seems to fall on deaf ears. It's such an important point. I've seen so many communities devolve into ignorant, untruthful Fe-parties with too much noise and no signal, because niceties are placed above truth.

It's INTJ's achilles heal.

Zarathustra, I had a realisation that has helped me. Maybe you see it already, but there are 2 simultaneous data channels in all communication. Both are carrying information in real time.

Content information and Feeling information.

ESFJ's for example are internally very conflicted because often Content and Feeling are saying two different things and sometimes they are forced to listen to Content. However they are also generally tuned into just the Feeling channel. They not really listening to the Content or decoding it.

It's very exausting for NTJ's to package something nicely, but when the Feeling and the Content channel match then it creates Impact.

Since INTJ's are generally only tuned to the Content channel we make bad persuaders. The upside is it's far less distracting and easier to discern truth.

 

[Zarathustra]

It's very exhausting for NTJ's to package something nicely...

This.

So much this.

I've been meaning to say this for like five days.

It's like, look, I'm giving everything I got to give you pure unvarnished truth, but that's not good enough for you?

You want me to wrap it in a pretty basket, too?

I don't have the time or the energy for that!

Take it or leave it!

*

I think this is where the problem of relativism sneaks in and does its ugly work.

How many times do you hear people say some feeble-minded bullshit like, "Oh, well, we all have our perspective."

Great. But that doesn't mean that all perspectives are equal. So don't try to cram your bullshit down my piehole.

The upside is it's far less distracting and easier to discern truth.

An interesting way to look at it.

Makes sense.

...but when the Feeling and the Content channel match then it creates Impact.

Since INTJ's are generally only tuned to the Content channel we make bad persuaders.

I feel you in the sense that people might not like us, and therefore might not want to join our side.

But I think people do have a hard time denying the truth of what we say, when we say it effectively.

Interestingly enough, there is a very distinct rub between the two statements you've made above.

When the right time aligns, I can actually become a very persuasive person.

I suppose it happens when my emotion runs parallel to the emotion of the audience.

In these situations, I become very good at tugging on the Feeling strings.

**

In most situations, though, I'm the asshole saying things most people don't know and/or don't want to hear.

They just happen to be things that, by my measure, they most need to hear, regardless of whether they want to.

I suppose this is why Jung said, if it weren't for Ni-doms, there would've been no prophets in ancient Israel.

 

[five]

In most situations, though, I'm the asshole saying things most people don't know and/or don't want to hear.

For sure, society has deemed

Anti-Fe = asshole

I get called an asshole too, but it doesn't mean "bad" in my head. It just means, "(Five) is not delivering the message or actions with enough good feelings". So I don't mind the label.

For example. I'd rather a gruff doctor save my life, than an incompetent (Fe)riendly doctor with charm bungle my op. Consequence matters more to Fi users.

 

[Zarathustra]

I get called an asshole too, but it doesn't mean "bad" in my head.

I wear it as a badge of honor.

For example. I'd rather a gruff doctor save my life, than an incompetent (Fe)riendly doctor with charm bungle my op. Consequence matters more to Fi users.

Word.

 

[five]

When the right time aligns, I can actually become a very persuasive person.

I suppose it happens when my emotion runs parallel to the emotion of the audience.

Ok. Yes that sounds like it would.

Have you also considered though that your emotion is not logically connected to that of the audience.

In other words I can deliver Content with Feeling, even though I do not feel it. I call this our Marketing department.

Furthermore along a similar line, whole industries are built upon exploiting irrationality of people, but the people running these businesses do so rationally.

Eg Casino operators.

 

[Zarathustra]

Have you also considered though that your emotion is not logically connected to that of the audience.

In other words I can deliver Content with Feeling, even though I do not feel it. I call this our Marketing department.

Yes, we INTJs here call it "Te imitating Fe"

 

[five]

Also I used to be uncomfortable with this because I thought it violated my Fi principle of no-deception. But actually it's not deceptive at all, it's more like.. translating.

I know I'm not being precise but I can expound on why I don't think it's deceptive in more detail if you like.

 

[Zarathustra]

Also I used to be uncomfortable with this because I thought it violated my Fi principle of no-deception. But actually it's not deceptive at all, it's more like.. translating.

I know I'm not being precise but I can expound on why I don't think it's deceptive in more detail if you like.

It's cool.

I already understand.

It's the Te-imperative.

Well, the NiTeFiSe-imperative, if you really wanna be precise.

 

[PeaceBaby]

What I take away from an exchange like this is "You are of low intelligence" "You cannot even construct an initial argument properly", "You know nothing compared to me", "I have all the answers". It frustrates me, because I expect you have some interesting thoughts to consider, and I would like to be open to them, but the overwhelming waft of arrogance and superiority that that communication style conveys to me (and I'm not saying others would perceive it in the same way), makes it hard for me to listen open-mindedly. Please give me some context for why that is your initial reaction and conversations response to most discussions, or what your intent is so that I can perceive it differently.

My perspective is that Te and Fe doms and aux's can all come across like this, actually - the content of the exchange feels different however. Fe is more like, "You don't understand the people dynamics here" or "You don't have a clue about getting along with other people" "You aren't communicating with me in the proper fashion" and "I am right, you've done wrong."

Back to the very simple PB rule: Fe and Te always think they are right unless proven otherwise.

And it's easier to convince Te, btw, because it's objectively objective as opposed to objectively subjective.

That "always right" law applies to you too Z.

 

[Zarathustra]

That applies to you too Z.

I know.

I don't deny that I can be wrong.

It just doesn't happen very often (cuz I try to make sure it doesn't).

I go through a far more rigorous checking (i.e., intentional self-doubting) of my position than just about anybody I've ever met.

And it's easier to convince Te, btw, because it's objectively objective as opposed to objectively subjective.

And this.

This is why Fe is so annoying, imo.

At least, in my case, when I'm being an asshole, it's with an aim to complete objectivity.

It's based on facts, empiricism, and raw, impersonal truth.

Fe has the same pushiness, but it's all so subjective.

 

[Crescent Fresh]

If someone prefers Fi, then by definition, their perspective is to orient humane evaluation inward, or to devlaue the object and eliminate what's irrelevant, as we've been pointing out with some more of Jung's definition.
That's why Fe would seem fake. The person believes this should be internal, and when they see someone merging with the object in humane matters instead, it doesn't look genuine.
It's sort of like asking the question "why do you just adopt the morality of what others do?"

I agree. Basically it's a whole ordeal of Social values (Fe) vs. Internal values (Fi).

Fi users focus on bringing out others unconscious by voicing up their own unique worldviews and values; whereas Fe users are more internally concern about letting people to discover it on their own without any forceful persuasion of one's ideology.

That's why it's quite easy for both Fe and Fi users clashes when they both wanted to take the lead within the same community--which leads to Fe users will serve as a gatekeeper and Fi users will serve as a crusader--both for a greater and better cause of humanity.

Though what I don't understand is this--if Fe users are often seen as "fake" by Fi users via "groupthink," then Fi users seem to ignore the fact that our groupthink is indeed derived from our inner-world of "personal values."

 

[Zarathustra]

Fi users focus on bringing out others unconscious by voicing up their own unique worldviews and values...

I don't think you're right here (although I think you do have a little bit of truth in there).

Fi users aren't necessarily focused on bringing anything out in others -- they're focused on their own damn selves.

This might end up stirring up other peoples' Fi, but it doesn't mean that's really their primary aim (if it's even their aim at all).

You seem to be putting an Fe-oriented spin on what it is Fi-users do.

...whereas Fe users are more internally concern about letting people to discover it on their own without any forceful persuasion of one's ideology.

:yim_rolling_on_the_

And this, this is just laughable.

I have an ESFJ mother, and my girlfriend's mother is an ESFJ.

You're trying to sell this bullshit to the wrong person.

Though what I don't understand is this--if Fe users are often seen as "fake" by Fi users via "groupthink," then Fi users seem to ignore the fact that our groupthink is indeed derived from our inner-world of "personal values."

Well, that's the paradox.

I'm still revsolving it, but I've been working on it for a good while now (maybe a year-plus).

Fe users may indeed be following what is genuinely guiding them (which would seem to be authentic), but what is guiding them is not actually internally sourced, it is externally sourced (which would seem to be inauthentic).

No matter which way you cut it, because of this, Fi is more authentic, as it satisfies both of those conditions.

The most inauthentic way to be, though, is to follow the external rules, even though they don't jibe with your personal values.

That would be like an Fi-user giving in and following the Fe-peoples' imperatives.

**

It's because of this that Fi-users, especially INTJs, often take issue with the forum rules.

We feel it is more likely to do damage to our authenticity than it is to the authenticity of others.

It's basically confining the acceptable amount of authenticity to the (lesser) authenticity of Fe-users.

*prepares to be forced to drink the hemlock by the mods*

 

[Zarathustra]

[note: the response I am responding to here was deleted by the user]

Not Fe-oriented but Ne-oriented.

Ehh, no.

I meant precisely what I said.

Excellent demonstration of that Fe non-pushiness onto other people, there, though.

Though your point is valid as I didn't take Ni-Fi users in account.

Nor did you seem to take Si-Fi users.

Nor, as my original message stated, was your original message really accurate about FPs.

I'm actually not quite familar with SJ in particular. I merely constructed my post based on NF and I should've clarified it first.

Hmm, well, I have considered that SFJs are more pushy than NFJs, so I can grant you a bit of leeway there.

ESFJs also seem to be more pushy than ISFJs.

Interestingly enough, though, I'm not as sure if it holds true with the NFJs.

I'm not sure that ENFJs are really actually any lessmore pushy than INFJs.

Most INFJs have that God's-speaking-in-my-ear righteousness.

 

[PeaceBaby]

If TJs and FPs only use Fi, and Fi invariably causes Fi users to assume that displays of emotion are fake, then are demonstrations of Fe fake?

P.S.: Incorrect - your premise is flawed.

 

[Zarathustra]

P.S.: Incorrect - your premise is flawed.

I'm still wondering whether Tater started it with a false premise on purpose...

[MENTION=8031]Ginkgo[/MENTION]