Fe Fakeness

[Z Buck McFate]

Something about this process suggests to me that perhaps there comes a time for, or there is a process that sees us one day actually, granting other people, in our own consciousness, the right to be different. I wonder how that works.

LOL^.

My first guess, in INFJs, and even ENFJs for that matter (while Ti is the inferior, it’s still the sidekick judging function), is that we need to be aware of how anything that initially ‘makes sense’ to us isn’t based on objective reality so much as it makes sense according to our own experience of the world. Ti isn’t really in any managerial position, it works for Fe. Our focus goes to people- and with Pi in the lead (N, no less), perception directed inward, we can’t help but ‘notice’ possible intentions and such behind other people’s words and actions. If we don’t realize that these things only make sense according to our own experience- and instead simply notice they ‘make sense’- then we jump to erroneous conclusions about why people have said or done certain things. It’s the stuff NFJ horror stories are made of: paranoia, projecting insecurities, refusing to believe people feel what they claim to feel, believing we know best what will make someone happy or sad or angry or whatever (like if someone tells us they’re angry at us, but the reason they give doesn’t ‘make sense’ because it isn’t something that makes us angry ourselves- assuming the person is wrong about why they’re angry), etc. When we can’t separate our experience from THE TRUTH ABOUT EVERYONE while making sense of others’ words and actions…..it’s a non-stop barrel of laughs for everyone involved. But (back to thread topic) I don’t think it has as much to do with whether or not we’re perceived as fake so much as whether or not we embrace shared reality. [If we genuinely believe a fake reality, is that being fake?]

I don’t even know how to directly answer the op because there are too many ways to interpret ‘fake’.

 

[Zarathustra]

Ti isn’t really in any managerial position, it works for Fe.

Would you say that, in the posts of yours that I labeled among the "retarded" (for the view of the relationship between Te and Fi they propounded), it would be a reasonable interpretation that you were saying that Fi is in a managerial position for Te in TJs?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Why do you ask?

 

[Zarathustra]

Because I said "response coming" a long time ago, and I have not gotten to it yet.

It would seem the opportunity just presented itself to do so.

 

[Zarathustra]

And because I believe you've contradicted yourself.

Or at least demonstrated a blatant bias.

Which was why I called it retarded in the first place.

 

[Zarathustra]

This was the specific part that originally rubbed me the wrong way:

...but a thought process can not be ‘objectively objective’ (though I’ve noticed Te’ers are the most likely to kid themselves and believe so). Fi is right there, at least in the back seat, telling Te where to go- and the less a Te’er is willing to acknowledge that, the more annoying they are to deal with.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Then you're reading what you want to in order to be right. Ti does the same thing for INFJs that Fi does for INTJs. The rest of that post above explains how Ti leads INFJs to horribly wrong conclusions as well. (Of course, that part doesn't make you right about anything so you probably missed it.)

 

[Zarathustra]

Then you're reading what you want to in order to be right. Ti does the same thing for INFJs that Fi does for INTJs. The rest of that post above explains how Ti leads INFJs to horribly wrong conclusions as well. (Of course, that part doesn't make you right about anything so you probably missed it.)

No, I took note of it.

I actually liked your post.

I just thought in your original post that you didn't do justice to the complexity of the relationship between Fi and Te.

Nor did you pay respect to the difference between Fi being in the lead and Te being in the lead.

I don't think I'm reading anything into what you wrote that's not already there.

I think you seem to have made a claim about the relationship between Fi and Te (in TJs) that you said was not true of Ti and Fe (in FJs).

It seems to be pretty clear in plain English:

Ti isn’t really in any managerial position, it works for Fe.

Fi is right there, at least in the back seat, telling Te where to go.

Unless you want to say that this second quote isn't more-or-less equivalent to calling Fi Te's "manager".

It would seem to me that they're close enough.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

[MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION]

How often can Te have an interest in something? I mean to say that what guides intuitions vision isn't Te, but Fi... Because it denotes value not how the vision is to be accomplished so in essence when a vision is being formed it serves as a rationalization of that vision. Te achieves the vision and I suppose from a Fe colored standpoint it is a belief that achieving your goal must require cohesion of ideas. Te probably finds that a nuisance, but it is also efficient enough to realize that Fi should be used so that their dream can be manifested smoothly.

So I would say that the positioning of Te-Fi and Fe-Ti is of great disparity when not analyzed as a cohesive judging model.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

What's so in-congruent about backseat driving, 'sidekick' and 'not managerial position'? Is it possible you just had a visceral reaction to the Te/Fi comment and you didn't have one to the Fe/Ti comment- so it seemed worse to you?

My 'not managerial position' comment was in response to Kalach's comment:

That the seemingly penetrating empathy and the search for harmony is sometimes diminished by a semi-conscious attachment to reason?


LOL. That possibly sounds like I'm trying to be rude, but it's more or a reductio ad absurdum attempt. The seeming contradiction of a "faker" being driven around by unconscious attachment to truth suggests there is some... something... to talk about, the meaning of "authenticity" maybe.

It was just a reminder that the 'Ti' in question was going to be slightly different than the usual description of Ti. I then went on to explain how it has a distinct influence.

You might *FEEL* like "it's pretty clear in plain English", but I don't see a contradiction.

 

[Zarathustra]

How often can Te have an interest in something?

As often as any other function.

I mean to say that what guides intuitions vision isn't Te, but Fi...

False.

I don't know that either of them "guide" iNtuition's vision.

Or at least I'm not sure that's the best way to put it.

Either way, each of them has their imperatives.

To assume that Te does not is false.

Because [Fi] denotes value not how the vision is to be accomplished so in essence when a vision is being formed it serves as a rationalization of that vision.

I believe the bolded is meant to be a quick summary of Te.

It is just one facet of Te.

Te is more multifaceted than that.

That's why I called your previous statement false.

Te achieves the vision and I suppose from a Fe colored standpoint it is a belief that achieving your goal must require cohesion of ideas. Te probably finds that a nuisance, but it is also efficient enough to realize that Fi should be used so that their dream can be manifested smoothly.

This gets a little Ti gobbledegookish for me, but I think what you're saying is that Te helps accomplish Fi's desires.

This is true.

But it's not the only thing Te does.

As I said before: Te has its own imperatives.

So I would say that the positioning of Te-Fi and Fe-Ti is of great disparity when not analyzed as a cohesive judging model.

This does not compute.

Too Ti gobbledegookish for me.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

As often as any other function.



False.

I don't know that either of them "guide" iNtuition's vision.

Or at least I'm not sure that's the best way to put it.

Either way, each of them has their imperatives.

To assume that Te does not is false.



I believe the bolded is meant to be a quick summary of Te.

It is just one facet of Te.

Te is more multifaceted than that.

That's why I called your previous statement false.



This gets a little Ti gobbledegookish for me, but I think what you're saying is that Te helps accomplish Fi's desires.

This is true.

But it's not the only thing Te does.

As I said before: Te has its own imperatives.



This does not compute.

Too Ti gobbledegookish for me.

Separately they have their own goals, but the order in which they are placed provides a line that each cannot cross. So yes Te is more faceted than simply accomplishing goals, but as a servant towards the overall goal of introverted intuition its main purpose becomes to create that goal, no? Fi would then justify why Te's plan of action fits within your own conscious. What other purposes do they have if not to serve introverted intuition in the INTJ?

 

[Zarathustra]

What's so in-congruent about backseat driving, 'sidekick' and 'not managerial position'?

Well, now you've thrown in a third variable that wasn't present before, which I'd say is being used to muddle up and confuse things a bit.

So let's just remove that one:

What's so in-congruent about backseat driving and 'not managerial position'?

Because the reason backseat drivers are so annoying is that they essentially are thrusting themselves into a managerial position without the driver's consent.

Is it possible you just had a visceral reaction to the Te/Fi comment and you didn't have one to the Fe/Ti comment- so it seemed worse to you?

No, not really.

But, because you're an F, I understand why you would like to think this is how it works.

It allows you to boil all T down to really just having an F root.

And thus Ts, when it really comes down to it, aren't do anything other than F.

They're not actually capable of greater objectivity -- that's all just a bunch of false, T-promoted propaganda.

Now, is this to deny that I had a visceral reaction to the first?

No, not at all.

I don't deny that there is a relationship between Fi and Te.

I just think your original construction didn't do the actual relationship anything remotely close to justice.

You might *FEEL* like "it's pretty clear in plain English", but I don't see a contradiction.

Very cute.

And you wonder why I'd rather just shit on people's retarded positions.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I used 'sidekick' in the same post I used 'not managerial position'. I don't see how it muddles anything, all I see is you looking for anything to use on a MUST MAKE OTHER PERSON LOOK WRONG.....ABOUT ANYTHING... rant. I can only presume you consider this 'dialogue', because you do it a lot, but I consider it a waste of time. Bait someone else.

 

[Zarathustra]

Separately they have their own goals, but the order in which they are placed provides a line that each cannot cross.

Meh...

So yes Te is more faceted than simply accomplishing goals, but as a servant towards the overall goal of introverted intuition its main purpose becomes to create that goal, no?

Ummm... that would seem tautological...

Due to the "as a servant" part...

I just think it's important to recognize that Te will add it's own flavor into the overall mix of goals.

Hence, INFJs and INTJs aren't both just aiming for the same end, and only using different means to get there.

INFJs and INTJs are usually aiming for very different ends from one another, and the reason is that Te and Fi and Fe and Ti instill their own flavor into the desired ends.

Fi would then justify why Te's plan of action fits within your own conscious.

Umm, I don't think that's really the best way to describe it...

It would probably be more accurate to say Fi would declare certain things that matter, and the extent to which they do.

I don't know if the best characterization is that it goes around justifying Te's plans.

It might find that both it and Te have some of the same goals, though.

Truth, proper representation, objectivity: they could all matter to them both, I suppose.

What other purposes do they have if not to serve introverted intuition in the INTJ?

This was answered above.

 

[Zarathustra]

I used 'sidekick' in the same post I used 'not managerial position'.

Oh, I'm sorry, you certainly did.

I don't see how it muddles anything...

Well, when I thought it was a wholly new term thrown in there...

...all I see is you looking for anything to use on a MUST MAKE OTHER PERSON LOOK WRONG.....ABOUT ANYTHING... rant.

I do remember other things from your post, though.

For example, the above reminds me of the part where you talked about NFJs ascribing false motives to people.

The truth is that I thought that your original post did not do justice to the complexity of the relationship between Fi and Te.

That one line is what stuck out like a sore thumb to me however long ago it was that you posted it.

Ever since then, I've had a fully developed argument in mind as to why this is the case.

Then you said something, that, still now, I think is reasonably close to a contradiction.

Now, how does this have to do with you ascribing false motives?

Because this did not start, and isn't properly described, as "MUST MAKE OTHER PERSON LOOK WRONG.....ABOUT ANYTHING..."

As I said before, this is about one specific thing, not anything, and that one specific thing has remained the exact same the whole time.

Once again, you seem to be ascribing too much Feeling motive to a Thinker, which you (and most Feelers) seem very wont to do.

I can only presume you consider this 'dialogue', because you do it a lot, but I consider it a waste of time.

I was just trying to resolve what seemed to be a contradiction related to a poor characterization I'd witnessed earlier.

At the heart of the matter, for me, is truth.

I understand you don't believe that, but it is actually the case.

Also, to tell you another truth, I believe you've done a reasonably good job defending your position that it was not a contradiction.

You properly delineated a number of Ti nuances that I ran a bit roughshod over.

I still think you ran a bit roughshod over the nature of Te-objectivity and Te's relationship to Fi in TJs, though.

Bait someone else.

This is pretty ironic, considering I didn't start baiting you.

It was the other way around.

Even in this conversation, from the outstart, I tried to be civil.

But you seemed to take an extremely defensive tone, right from the get-go.

I saw what you wrote about having similar communication problems with your eNTJ ex-husband.

My recommendation would be that you might try to give us the benefit of the doubt sometime that we're merely trying to get to the truth of a matter, not going off on some personal attack.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Meh...



Ummm... that would seem tautological...

Due to the "as a servant" part...

I just think it's important to recognize that Te will add it's own flavor into the overall mix of goals.

Hence, INFJs and INTJs aren't both just aiming for the same end, and only using different means to get there.

INFJs and INTJs are usually aiming for very different ends from one another, and the reason is that Te and Fi and Fe and Ti instill their own flavor into the desired ends.



Umm, I don't think that's really the best way to describe it...

It would probably be more accurate to say Fi would declare certain things that matter, and the extent to which they do.

I don't know if the best characterization is that it goes around justifying Te's plans.

It might find that both it and Te have some of the same goals, though.

Truth, proper representation, objectivity: they could all matter to them both, I suppose.



This was answered above.

In reference to the fact that alone they are more faceted than when they are placed in a certain order I don't believe it is. Yes, the function Te can have many purposes depending on the context with which it is placed 1xxx x2xx xx3x xxx4, but once placed within that context it no longer has malleability. If it does not serve that purpose then it creates unwanted dissonance.

I'm not denying the 'flavor' it provides.

I'm trying to show you why I believe Fi has a much more pertinent use in an INTJ than Ti does in the INFJ. Suppose I'm trying to explain why value is more important than function in the long run.

 

[Thalassa]

In reference to the fact that alone they are more faceted than when they are placed in a certain order I don't believe it is. Yes, the function Te can have many purposes depending on the context with which it is placed 1xxx x2xx xx3x xxx4, but once placed within that context it no longer has malleability. If it does not serve that purpose then it creates unwanted dissonance.

I'm not denying the 'flavor' it provides.

I'm trying to show you why I believe Fi has a much more pertinent use in an INTJ than Ti does in the INFJ. Suppose I'm trying to explain why value is more important than function in the long run.

I love you.

 

[INTP]

This was the specific part that originally rubbed me the wrong way:

But thats true, its just that if the Fi is undifferentiated this happens unconsciously. and in order to start differentiating Fi, you need to aknowledge this happening. since you dont see this, it suggests that you have undeveloped unconscious Fi guiding your Te. read jung and youll find this out

 

[Kalach]

Folly, Earthlings! Folly. It's a mistake to imagine one half of a judgment pair exists to undermine the other. Instead, neither judgment can exist without the other. We can talk of times when a person makes unconscious choices but we can't talk of some function as if it is its products. Te does not exist without Fi in the sense that there is no objective reason to value truth unless one cares for it. (Or something like that.) Likewise, Ti apparently cannot exist unless there is something "out there" to care about.

But why is this so, and what's its relevance to fakery must wait upon a non-phone post, or on someone willing to see cognition as cognition.