• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Fe Fakeness

SilkRoad

Lay the coin on my tongue
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
3,932
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Have you considered that this is perhaps because you suck at Te?

I hadn't really, no. And you still find it necessary to be insulting to make your point, but I guess at least I understand why a little better, now. Carry on.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
If you're that oppressed, Z, I think you just should get in a random fight somewhere.

Leave the poor TypoC community alone. :D
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I hadn't really, no. And you still find it necessary to be insulting to make your point, but I guess at least I understand why a little better, now. Carry on.

Thanks for biting. :)

See, I say "have you considered it's because you suck at Fe", and you take that as me insulting you.

But, to me, that's just stating a very likely fact -- we usually suck at the 7th and 8th functions!

I can't tell you how many times I've said on this forum and irl that I suck at Fe and Si.

So do you think I'm insulting myself when I do this?

I just think I'm being honest.

To myself. And to you.

If you're that oppressed, Z, I think you just should get in a random fight somewhere.

Leave the poor TypoC community alone. :D

:laugh:

Look, I don't go around real life complaining about this shit.

But if we're having an honest discussion about it, I'm gunna bring up the truth.

And the truth is that we constantly have to deal with bullshit niceties in everyday life.

And they are not something I'm particular good at, and they do sincerely leave a bad taste in my mouth.

And I know there are other people who don't really care about them either, but the Fe users certainly do, so their needs, and the fact that I must appeal to those needs, does in fact affect my everyday life. Just thinking about it is making me cringe, knowing that the next time I see my (unhealthy) ESTP neighbor, I'm gunna have to sit there and nod and act like I care about him feeling the need to tell me "the greatest story ever" for the 3rd time this week...
 

iwakar

crush the fences
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
4,877
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
A disgruntled troll in a Fi/Fe thread. Imagine that. Should we feign surprise or break out the Acme Troll Feed Econosize?
 

redcheerio

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
912
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
E9
No, that's not my picture of all Fe-users.

In fact, I just repped redcheerio about how NTPs (and the same even holds true for some [although, fewer] NFJs, from my experience) can manifest their Fe in highly anti-social ways. I believe Anti-social Personality Disorder is most highly correlated with ENTPs, in fact. But, yeah, that's a whole nother problem I have with Fe (I have an ESTP neighbor who vacillates between this shallow group moralizing and totally disgusting anti-social behavior -- he will literally flip it on and off and back to on within one conversation, like the flip of a switch).

I can relate to an ENTP going anti-social. I'm not like that, but I can think of times when I was soooo fed up with unhealthy ESFJs punishing me in nasty passive aggressive ways for not catering to their sensitive Fe dom ways.

But I don't think it's healthy to generalize about all ESFJs or all Fe users that way, though. Fe can actually be really considerate of others, it isn't always about forcing others to conform to those niceties.

To me, it seems more productive to use a little Fe to understand where others are coming from, than to take your approach of shitting on everyone you see as "wrong".

What if someone took the time and energy (and it would take a shitload of time and energy, as you are very determined and you write a lot) to prove you wrong about something? If they ended up being right, would you acknowledge it? Would you appreciate being shit on for it and made to look like a fuckhead? Probably not.

Burying a pill in a pile of shit does not make it easier to swallow.
 

EJCC

The Devil of TypoC
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
19,129
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
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.
:yes: !!! Exactly! You're learning a new language -- the language that the largest swath of the population speaks. The language that people won't hear as insulting and douchey.

I usually only unveil that style of bluntness with friends -- or with people who are that blunt to me, first, and who I know can take what they give. But the majority of the time, I find middle ground between being nice and being honest -- i.e. cushioning my honesty with Fe-styled backpedaling, complimenting, etc. Like Zarathustra said, Te trying to be Fe.
Back to the very simple PB rule: Fe and Te always think they are right unless proven otherwise. :)
Exactly!!
Would it make any difference if INTJs (generalizing here) considered that maybe this approach puts people's back up and is thus counter-productive as far as having meaningful dialogue and getting closer to the truth?
This is exactly why I restrain my Te, the way I do.
Yes, which is why, as Nicodemus pointed to in an earlier post, in real life, when things have real consequences, we don't use the same exact same approach as we would on an internet forum.

We have to sacrifice our authenticity every single day to play by your Fe rules.

It's kind of refreshing to let go of the bullshit and niceties when you're on here.

On here, you can just say it how it really is.
I find this very interesting, because based on the (few) arguments I've had on the forum, the consequences are just the same as in real life. Friendships are threatened, good and bad reputations are established.
Have you considered that this is perhaps because you suck at Te?

Your statement here seems to make absolutely no mention of the truth or falsity of either position.
By that logic, I suck at Te too. And I don't, so the answer is no.

Te does not always have to be pure. Te is about making things right in the best and most efficient way possible. Sometimes toning down the rhetoric is simply more effective -- especially if you care a lot about being liked, as I do.

For the record: I relate to your resentment of having to deal with niceties in everyday life. But I guess I see it as a necessary evil -- because some of my Fi values are concurrent with Fe needs (and enneagram 1w2).
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
Friendships are threatened, good and bad reputations are established.
Online friends either know how to take it or are treated differently. Bad reputations outside of friendships are irrelevant.
 

EJCC

The Devil of TypoC
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
19,129
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Online friends either know how to take it or are treated differently. Bad reputations outside of friendships are irrelevant.
My general philosophy requires that I disagree with this. I see the world -- with "the world" including the forum -- as consisting of people who I would like to interact with, regardless of whether I'm friends with them or not. You can have fantastic conversations with people you aren't friends with, as long as they don't have a pre-established notion of you as being someone not worth talking to. Which is why I disagree with the bolded; Being universally disliked except for by a few friends would just not cut it for me.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
But I don't think it's healthy to generalize about all ESFJs or all Fe users that way, though. Fe can actually be really considerate of others, it isn't always about forcing others to conform to those niceties.

Most the ESFJs I know conform pretty well to this stereotype...

To me, it seems more productive to use a little Fe to understand where others are coming from, than to take your approach of shitting on everyone you see as "wrong".

Hmm...

I wonder if this correlates with your having tertiary Fe and my having tertiary Fi...

Hmmm...

What if someone took the time and energy (and it would take a shitload of time and energy, as you are very determined and you write a lot) to prove you wrong about something?

Well, to be honest, it would likely never happen.

I once gave a member on here a piece of advice via pm: don't start fights that you don't already know you've won.

I don't get into arguments about topics I don't understand, and I always keep my mind open to acknowledge the value of someone else's (true) position.

If they ended up being right, would you acknowledge it?

If it did happen, yes.

I already said this to [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION] above.

Would you appreciate being shit on for it and made to look like a fuckhead?

I wouldn't go around making truth claims that I didn't know for a fact.

I would qualify my statements properly, and give way where my interlocutor's argument was correct.

Under these circumstances, if the person was acting like a dick, they would likely not be correct in the first place.

And so, if that were to be the case, I would fight them tooth and nail, and eventually annihilate their position.

You could see the argument between me [MENTION=5510]simulatedworld[/MENTION] in the astrology thread.

Oh, wait, a mod erroneously thread-split it out of there.

How could I forget...
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
You can have fantastic conversations with people you aren't friends with, as long as they don't have a pre-established notion of you as being someone not worth talking to.
Not being liked and not being worth talking to are different things to me. I think if I tried, I could have a meaningful conversation with Peguy (who very much dislikes me).
 

redcheerio

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
912
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
E9
I wonder if this correlates with your having tertiary Fe and my having tertiary Fi...

Possibly! :laugh: But first, you wonder if what correlates?


Well, to be honest, it would likely never happen.

I once gave a member on here a piece of advice via pm: don't start fights that you don't already know you've won.

I don't get into arguments about topics I don't understand, and I always keep my mind open to acknowledge the value of someone else's (true) position.

That seems to imply that you only argue to prove yourself right, and not to learn. Others here like to get into discussions and/or arguments to learn, which means stating what they believe to be true, and maybe even arguing it, to see what others come back with, knowing that someone might show them new information they hadn't thought of, and possibly proving them wrong.

When someone comes back by shitting on them for not being absolutely right in whatever they stated, it discourages them from engaging in intellectual discussions where they are not experts, which is very limiting.


I wouldn't go around making truth claims that I didn't know for a fact.

I would qualify my statements properly, and give way where my interlocutor's argument was correct.

Many people are much more casual and less formal in their interactions here. Sometimes people like to just state an opinion in order to simply participate, or to facilitate discussion.

If people can only state things they know they can prove to be absolutely true, there would be a lot less discussion, and a lot less learning around here.

Many of us like the freedom to discuss our opinions about things we don't know that much about yet, because that way we can learn more. By shitting on people for not being absolutely correct in their statements, you are infringing on this freedom.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
Actually, you're putting a TJ tert/inf Fi spin on Fi in general. There's a difference, even among those for whom the function is primary. Tertiary and inferior are less mature, and will come off more like you described; as concerned more with self than with others. In a preferred position, it will tend to often be about bringing out something in others; at least for NFP's. It also leads them to acquiesce to others, as you can even see in some descriptions. The person infers the other's needs from his own needs (and a sense of universal values), and is prone to defer to the other, until someone really violates his values.
It's quite different than with the toughminded TJ.
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).
In a way, there is some amount of an internal source to it, because when you extravert a function (according to Jung), you're merging the subject with the object, and introjecting yourself into the environment "to give it life and soul".

There is an interesting question here that I'm never quite certain how to resolve...

What exactly is happening when Fi (or more generally, an internal source [an introverted function]) turns outward. Is it still the introverted function, or is it being turned outward via an extroverted function?
This is a common confusion of function definitions with behavior. That's what's being "turned outward" there. Behaviors can be used to get a rough idea of a function, but it can't be taken too far. So the e/i distinction in F is not necessarily about "expressing" emotions versus holding them inside, or "thinking about others" versus "thinking about self". It's about the relationship to the object in making an evaluation. (Either merging with it, or devaluing it and omitting what's irrelevant to the subjective factor). Others focus and self focus alike are just the humane (personal--F) aspect of it.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Possibly! :laugh: But first, you wonder if what correlates?

:huh:

The quote of yours that I quoted directly above what I wrote...

That:

redcheerio said:
To me, it seems more productive to use a little Fe to understand where others are coming from, than to take your approach of shitting on everyone you see as "wrong".

...

That seems to imply that you only argue to prove yourself right, and not to learn.

Note: @bolded

And, no, it's not just to prove myself right.

It's to reveal what is true and what is false.

Others here like to get into discussions and/or arguments to learn, which means stating what they believe to be true, and maybe even arguing it, to see what others come back with, knowing that someone might show them new information they hadn't thought of, and possibly proving them wrong.

Note: @bolded.

It is a different thing to discuss than to argue.

If you were to look at my posts, you would find that I don't go around "shitting on people" who come into a thread and ask questions.

I "shit on people" who come into threads and make truth claims that are not in fact true.

I do so, and, more accurately, as I have shown above, I do so to their position, because untruth should be shit on.

When someone comes back by shitting on them for not being absolutely right in whatever they stated, it discourages them from engaging in intellectual discussions where they are not experts, which is very limiting.

My position on this is that someone shouldn't come into a thread (or anywhere) making truth claims that they don't really have the intellectual authority to back up.

If they falsely claim this authority, then I claim the authority to shit on their position (and perhaps splatter on them a bit).

Many people are much more casual and less formal in their interactions here.

I'm not SolitaryWalker here; I don't think my style is really all that "formal".

I'm just saying: don't make truth claims when you shouldn't be.

Sometimes people like to just state an opinion in order to simply participate, or to facilitate discussion.

And they are free to.

But if they claim it as truth, yada yada yada...

If people can only state things they know they can prove to be absolutely true, there would be a lot less discussion, and a lot less learning around here.

This should be obvious by now from what I wrote above, but, just to make sure it's sunk in: they can state whatever it is they want; just don't state it as a truth claim, if it's not in fact true.

Many of us like the freedom to discuss our opinions about things we don't know that much about yet, because that way we can learn more.

That's fine.

Just don't go around claiming that unfounded opinions are truths.

By shitting on people for not being absolutely correct in their statements, you are infringing on this freedom.

And if I were to stop myself from doing so, then that would be allowing their sensitivity to infringe on my freedom to shit on their untrue truth claims.
 

EJCC

The Devil of TypoC
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
19,129
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Well, Nicodemus and I stand on the same side.

I don't know you particularly well, but are you sure you're not an ESFJ?
People have been asking me that a lot recently! :laugh: All I can say is:

1) My philosophy is Fi and not Fe (because part of my philosophy involves being harsher to close friends than to acquaintances because I "know that they can take it" -- which is pretty damn Te if you ask me!),
2) Needing to be liked and having a shit-ton of Te are not mutually exclusive,
3) I have a strong 2 wing, like I've said before, and
3) Read my thread to see my Te in action.

Also, [MENTION=7111]fidelia[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION] can vouch for me.
Not being liked and not being worth talking to are different things to me. I think if I tried, I could have a meaningful conversation with Peguy (who very much dislikes me).
Wow! See, when I have conversations with people who I know hate me, it feels absolutely horrible -- even if I get meaningful information from it, it just hurts me. (Again: 2 wing.) Although in work/task-oriented situations, I have a pretty easy time turning off the emotional part of my brain and just Getting It Done -- regardless of how anyone thinks of me. Conversations are different though.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Actually, you're putting a TJ tert/inf Fi spin on Fi in general. There's a difference, even among those for whom the function is primary. Tertiary and inferior are less mature, and will come off more like you described; as concerned more with self than with others. In a preferred position, it will tend to often be about bringing out something in others; at least for NFP's. It also leads them to acquiesce to others, as you can even see in some descriptions. The person infers the other's needs from his own needs (and a sense of universal values), and is prone to defer to the other, until someone really violates his values.

It's quite different than with the toughminded TJ.

I can accept this.

In a way, there is some amount of an internal source to it, because when you extravert a function (according to Jung), you're merging the subject with the object, and introjecting yourself into the environment "to give it life and soul".

I accept this as well.

And, ha, yup, you led right into my post that dealt with this...

This is a common confusion of function definitions with behavior. That's what's being "turned outward" there. Behaviors can be used to get a rough idea of a function, but it can't be taken too far. So the e/i distinction in F is not necessarily about "expressing" emotions versus holding them inside, or "thinking about others" versus "thinking about self".

Yup, I totally agree with this.

It's about the relationship to the object in making an evaluation. (Either merging with it, or devaluing it and omitting what's irrelevant to the subjective factor). Others focus and self focus alike are just the humane (personal--F) aspect of it.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it gets a little too Ti gobbledegookish for my liking.

Particularly the bolded.
 

redcheerio

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
912
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
E9
The quote of yours that I quoted directly above what I wrote...

OK, I see what you mean now. The first time I read it, I could see how it related to my tertiary Fe, but I didn't understand the connection to tert Fi so wasn't sure what you were referring to, but now I see it. Wow, you may have even been slightly self-deprecating there. <*impressed*> :biggrin:


And, no, it's not just to prove myself right.

It's to reveal what is true and what is false.

It is a different thing to discuss than to argue.

If you were to look at my posts, you would find that I don't go around "shitting on people" who come into a thread and ask questions.

I "shit on people" who come into threads and make truth claims that are not in fact true.

I do so, and, more accurately, as I have shown above, I do so to their position, because untruth should be shit on.

My position on this is that someone shouldn't come into a thread (or anywhere) making truth claims that they don't really have the intellectual authority to back up.

If they falsely claim this authority, then I claim the authority to shit on their position (and perhaps splatter on them a bit).

I'm not SolitaryWalker here; I don't think my style is really all that "formal".

I'm just saying: don't make truth claims when you shouldn't be.

And they are free to.

But if they claim it as truth, yada yada yada...

This should be obvious by now from what I wrote above, but, just to make sure it's sunk in: they can state whatever it is they want; just don't state it as a truth claim, if it's not in fact true.

That's fine.

Just don't go around claiming that unfounded opinions are truths.

OK, I understand your position, and I'm pretty sure most others "got it".

What I'm trying to point out is that sometimes people state their opinion in a way that sounds like a "truth claim" to you, and without a disclaimer. And sometimes they argue as if their opinion is "truth", but only as a way to promote discussion for learning.

For some people, argument = discussion.

Also, this is as big of a personal rule to push on people here, as any unhealthy ESFJ's insistence on social rules:

My position on this is that someone shouldn't come into a thread (or anywhere) making truth claims that they don't really have the intellectual authority to back up.


And if I were to stop myself from doing so, then that would be allowing their sensitivity to infringe on my freedom to shit on their untrue truth claim.

That presupposes that they are indeed trying to make a "truth claim".
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
just to make sure that we have our definitions straight here...

fake

s-FAKE-BOOBS-large.jpg


... yeah... I just felt like posting boobs :tongue: some people are so SERIOUS :horor:
 
0

011235813

Guest
That seems to imply that you only argue to prove yourself right, and not to learn. Others here like to get into discussions and/or arguments to learn, which means stating what they believe to be true, and maybe even arguing it, to see what others come back with, knowing that someone might show them new information they hadn't thought of, and possibly proving them wrong.

When someone comes back by shitting on them for not being absolutely right in whatever they stated, it discourages them from engaging in intellectual discussions where they are not experts, which is very limiting.

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I'm going to offer my Fi-induced(?) perspective on arguments anyway. In my opinion, there's a pretty clear distinction between discussions and arguments.

I don't really see the point in arguing for the sake of arguing or taking up positions that I don't commit to intellectually or morally. That's not to say I don't learn from conversations with others. If someone has something to say that I don't know about or I understand imperfectly, I'll listen to them until I figure out what I think. I might occasionally ask a question or two for information, or suggest potential counter-examples to see if they've considered them or allowed for different possibilities, but I'm not doing it to disagree or argue per se. I'm doing it with the assumption in mind that I'm trying to arrive at a better understanding of something I don't know about by working out possible knots and snarls, and that bouncing an idea around often sheds new light on it.

With that in mind, I've never found that a combative attitude to discussions helps me learn or understand any better. It's often too polarizing and it diverts attention from the issues at hand unless I'm very careful (which takes a good bit of energy.)

If I'm actually arguing, it's because I feel strongly enough about something that I've got to put my views out there. I'll admit that when I get to that point, I really don't want to have to learn from what the other party is saying because I'm already convinced I'm right and they're wrong. I'm usually quite receptive and accommodating but any serious assault on my values is going to anger and upset me to the point where I don't care what the counter-arguments are. All I need to do then is call it like it is (to me, anyway. It might be "irrational" to others, but I don't care because I am right.) I can't keep it up forever which is why I back away if something has gone on too long; I can only rephrase something so many times before it gets totally boring, and anyway, it's not my prerogative to decide whether other people agree or disagree with me.

I try to couch my words in polite terms as far as possible because I don't like hurting people's feelings unnecessarily. If there's a polite way to make my point without diluting the content, I'll take it. That said, I don't want to sound conciliatory when I am, in fact, trying to voice my disapproval.

------

Completely tangential remark: Ye gods, another Fe vs. Fi thread. Good job, [MENTION=8031]Ginkgo[/MENTION].
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
OK, I see what you mean now. The first time I read it, I could see how it related to my tertiary Fe, but I didn't understand the connection to tert Fi so wasn't sure what you were referring to, but now I see it. Wow, you may have even been slightly self-deprecating there. <*impressed*> :biggrin:

:drwho:

OK, I understand your position, and I'm pretty sure most others "got it".

What I'm trying to point out is that sometimes people state their opinion in a way that sounds like a "truth claim" to you, and without a disclaimer. And sometimes they argue as if their opinion is "truth", but only as a way to promote discussion for learning.

I actually feel you here, and I noticed this caveat in my previous response, so I'm glad you brought it up.

The thing is, many people come here looking for answers, they come here looking for truth.

In my opinion (and feel free to disagree with me, but I'm gunna do me regardless), in part because of this, it would be problematic to allow this place to get so caught up in worrying about people's feelings that truths become indistinguishable from untruths. I think a spade should be called for a spade, and I don't believe I should have to spend so much of my energy, as I said above, wrapping the truth up in a pleasant package, when it's time and energy-consuming enough just to deliver the raw truth as it is.

I find shitting on people's false truth claims to be an effective way of saying, "Hey, don't go around making truth claims, if you don't really know what you're talking about. Feel free to qualify what you're saying, recognizing that you're just speaking out loud, or trying to figure out what the truth is, but don't go around making it sound like you're an authority on the matter, when obviously you're not."

For some people, argument = discussion.

I will correct what I said before, and say that argument is a form of discussion, but not all discussion takes the form of an argument.

Also, this is as big of a personal rule to push on people here, as any unhealthy ESFJ's insistence on social rules:

Now don't make me go and shit on your half-assed truth claim!

:tongue10:

Note the strikeout: but, like, yeah... duh...

Look at what Kalach was saying in that other thread: we're all bringing our own cognitive preferences into our discussions.

I'm not denying that by any means.

I'm just saying, if you're gunna do you, then I'ma do me.

Furthermore, as Peacebaby pointed out, at least mine are objective objective.
 
Top