Fe Fakeness

[Tiltyred]

See below. ...
So do you still doubt then my ability to type? You can question me all day and I'll respond and you can evaluate the statements and probe and interrogate, because I know my stuff and I'm good at it. Hence high degree of confidence in the model.

I don't doubt it. I don't know. I can't tell. If I wanted some proof, the chart isn't it, is all I wanted to say.

 

[Ginkgo]

It did feel a bit like popping a zit, no?

More like exposing a tumor. Lol.

 

[Zarathustra]

More like exposing a tumor.

Just do it.

 

[Zarathustra]

So do you still doubt then my ability to type? You can question me all day and I'll respond and you can evaluate the statements and probe and interrogate, because I know my stuff and I'm good at it. Hence high degree of confidence in the model.

Frankly, I don't think anyone gives a shit.

But you seem very intent on the notion that everyone should.

 

[Nicodemus]

I'm not sure how that relates. If my senses where faulty then I'd acknowledge that and compensate.

It describes your relationship to the truth with a capital T. There are more delicate statements claiming truth than 'Is it a plane? No, it is Superman.' Sometimes having another look does not eradicate the mistake.

Nearly all people do not like being wrong. This aversion to "wrongness" can often prevent objective truth being learned at least in the short term.

Indeed.

 

[Kalach]

I advocate a pragmatic theory of truth that, while acknowledging that 'the world' (the thing in itself or whatever you want to call it) is a certain way, holds as true those statements which are most reliable, those which, in other words, we consider sufficient to base our decisions on. The words 'true' and 'truth', therefore, have two meanings: one that correlates to the world as it is and may forever be inaccessible, and one that correlates to the statements about it that have proven reliable.

This "reliable" is special though. Where "reliable" is a real and valued stamp, it is so because there's some suggestion that reliabilities are approximations of objectivities. Which is to say, we expect that while objective truth is inaccessible, it is nonetheless within our power to hit upon it from time to time. We can't know where and when we approach objectivity closely enough that our claims are more than merely contingent, but we do necessarily BELIEVE that by attending to reliables, or something like reliability, that we all-unknowingly yet even maybe consciously grow closer to it. Not determinately close. Not measurably close. But close. Potentially sometimes even exactly right on the button, and we utter some objective truth without ever knowing it.

It's a built-in feature of extroverted judgment: the world is the final reference point for all truths, but the world is different from us and will never be subsumed by our own consciousness. We will never contain within ourselves the key to final and complete knowing. It will always exist outside.

Alarmingly, introverted judgers probably have a quite different view. AND THEY'RE PROBABLY RIGHT! THEY DON'T HAVE THE REQUIREMENT OF RELIABILITY. THEY DON'T HAMSTRING THEIR SENSE OF KNOWING AS WE DO.

And likewise, they don't see the beauty of the endless, driving, dynamic contradiction, the creation that comes of reaching for knowledge that can't be held.



Are you listening, Fe types? There's some beginning description in there of what you do too.

 

[Zarathustra]

Kalach, why do you always have to play with the dead threads?

That was a perfectly good place to stop...

 

[Kalach]

The Fe cabalists are on the verge of spilling their secrets. Oh, I know, we have come to this point many times only to see them shrink away from the warm and welcoming light of day, but think of the poor cave-dwellers. These secret societists are plotting our demise and must be cajoled back into polite society if only to save ourselves a knife in the back.

 

[highlander]

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'm pretty sure Zara is an INTJ. It's been discussed before.

 

[Zarathustra]

I'm pretty sure Zara is an INTJ. It's been discussed before.

That would not matter.

I showed him the threads before.

He thinks there is not a single other INTJ here.

By his reasoning: if one differs from him, then they cannot be INTJ.

His Pi tunnel vision is so strong, it's almost hard for me to believe he's an iNtuitive.

 

[highlander]

[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.

Can you explain what you mean by "emotional state is thrown off"? Sounds interesting.

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?

So, is this how everyone experiences Fi?

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.

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."

This seems exactly right. The older I get, the more I realize these things to be true.

 

[five]

I'm pretty sure Zara is an INTJ. It's been discussed before.

I'm sure the forum persona of the username Zara and others are perceived as an INTJ within this community. Multiple datapoints confirm this and reinforce that belief. I'm not disputing that.

Let's leave that for a second however.

Would you agree that there are degrees of belief around other people's types on the forums?

 

[five]

Mock and ridicule come is a first order emotional response to those that do not understand, yet are annoyed because it seems to contradict a firm belief. As [MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION] refreshingly admitted, people generally do not like to be wrong.

If someone of no consequence and carrying no truth says things, as an INTJ I would simply ignore them.

Have I mocked anyone at all? Have I made a single personal attack other than the relentless pursuit of truth here?

Please quote me.

Yet the reverse has been done. One must be honest and ask "Why"? Is it just an approach issue or is it deeper than that? Because one could sit around attacking approach ad naseuem, while conveniently ignoring the more pertinent issue or the actual claims being made. As an actual INTJ I have zero interest in approach of others, if someone is obnoxious or not its completely irrelevant to me, I'd listen to them by looking past that into the content. I have no emotional response to obnoxiousness.

Often the emotional response makes the user of it feel temporarily better. "Ahh that guys an idiot". Then it resolves the cognitive dissonance and they can get on with life.

You welcome to look at my record. I hide nothing from my actions. You will find an extremely high level of congruence and consistency. NTP's do not have as high a level of internal consistency, because they maintain and entertain things that could be false far more.

 

[Kalach]

^ Te fakeness?

Selective emphasis on facts of the environment, leading to a result?


Naturally it's not really fake. It is if leadership halts there. But if it is as it should be a stage in the development of the story of what "the environment" all is, then... perhaps it's not annoying. It leads to interaction. Correction. Overall knowledge development for all.

Voila, Fe is not fake.


Five to the rescue, Fe'ers.

 

[entropie]

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. This is extroverted thinking after all: the highest authority is the world itself and any given person is but a messenger. 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?

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.

It's a bit mysterious though. Te types in Te thrall will "tell it like it is." They'll want to lay out a descriptive story that's supposed to be shared, and checked and then used as a frame for... whatever, further thought, some action, a picnic. 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?


Eh, whatever. The discussion is supposed in the end to describe the mechanisms of what's afoot. I'm in Te thrall and looking for actionable structures (with maybe some Fi notes thrown in on where there's supposed to be nodes of universal value and thus respect).

Idealized Fe leadership to me is that you try to motivate the potential within your minions, what of course needs a lot of room for error in the beginning. Things Fe people in that regards have to learn is to recognize when its not possible to motivate someone any further, because he just doesnt want to be motivated. And to develop the ability to tell someone he has majorily fucked something up and doing that without being fogiving too quickly.

A major problem for Fe - people with Te - leadership is responsibility. While a function-oriented Te would tend to criticize errors immediantly, without putting them into a context, a Fe - oriented leadership would more thrive to be the strongest of the pack and to create learning experiences from mistakes.

Both concepts have their problems and the best concept is something in the middle, as it is with all things in life. One thing I believe tho too, I dont think that in the long run you can categorize all the world into Te, Ti, Fe, Fi things only. Especially regarding leadership the factor of experience plays a major role and thats a point when the mbti concept becomes blurry. The concept is applicable for your personal preferences but to be successful in this world and to become happy, I dont think it will be possible if you stick to your own preference only for the rest of your life.

 

[Nicodemus]

This "reliable" is special though. Where "reliable" is a real and valued stamp, it is so because there's some suggestion that reliabilities are approximations of objectivities. Which is to say, we expect that while objective truth is inaccessible, it is nonetheless within our power to hit upon it from time to time. We can't know where and when we approach objectivity closely enough that our claims are more than merely contingent, but we do necessarily BELIEVE that by attending to reliables, or something like reliability, that we all-unknowingly yet even maybe consciously grow closer to it. Not determinately close. Not measurably close. But close. Potentially sometimes even exactly right on the button, and we utter some objective truth without ever knowing it.

I like to call it a regulative idea.

Alarmingly, introverted judgers probably have a quite different view. AND THEY'RE PROBABLY RIGHT! THEY DON'T HAVE THE REQUIREMENT OF RELIABILITY. THEY DON'T HAMSTRING THEIR SENSE OF KNOWING AS WE DO.

I am not convinced that is true. Perhaps Ti folk merely withhold truth judgments longer and prefer to think about system coherence first. This is, by the way, not a question of what the theory tells us but of what those who identify as INTPs and so forth actually believe. In other words: they might have the same requirements for truth, they just care less about it.

 

[Kalach]

I like to call it a regulative idea.

What does it regulate? I'm guessing "the world". The regulative idea can be counted on to tell us about outcomes of action in the world. Assuming the world exists, it amounts to describing the regulations of that world?

There's always that need for assumption though, isn't there? There's always that part that can't formally be counted on, the actual existence of the world. It's something we must take for granted if any regulation is to be meaningful.

I actually think that tension between wanting to know and needing to assume is the origin of a lot of thought. One works harder to approximate what exists rather than assume what exists.

I'm sort of under the impression that all the Ti folk need are categories and relationships between categories. In essence, as far as I'm aware so far, what they do mostly is go deep and far into describing these categorical relationships. I suppose one should wonder where the categories come from. Maybe they take them as axiomatic. I don't know.

I am not convinced that is true. Perhaps Ti folk merely withhold truth judgments longer and prefer to think about system coherence first. This is, by the way, not a question of what the theory tells us but of what those who identify as INTPs and so forth actually believe. In other words: they might have the same requirements for truth, they just care less about it.

The theory tells us that they'll have to check with the world at some point. But yes, maybe with less emphatic cry-babying than someone preferring Je. The theory tells us we're all some dynamic balance of different aspects of outer checking and inner categorizing. And naturally, different philosophies arise.

Ergo, to actually know the true nature of truth, we're going to have to find out both what cognitive preference imports for us as innate assumption and which of those assumptions, if any, are... real? It becomes necessary to question the adequacy of one's own perception and judgment.

Or does it? I mean, how is it even possible to use a preference to question a preference? The preference automatically brings in its own mode of functioning and the assumptions that go with that.

OR IS THIS JUST THE Ni PARANOIA?!


I have some vague idea that the usual claim "Everyone uses every function" is a sop to this paranoia, that it's not that everyone uses every function but that all people necessarily cut down what they can use so that they can use even anything at all. Without the specialization, there is no cognitive product, but without the opportunity to use other functions, no product is complete. And if it's not complete then it is adequate as neither "true" judgment nor complete perspective. So the claim "everyone uses every function" is really the idea that there is and must be some way to communicate between the disparate function perspectives and judgments.

That's not quite right. Nor perhaps even barely right. It's mostly just an attempt to express the thought that every attempt at cognition is by nature partial. To really and genuinely know if it is also accurate, then... all the other functions are needed eventually?



Anyway, the thing where there's such a seemingly obvious structural similarity between Te and Fe is blinding in its... its... ability to inform communication however disparate the actual content of the different dialogues may be?

 

[Nicodemus]

What does it regulate? I'm guessing "the world".

The only place ideas can exist is inside people's minds. The regulative idea motivates, structures, provides models for justification and falsification, and thus regulates people's behavior.

I actually think that tension between wanting to know and needing to assume is the origin of a lot of thought. One works harder to approximate what exists rather than assume what exists.

Exactly. I even assume that we cannot get rid of it until, perhaps, evolution invents something better.

I'm sort of under the impression that all the Ti folk need are categories and relationships between categories. In essence, as far as I'm aware so far, what they do mostly is go deep and far into describing these categorical relationships. I suppose one should wonder where the categories come from. Maybe they take them as axiomatic. I don't know.

What they need for contentment may indeed just be categories. What they need for truth may be something else.

Sometimes I wonder whether the people I meet in the philosophy department at my university actually care about coming to conclusions. An awful lot of them seem to be happy just throwing boxes at each other.

The theory tells us that they'll have to check with the world at some point. But yes, maybe with less emphatic cry-babying than someone preferring Je. The theory tells us we're all some dynamic balance of different aspects of outer checking and inner categorizing. And naturally, different philosophies arise.

Ergo, to actually know the true nature of truth, we're going to have to find out both what cognitive preference imports for us as innate assumption and which of those assumptions, if any, are... real? It becomes necessary to question the adequacy of one's own perception and judgment.

Or does it? I mean, how is it even possible to use a preference to question a preference? The preference automatically brings in its own mode of functioning and the assumptions that go with that.

OR IS THIS JUST THE Ni PARANOIA?!

There is no true nature of truth; there are merely different definitions. To get to the bottom of our question, though, we can simply ask different types to introspect, think, ponder their words and give us a definition of their conception of truth. Then we compare.

 

[Kalach]

There is no true nature of truth; there are merely different definitions. To get to the bottom of our question, though, we can simply ask different types to introspect, think, ponder their words and give us a definition of their conception of truth. Then we compare.

I agree.

Or maybe I don't. I'm not sure. I know what "introspect, think, ponder their words and give us a definition" means. Or at least, I know how I'd like it to be (or would I?). The shorthand is Ni/Te. In that order. Ponder, conceptualise, relate to other concepts... then spit it out with the thought that it should measure up to--or somehow eventually be--some external standard. But do I really want other people to stick just to that? The thought of it is both cozy and claustrophobic.

Pragmatically, experience seems to suggest that other types won't play ball exactly and that ultimate connection between people will fail. Unless, perhaps, there is some universal translator. But everyone would have to know that the translator existed, and would have to join in.

Or would they?

 

[Kalach]

NB lurkers: by extension this is a discussion of togetherness in an Fe sense. This kind of coordinating of ideas and approaches is very, very like what people call the harmony of Fe.

Lucky for us Te'ers, it's neither turgid nor destructive to seek this harmony. The world is a better place for it. How do ya like me now?